"....with the six- and four-storey condominium towers"....
We'd probably have trouble finding it now but back when Concert's Chelsea building was proposed (remember the whole "heritage wall" thing?) there was a neighbourhood newsletter or whatever it was that played the same "tower" card.
Towers that are actually towers are bad, but towers that aren't actually towers are even worse, apparently.
...that the development will change the heritage character of the neighbourhood...
It bothers me that we would be so willing to overlook the glaring fact that the centre's buildings have never done anything to enhance the heritage character of the neighbourhood. We're romanticizing bland and starkly out-of-character buildings, a swath of pavement, and a fair number of unexceptional trees (some of the trees on the property are indeed worth preserving, I can't disagree on that point).
Anyway, this brings us back to that Chelsea project. There was much hysteria, much doomsaying, etc. So in the end did the Chelsea change the heritage character of the neighbourhood? Yes, it actually did. It enhanced the heritage character of the neighbourhood, because it's a very fine lowrise project.
Pic...
Another pic...
There have been innumerable past uproars and innumerable grim prognostications that have never come to pass. Methinks people wouldn't be nearly so anxious if they'd just start to honestly consider the long list of attractive 21st-century projects, and how those projects ultimately made their respective neighbourhoods better.
“We don’t need more luxury condos. We don’t need luxury, three-storey townhouses with elevators, and we don’t need all the underground parking. We desperately need more affordable options.”
What's the message here? We're saying fancy & expensive homes have no place in Rockland? Is that really how you honour a neighbourhood's distinctive identity and history... by subverting it?