Toronto Lakehouse Beach Residences | 19.4m | 6s | Reserve Properties | RAW Design

[ProjectEnd]

View attachment 12218

This is from the developer's planner.

The new guildines are not shown here.

The old 2004 guidelines called for buildings that were 3 storeys or looked like 3 storeys - they are not shown either.

What we have here is:

1. 12m existing zoned height.
2. the avenues guildines - 20m height, angular plane at 16m - these guildines do not apply to queen east - which was exempted - yet the building exceeds these guidelines
3. mcr zoned angular planes - passed in 1994 - if the height is increased above 12m, then these are supposed to apply - angular plane on queen is supposed to kickj in at 13m

so, lick's will be the only building of this height and massing - while all future ones will likely follow the previous diagram which will have a 9.5m streetwall, then a 3m setback 3m high, then a 26 degree angular plane.

remeber, there are 1-2 storey heritage buildings to the west and sout, and all the buildings to the east are 1 storey - this thing sticks out like a sore thumb and will do so for years.

You're trying to defend your position with documents that predate the Official Plan, Growth Plan, Provincial Policy Statement and Greenbelt Act? Not to mention a zoning bylaw (ZBL 438-86, 1986) which predates not only all of the above documents but even the Planning Act (1990), and a nonbinding study which you yourself note is inapplicable here.

I hate to sound harsh but I would be embarrassed to bring this case to the OMB.

 

[ProjectEnd]

there were some 3-4 storey condos built in the Beach in the 80s and 90s - but there was also one small office building - on the south side which currently houses an LCBO and Tim Horton's - we are talking infill, not a free-standing office building - similar to infill buildings that would occur in a heritage area - adn the beach really should have been dioesgnated as a heritage area long ago. but on queen west, there is a 4 storey building at 327-333 queen west, at beverley, that i am thinking of as an example.

i won't comment on the planners... but any planner who opposed a building like this would never get another private sector client. the omb case failed because there was no lawyeror planner opposing it as the residents group was unable delay the hearing.

at the 1 meeting held by th eplanners - on an incomplete application about 60 people were nearly all opposed to this, and 3 meetings the residents held on this and the visioning study, 250-300 people were nearly all opposed - it is clear what the community thought.

but also note that while this is a streetcar line, it is at the far end of one where people complain of sdhort turning - and it is congested by the time it gets downtown - the 501 streetcar is hardly underutilised infrastrucutre, and is quite the opposite.

Ever think that this wall of intransigence is why community consultations aren't taken seriously? Also, if there was no lawyer or planner to represent your concerns, perhaps it was because those very concerns aren't very concerning?

You are correct about the office building however. Kudos, that's 1.

 

[btg]

I don't mean to be confrontational or insulting but your line of reasoning for not wanting condos is hard to follow.

You don't want them because of the strains on parking, but also argue that because of the target demographic that they won't be there often. You're concerned about weekend parking specifically? Where though, at the beach-side public parking? At businesses? But you also state that number of new condo dwellers will be negligible in the context of the established population and won't contribute to local retail/restaurant establishments.

Also, who's to say these new residents won't primarily use public transportation instead of feeling some sort of entitlement to owning a car and having a place to park it.

And since 300 is a small increase that won't create an economic impact (debatable), the neighbourhood shouldn't bother growing? I get the sense that if we theoretically doubled or tripled the incoming population, such that the economic impact was significant, there would be an issue with that as well.

What do you consider mid-rise office space? Because six storeys seems too daunting. How big is the demand for tiny offices above retail outside of the core? I don't know but I'm willing to bet it isn't strong. There's no incentive to buy up land and build something that isn't economical (re: small) and with what I suspect is low demand.

I'm not advocating for point towers here, and I get that the residents want to try and preserve that small-town feel of The Beaches but it's just not realistic in the context of a growing city. I just some may have an unrealistic expectation of what is acceptable.

Keep pushing for sound design though. Not doubt every project will have its flaws but don't be surprised if you're ignored by the City and developers when arguing that the most important factor is reducing, for instance, a six storey condo (e.g. this one) to only only five (or four, or three... etc).

regarding parking - parking problems are worst in evenings and weekends - when the condo owners will be here instead of working elsewhere. they will have visotrs, plus they can get parking permits to park on the street. weekdays 9-5, particularly in winter, parking isn't such a problem.

certainly, some or many of the residents will own cars - some might use the car only on weekends - it is hard to know. it is not clear who the buyers are of if the units will be rented out - i wouldn't believe what the developer says and they might not know themselves.

the problem is that there are 2 storeys - 300 is not a massive increase, but infrastructure is already an issue - lack of schools, traffic etc. - the real issue is that on one hand, planners say that 300 is th emaximum, yet the policy is that oany new condo will be a planning precendent and the Avenues policy is to "reurbanise" streets by incremental development over time.

