The rationale Mizrahi is pushing behind their recent request for more height is that more recent proposals in the area will "absorb" the new shadow that the extra height here would create, so granting the extra height here would not imperil hours of sunshine at nearby parks. It's impossible to know exactly how long the review process will take.
That's a good argument and almost humorous. It's basically saying there's going to be a lot of shadow anyways, so just give in and let us have our way, lol.
Well, yes precisely that.. growth in the city will only continue yes? So yes shadows are inevitable. Not about having ones way. Just reality of the situation of a city and what a city is. The spoiled ones need their fans condo penthouses and we need eye candy on the skyline. That’s tasteful for all. Meaning approve many designs not just what fits the neighbourhoods. Go big or go home.. or move to the outskirts. Plenty of sun there.
Thanks. I agree. Toronto has tons of new skyscrapers proposed and many U/C and it's only going to get bigger and more dense. I love the density and tall towers and our skyline is getting really big. I have been told we will have more 150 metre towers than Chicago in a few years or so, and we already will have more 100 metre towers including UC soon. We're getting really big and hopefully it will continue.
Parks aren't random tectonic platelettes, moving about. The City never gets rid of existing ones, it only occasionally adds new ones, typically being smaller lots it acquires through redevelopment. Sure, cities evolve over time, but the planning department is looking to maintain as much sun as it can on existing parks for the long term because they do not move about. While there are small amounts of shadow incursion allowed on occasion, we still do not know if the new shadow from 9 more storeys here will be considered acceptable or not.
"Moving of parks" - what are you talking about?
Perhaps you could give us some clues about which huge parking lots in this area could be made into your new/replacement parks? A livable City requires parks (of many kinds) in ALL areas/neighbourhods so you cannot just decide that Park X can be abandoned as it (and those living near it) are in shadow all day due to new buildings and open Park Z several miles away. To quote @ProjectEnd "what are you talking about?"
I'd love for you to show me just one.
