Toronto 629 King Residences (was Thompson Residences) | 53.34m | 15s | Freed | Saucier + Perrotte

maestro said:
Why aren't these spaces being designed for restaurants as possible tenants? Is it really the high turnover of restaurants and the owner not wanting to take the risk or is it also the zoning and building codes?
Click to expand...

I recall this retail unit being marketed as suitable for a restaurant use, but that doesn't mean much if there's not a restaurant user out there willing to pay the rents.
 
Solaris said:
This property remains in the former Toronto Zoning Bylaw 438-86 and not subject to the new provisions of Bylaw 569-2013.

In this particular case, it appears the site specific Bylaw 1116-2013 (amending 438-86) is silent on parking ratio requirements for each specific non-residential uses, but simply generalizes "a commercial parking garage is permitted below grade providing a maximum of 153 parking spaces on the lot".

My previous comment was pre-empted with 'typically' restaurants generate higher parking requirements (compared with other general commercial uses). This is consistent with City of Toronto's consultant report on this matter:
https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_tor...__environment/files/pdf/ibi_phase1_report.pdf

2.3.2 RESTAURANT

Exhibit 2.7 summarizes restaurant parking standards where specified in the by-laws. The standards vary widely between by-laws as well as within the by-laws depending on the type of facility. Former East York has the highest parking standard at 21 spaces per 100 m2 of floor area, which probably assumes almost all patrons arrive by car. For take-out restaurants, the parking standard is generally lower, because of the high turnover of patrons, with the exception of former York.

Restaurant parking standards tend to vary widely depending on the type and size of facility. In general, the larger the restaurant is, the larger the parking ratio that is required. Some bylaws provide specific standards for take-out restaurants, as opposed to sit-down restaurants. Former York also distinguishes between restaurants with and without delivery service.​
Click to expand...

The application for this particular property was made before 569 was a by-law (and likely before the whole 1156-2010 debacle), hence it would have been applied for under 438. As you well know, until the 569 appeals are sorted at the OMB, each application must be made under both by-laws and each resulting site-specific will be written under 438. All that said, most applications are still made using the technical standards from 569 as they are more current and better-reflect the increasingly urban environment in which we live. One therefore looks to the rates in 569 when designing a building (with an eye to some prevailing sections of 438) and would simply seek a variance to the by-law for anything that is inconsistent.

I'm familiar with IBI's report on this matter but you have to remember, that document is 11 years old. It was created before 569 or 1156 were even on the horizon and is merely an assessment of the standards in the existing by-law (438 primarily). Should it really be given any real weight anymore considering the evolved municipal approvals process within which we now work?

The other thing is that once a building is constructed, any permitted use can go into it. As 'Eating Establishments' are permitted AoR with conditions (1, 33), there would be nothing preventing someone opening a restaurant in a space that previously held a retail store (or was vacant). The city cannot ask the building to increase the size of an existing parking garage and must therefore swallow the difference in parking. Perhaps you might know more, but how would the city enforce a parking standard for a change in use in an existing building? Cash in lieu?
 
From the 24th:

DSC01640.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • DSC01640.jpg
    DSC01640.jpg
    325.9 KB · Views: 1,178
Height itself doesn't bother me, but the massing does. A stepback on the King St frontage between the floors with juliet balconies and regular balconies would have helped, IMO.
 
Does anyone know the date for completion of the rooftop pool/bar? I have heard that this will be privately owned......Anybody know who will be managing this?
 
It does feel really heavy here. I agree with Marcus, a stepback at that obvious break between the balcony types would have helped.
 
Yep, completely agreed. It's either a height reduction that's needed or different massing. But as is, I don't think this building fits all too well into the context of the area. That being said, the building itself could have been far worse such that these problems are aggravated even more.
 
From what I've heard, the developer still owns the rooftop. There is supposed to be a large restaurant or lounge venue up there. It'll be interesting to see how that works out for the residents.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top