Because you reference the Ford government's 'transit hubs' as having something to do with the height here.
Let's offer some clarity.
By transit hub, what you are meaning in Planning jargon is an MTSA or Major Transit Station Area.
The idea of MTSAs was not even on the table from the province when the current height was approved.
There were zero MTSAs proposed or in force.
Uhhh, sorta.
Ok, 'Height Allowance' should be understood as permitted height under the Zoning by-law.
There are existing zoning by-laws that cover every property in the City.
In most cases where one sees a planning Application that involves a ZBA (Zoning By-Law Amendment) a height increase is being sought. (Though not always)
Planning reviews the request, and considers this in the context of a number of policies in the City's Official Plan; and various Provincial planning mandates, which now include the above-mentioned MTSAs, but did not at the time this proposal was being finalized.
The local councillor and community are consulted.
But Planning (generally) has to make a recommendation based on approved policy; though admittedly this can be torqued from time to time.
The City does routinely oppose height requests seen as unreasonable; however, as also noted above, developers have the option of appealing a Council decision (or indecision) to a Provincial Review body, previously known as the OMB and LPAT and now known as the OLT or Ontario Land Tribunal.
That body does have an overall tendency to be development friendly, and the City must be mindful of losing completely should a proposal come before said Tribunal for a hearing. As such it is often the case that the City works out either an initial approval, or a pre-hearing settlement based on what they they think would likely be approved.
The permitted density on this site has involved at least two 25 storey towers for the last 24 years as per this article:
“Open spaces, public squares, parks, are more important than ever to us. This is where we talk, and play together and soon, will congregate more together,” says councillor Josh Matlow.
www.thestar.com
From the above:
View attachment 402686
Yes, a further height/density increase was later obtained.
However, there are multiple factors at play as to why; it's not a rubber stamp from anyone.
In the (presumably) final iteration now before us, the site was reorganized in order to optimize parks and open space.
That may or may not be to your liking; or good planning from your perspective. Debate is fair.
But to be clear a trade was made to obtain benefits for the community in exchange for certain changes to massing (the way the density is shaped on the site) .
That's both a political and planning call; with the former almost certainly informed by a Councillor's desire to be reelected, which is to say, the Councillor felt this was the best
deal to be had; and in fact went out selling it as a pretty good one. He and we will find out how much his constituents agree this November.
www.radmarketing.ca
:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2021/06/04/condo-project-planned-for-former-st-michaels-college-school-land-includes-incredible-allotment-of-open-space/canderel_development.jpg)
www.instagram.com
