Why not look at things more holistically instead of focusing solely on height ?
Screwing the historic low rise areas would mean the developer is hiring an architect to create an out-of-place bargain basement contemporary design ; rife with nonsense like mismatched spandrel, copius mullions, randomly staggered balconies, cantilevers, and exposed concrete or V shaped columns. Wengle Architect designs are the opposite, and showcase clean designs with a respectful nod to pre war tradition.
There is certainly much worse than Wengle out there; but I do think you're being a bit kinder than merited. I'm more fond of well done historicist nods than many here..........I'm very borderline on Wengle's delivery.
VE'ing aside, we rarely see comprehensive use of real limestone where the design being emulated would indicate such.
There's also the matter of repetitiveness and lack of contextual appropriateness.
By the way, the Bedford Condo just a block away (also on the south side of Davenport) will be of comparable height.
If you're against 16 stories on streets like Davenport, then you should put an asterix and say you also oppose immigration to Toronto, unless you support fueling the housing shortage and hot real estate market.
Ok now, I personally didn't find the 16 storeys a problem per se; I do have some concerns over massing, and whether the form here is really feasible in light of site constraints. Be that as it may.........
I think its entirely possible to have a view that not every site/street is appropriate for height w/o having to equate that with wider politics.
For the record, on that point, I am for curtailing immigration, primarily foreign students/TFWs, but also, temporarily, points-based immigrants, until housing can catch up to population growth that has already occurred. As it follows to me, then when in a hole, one as a first measure, should stop digging.
That said, lets not link every view, on every development to broader politics, we have political threads for that.
