Scroll back umpteen pages - the exact same arguments - all the way to "just another one" had been posted before by the same. Yes, just another one that is a Foster, if we are only that lucky.
It's not for anyone's benefit - it's rehashing the same tired points over again.
AoD
Setting aside the manner in which the original arguments were stated and without passing judgment on the responses to it, the sentiments expressed originally don't quite reflect the reality of city planning. For a number of factors, many (and, I don't have the data at-hand to support this, but I would guess a majority of) towers in Toronto are sought to be approved at a higher height than they are ultimately granted purely because of the nature of the process—not because Toronto developers are small-town; not because there aren't big thinkers here; not because Canadians are unambitious; not because of any particular city councillor—purely because of the process.
Quite simply, developers often ask for more height than they're ultimately granted because they know that it's most likely to be whittled down through the planning process. And that's fine. Better than fine, in fact—we don't want, or at least shouldn't want, to live in a city where developers get whatever they want at any time, end of story. That's how you get Dubai (and even developers there of course face restrictions).
One councillor's comments about the development have been taken somewhat out of context and bandied about this thread, but the reality is it is part of the job description to manage all types of issues in one's ward, and
much development occurs within that frame.
And, yes, in some cases, shadows are a consideration in development planning—that's why, for example, a shadow study is a required part of many submissions. Many cities, including New York City, are going through pitched battles around the impact of shadows; for example, if every tower currently proposed for parts of Central Park South is approved and built as-is, as much as 5 percent of the total surface area of Central Park will be covered by shadows at certain times of the year. Do shadows kill or harm people? No. Is it much nicer to enjoy Central Park, have your kids play on its playgrounds, take wedding photos, or have a picnic with friends when you have the option to sit in the sun? Yes. So it's worth discussing.
It's simply beyond refute to suggest that pure, unbridled, unmitigated development is bad for the development of any city. That means that there is a process that proposals must pass through, plain and simple. It doesn't mean this project won't get built and, frankly, I can't get behind any legitimate argument that the neighourbood in which I live will be worse off because the height was chopped here.
If this project makes financial sense—and it's hyperbolic to suggest that the aforementioned height chop will be the deciding factor in that regard—it will get built. And it will be tall. And that's fine. Everything is fine.
