It's 7s shorter than 2 of the proposals and 9 shorter than 1, which was decided by OLT. * Note here, that I advocated for greater than 26s, which was the HousingNow model, we got 28; I could/would have supported a bit more.
But I think it's important to take things in their context.
1) This building was increased in size from 18s to 28s and thus grew by 55%.,
2) This building is actually one unit larger than was modelled by
@HousingNowTO and 2s taller.
3) I imagine that while increasing density they also wanted to propose a number that would not result in an OLT appeal, the safe choice would be to say under the lowest approved height nearby.
4) In the resubmission there was no new Block Context Plan, so its unclear how much thought was given to what precedents were, or were not in effect at the time. But the original Block Context from 2019 reveals much less height in the vicinity.
View attachment 505873
5) If the height/unit count rises enough you need one or more additional elevators, you then lose ft2 per floor and have to make that up with even more height. There is an element of maximizing what one can achieve.
6) Finally, I would imagine that there is a question of capital availability. This one is not coming from a deep-pocketed developer.
