Could not disagree more. "Sound Planning Policy" means creating places for people to live near existing services.
Minor 'Shadow on a Park' is a much lower-priority than creating an additional 28 new Affordable-Housing Units at Yonge & Carlton.
I see this argument as problematic.
I certainly support affordable housing; more of it; and in virtually all neighbourhoods including my own.
But I don't think one moves the needle on support for same by being dismissive of very real quality of life concerns.
There are lots of choices as to how to balance things out; meaning quality of life and increased housing supply.
Most of those choices don't impinge on quality of life.
I completely get the 'minor' shadow' argument, which may, at times, be entirely legitimate.
The problem with it, however, is that most downtown parks are far from shadow free.
That shadowing is cumulative, each shadow may be minor, or minor in its accretion (increase vs what was); but when you add that to the next building and the one after that and so on...
You can end up leaving a park in substantial darkness.
****
I have other issues though w/this desire to put most of the affordable housing in existing higher density communities.
1) The argument that this relates to services available implies that additional services cannot and will not be added to communities in which they are currently lacking.
Why not simply add those services that are required to an under-serviced area? Childcare, employment-supports, mental health supports, good transit etc.
2) While I absolutely support affordable housing downtown (including more of it); I do think the value-for-money question is a fair one. If 2 affordable units in Etobicoke or Scarborough can be delivered for the same
cost at 1 unit downtown; shouldn't we be considering what strategy will house the homeless more quickly?
3) Height in any form (private, public, luxury to RGI) built-form carries with it inherent additional expense, irrespective of land value, once you get past 30-40 floors. This means higher rents. All the while we let
opportunities to intensify major roads in the suburbs with 5-12 storeys languish.
4) Driving opposition to affordable housing by not at least appearing to consider objections to built-form, as if they might be legitimate, serves to garner even stiffer opposition; which may result in existing problems being made
worse, rather than better.
5) I also remain persuaded that inclusionary zoning as a strategy is very problematic. One can see in many proposals, such as 1 Yonge, that the lower-income housing has lesser finishes on the exterior, not just the interior.
This may serve to stigmatize residents; and is contrary to contemporary logic in building complete communities, where one seeks to remove the stigma of your address (including the floor you're on). That set of issues can be addressed; but it hasn't been thus far in many of these proposals.
