innsertnamehere
Superstar
Oof. Second loss in as many weeks for UrbanSolutions.
The right decision here as it was at Winona Gardens, but still.
The right decision here as it was at Winona Gardens, but still.
In siding with the city, tribunal member Tee Fung Ng likened the “massive” twin towers to “the highest mountains in an area of small hills,” with the tallest building’s 65-metre height more than four times the commercially zoned lot’s 14-metre limit.
The proposed towers are too close to the property line and their “sudden height, density, and scale” would overwhelm Battlefield park, views of the escarpment and the area’s landscape of low- and mid-rise buildings, Fung wrote in a May 3 ruling.
They echoed my sentiments exactly.Ontario Land Tribunal rejects ‘massive’ towers by Stoney Creek’s Battlefield Park
The Ontario Land Tribunal has rejected a local developer’s bid to build 18- and 20-storey residential towers on a grassy lot near Stoney Creek’s Battlefield park, ruling they would be a “jarring” change to the neighbourhood’s character.www.thespec.com
Oof. Second loss in as many weeks for UrbanSolutions.
The right decision here as it was at Winona Gardens, but still.
It's not nearly as big an offender as the Winona project, but it's a lot of density in a location which doesn't exactly have great walkability or transit. It would be better to focus density down along Highway 8, closer to the LRT and amenities within walking distance.I would like to hear you elaborate on this take if you would.
I'm interested in why you feel this was the right decision here (I'm not disagreeing, just asking).
It's not nearly as big an offender as the Winona project, but it's a lot of density in a location which doesn't exactly have great walkability or transit. It would be better to focus density down along Highway 8, closer to the LRT and amenities within walking distance.