I get the helicopter path argument if its legit . . but why 35? where did that height come from? why not 38 or 42 or 34?
You do know that I linked the report that answers that question, right? Why not actually take the time to read the report, and then come up with something informed you can add?
Everything is hot air with the city. and they really prefer mid-rise! like seriously?! such a lame position.
Again, its in the report that I actually linked for you, so you didn't have to go looking at all. Easy peasy. PS, calling other people, including professionals that actually care about what they're doing 'lame' is lame. How about you disagree with them after you've read the background material and understand why they're saying what they're saying. They do get things wrong, I do disagree w/them at times; but I do so after understanding why they wanted to do 'x' so we can have an informed exchange of views.
What are the performance standards, what is the maximum allowable for this location. are there not any guidelines?
As per the report I noted above............the area is subject to the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (YESP) which modelled out the entire area some time ago, and came up with height range for this and other nearby sites of 20-35s, if the site could otherwise accommodate a tall building.
That latter point is in dispute here, as I noted, as the report discusses.
But the City's take is that IF, one could justify a tall building here, then it ought to come in under the maximum proposed in the Secondary Plan.
You can disagree with the Secondary Plan (though you should read the entire thing first); but its sound logic to say that a development in an area regulated by a Secondary Plan should comply with same.
