Removing requirements for…

Removing requirements for wind studies does not make sense.

Anyone who has walked near Bloor-Yonge, or King-Bay in Toronto on a windy day, can talk not only about inordinate, unpleasant winds, but unsafe ones, blowing debris around, including into one's eyes. Its exceedingly unpleasant.

If there is a lower height building where one can clearly show that there is consistently very little impact on wind at that height, exempting that would be fine, but for highrise construction, absolutely not.

***

In respect of shadow studies, I think these two are needed, but could potentially be scoped. If a building is as-of-right in height, they certainly should not be required.

Equally, I think we need to understand why they exist. No one wants Parks that in the dark all day, which one building won't do, but a series of buildings may.

The same would true of school yards and so on.

Its not as if a shadowing study is naturally complicated or expensive, software can do the entire thing in a short time.

***

Removing Urban Design I'm bit more open to, but I feel again, nuance is important, and this would be better handled as a scope matter.

By that I mean, when entire new communities are proposed, be they a subdivision or 3 or more towers, it really makes sense to think through the design choices to create maximum benefit to the proposed and existing community.

A large enough single tower might also make sense.

I think it would better serve people to consider exempting anything that's as-of-right, and less than 100 units. Requiring that any Urban Design involvement occur at in a pre-application meeting, so as not to subject developers to re-drawing plans after zoning has been achieved, and I don't think an Urban Design study, as such, is necessarily the right tool, but it should remain an option.

Lighting can be addressed by requiring certain standards for safety and light pollution, without requiring a 'study' as such. But it must be denoted on architectural or landscape plans.