I think something that advocates of either height or density miss, is the desire of existing residents to maintain the 'character' or 'vibe' for which they paid.
It's not merely protecting the investment, as it's entirely possible, if not likely that additional density will drive up the value of one's home.
But protecting the idea of home you and/or your family fell in love with....
That does not mean any area can or should get a pass to stand still.
Nor that addition density, and/or height can't or shouldn't be added.
Rather it's a matter of context sensitivity.
If I purchased a home on a street full of Victorians with tall trees, and back yards that leave an illusion of privacy, then that is what I wish to retain.
But that doesn't preclude greater density.
What often happens now, is someone buying a larger old home, with a character that suits the area, and opting to plonk a total non-sequiter both in architectural style and in
the nature of way the new density arrives (likely by putting 2 homes, on what was one lot, and probably removing a mature tree or two in the process.
Instead it was possible to covert the garage out back into laneway housing, w/no adverse visual effect, and probably a safer laneway; it is also possible to carve the existing home into a duplex on the inside,
and/or add a second entry way on the side or rear of the property that was unobtrusive.
Or, one might replace one home with two, but create the optical illusion of 1 unit through design, making an effort to preserve that majestic oak, or pay homage to the architecture of that hood
with the use of brick and so on.
****
Likewise , one can add mid-rise density to nearby mainstreets w/o much opposition.
But it requires some thought.
I have yet to see a mass uprising over a 3 or 4 floor street wall.........so the magical use of setbacks to create the impression of 4-floors, particularly if nothing nearby is greater than 3, makes sense.
Understanding that homes in behind that main street row don't want their yard in perpetual shadow, or the feeling of being spied on.
So using set backs at the rear, terracing, attractive fences, poking strategic 'holes' in a building that will let light flow through, proactively offering to made adjustments to adjacent back yards (a free privacy screen for a deck, or a pergola to maintain greater privacy).
****
The challenge, too often in this City is proposals that lack sensitivity to their context; and/or which seek to maximize density/height, often to recover the price paid for a site.
The City shouldn't need to impose endless rules on developers; more developers should make it seem unnecessary.....
Diversity of building types isn't sufficient; diversity of 'feels' and 'looks' for different areas ought to be the goal, except where everyone (or the vast majority) agree, a certain typology is not longer workable
and not practical to rework.
****
Back to this proposal. Not great, the modern needs to be set back from the heritage, more so than they are.
The height, while not completely absurd, represents overbuilding on this particular site.
