the issues - and there are many:
- this site is by far pro-development; leaves the impression it is a venue for developers to promote their ambitions and use the site as an imaginary town hall.
This site has many developers on it; and urban planners (both private and city) and also has politicians, activists of all sorts, people who work in transit, professional environmentalists, engineers, architects etc.
Certainly, the site leans in a pro-development direction. I don't think it serves you well to come on to such a site and deride it, and its members with broad, generalist bromides.
If you go onto a website all about dining out and deride it for being pro-restaurant........you won't find that goes so well either.
- i see many, countless billboards promoting large scale developments with little public input, next to zero urban planning such as greenspace, amenities and anything that favors residents.
The Toronto Planning process, for all its flaws, certainly has ample provision for public input.
There was a very public, very long process to create The Official Plan.
Subsequently, changes to that plan occur when developers (or others in some cases) ask to change the plan, or the underlying zoning.
The City then responds to that request by requiring posting an official notice on the site of a proposed change to let everyone know the ask is being made and it invite public comment and participation.
There are opportunities to attend one or more meetings, to meet with representatives of the developer, City Planning and the City Councillor.
That's a lot more engagement than you will get when government or business makes almost any other type of change to a law, a social program or the price you pay or product selection at your local store.
- councilors jump on the bandwagon of high density living with virtually zero infrastructure; leads to distrust of them and the process
Councillors have to deal with provincial mandates, and an appeals board known as OLT which approves the majority of development proposals that go before it.
A Councillor must carefully balance getting what they think is the best deal they can for the community out of any given proposal, understanding, that if they fail to reach a deal, something less appealing may occur over their objection.
- excessive growth - correct record immigration last year; govt cannot even confirm the numbers; majority cannot afford $1m condo - this is more likely foreign affluent purchasers disrupting the market for citizens
This is a federal/provincial policy with with the City must live, it has no choice. Expressing concern over those policies is fair game, I do as well. But you need to take them up w/the correct party.
Also, the largest increase in immigration is not in points-based immigrants (simplistic shorthand here, those with money); rather, its in foreign students and to a lesser but still significant degree with Temporary Foreign Workers.
Again, this is not a municipal decision, nor for that matter a developer decision. Its Federal and provincial.
- city is flooded with run-down strip malls that can be converted to townhomes and low level condo's not these huge towers that do the opposite of creating communities and just fill the developers pockets
While I certainly agree that not every road and site need be 40s towers; neither should they all be townhomes, your preference won't work for everyone
People need a range of options based on tenure (owner/renter); price point (affordable to posh); and lifestyle (driver/transit rider/cyclist, young/old, empty nester/young family etc.)
- 30% of LV should have been zoned for parks - it a joke living there now
Calling anything a joke is not really a way to be treated seriously.
***
There is no statutory power to compel 30% parkland in any area; and even in parks-heavy suburban areas a dedication that large is nearly unheard of......
While special rules exist for some sites, broadly, the City is able to require or has been able to require about 10% parkland. I think that's low, but those are the rules under which they operate.
They could choose to take what were called S. 37 benefits (now Community Benefits) in the form of additional park space, or they could have purchased some land to add more park space. Its a fair enough critique to suggest more would be desirable.
But its not fair if your picking a number wildly out of the air that the City is in no position to deliver.
- you may have noticed that residents are trapped there - i know many; cannot afford to get out, forced to raise families there with no available greenspace to speak of - it's a failure; fun if you want a frat house for a couple of years.
Trapped? They can move; but aside from that, LV will be getting a new park; whether that is sufficient is a different question, but it will improve things.
