The building isn't bad, but its siting is unfortunate.
This photo by
@Dustin William just makes me sad.
What you see is a profound hardening of the shoreline to prevent erosion.
A natural shoreline here would mix different types of beach (sand/stone etc.) with marsh and coastal forest.
I'm aware this is an urban area, but notice there isn't one iota of any of the above; and the hardening of the shoreline really serves to protect buildings that would be borderline non-viable without it.
This would be due to both erosion, flooding and wave action all of which would impact on a building built so close to shore on a major body of water, but for the intervention.
Just as we protect ravines, the rules should be to keep buildings back from the water's edge of any Lake to at least 10M beyond the 100-year flood/wave line.
Which is most cases would be would be well in land.
I'm not suggesting we remove what was built foolishly close to the water in the past, but compounding the mistake should not be acceptable.
At any rate, this space should be have been zoned park space 40 years ago; and then legal-nonconforming.
When whatever was there came due for demolition, it should have sold to the City for parkland, the end.
****
I'll add, that very similar to Humber Bay Shores, the park space here is already quite crowded in good weather, and it will soon be overwhelmed by additional development.