the city has to pick which is the future - only 3-4 redevelopments, or chaing the whole street - exisinting contect or a radically differen tplanned context. if the idea is that 95% of the existing buildings are to remain, then the 4-5 buildigns hould fit in - if on th eothe rhand the planners want more than 50% of the buildings on queen to eventually be replaced, then that is not what we are being told and they have not looked at the impact of starting down this road by allowing a precedent to be set.

some areasof the city should be preserved as lowrise, small town areas - others have protection under secondary plans or HCDs - like Queen west from university to bathurst. queen had a secondary plan until 2002/2006 - but the planners took it away!

the original intent of the avenues policy was not to change the older streets, but to redevelop the car-oriented, strip mall lined major roads in the suburbs so that they functioned like queen street and the streets like it - pedestrian oriented retail at grade etc. - what we are getting is not beautiful streets of buildings that fit into some clearly identified existing or intended context, but a process whereby bigger buildings are located at random and the nearby buildings won't be changed to match for decades - while the suburban strets lack the redevelopment because the demand for new condos is being stadisfied in areas that don't need much change.

 

[btg]

View attachment 12220

Just to make a point here -look at the 2010 the Avenues/Midrise study - you have an existing contect in the top photo.

The idea on some strets will be to get to the bottom photo - assuming that the infrastructure can handle it, it isn't a heritage area (or likely to be one) or character area, etc. etc. - this is under perfect conditions

The idea was not to just fill in one or two empty sites with big buildings located randomly, all in the name of intensification, like in the middle photo, and then stop, so that the middle photo is the permanent condition for the forseeable future. If that is the case, then you have to consider redevelopment as "infill" that should fit in better and respect the context - rather than following generic rules.

 

[ProjectEnd]

regarding parking - parking problems are worst in evenings and weekends - when the condo owners will be here instead of working elsewhere. they will have visotrs, plus they can get parking permits to park on the street. weekdays 9-5, particularly in winter, parking isn't such a problem.

certainly, some or many of the residents will own cars - some might use the car only on weekends - it is hard to know. it is not clear who the buyers are of if the units will be rented out - i wouldn't believe what the developer says and they might not know themselves.

the problem is that there are 2 storeys - 300 is not a massive increase, but infrastructure is already an issue - lack of schools, traffic etc. - the real issue is that on one hand, planners say that 300 is th emaximum, yet the policy is that oany new condo will be a planning precendent and the Avenues policy is to "reurbanise" streets by incremental development over time.

the city has to pick which is the future - only 3-4 redevelopments, or chaing the whole street - exisinting contect or a radically differen tplanned context. if the idea is that 95% of the existing buildings are to remain, then the 4-5 buildigns hould fit in - if on th eothe rhand the planners want more than 50% of the buildings on queen to eventually be replaced, then that is not what we are being told and they have not looked at the impact of starting down this road by allowing a precedent to be set.

some areasof the city should be preserved as lowrise, small town areas - others have protection under secondary plans or HCDs - like Queen west from university to bathurst. queen had a secondary plan until 2002/2006 - but the planners took it away!

the original intent of the avenues policy was not to change the older streets, but to redevelop the car-oriented, strip mall lined major roads in the suburbs so that they functioned like queen street and the streets like it - pedestrian oriented retail at grade etc. - what we are getting is not beautiful streets of buildings that fit into some clearly identified existing or intended context, but a process whereby bigger buildings are located at random and the nearby buildings won't be changed to match for decades - while the suburban strets lack the redevelopment because the demand for new condos is being stadisfied in areas that don't need much change.

I'm not sure how this differs from the way that cities have changed and evolved for thousands of years?

 

[btg]

I'm not sure how this differs from the way that cities have changed and evolved for thousands of years?

No, there is a huge difference starting about 150 years ago with structural steel, elevators, mass transit, the car, etc. combined with rapid social changes and changes in architectural theory and planning... in effect changes in scale.

european cities, or even the walkups of brookyn, meant that over time it was near impossible to go over 5-6 floors, and little changed from decade tto decade so that buildings next to each other but built 100 years apart were not that much different in termsof height or style or relationship to the street. you end up with streets that have a consistent street wal and even if they were not planned, the buildings still seem to follow a set of unwritten rules. look at rome, for example, with buildings that span 2000 years...

essentiually, cities were alot like the parts of new york that Jane Jacobs wrote about - except that those areas developed in a short time and therefore had a unity, and had remained intact.

in other cases, like in paris or washington, government has kept the original built scale in place.

i look at the juxtapositon of restaurant row on king street, with the bell lightbox across the road, and it makes me cringe!

When the fabric of a city is designed properly, or has some underlying order, then the total effect should be greater than the sum of its parts - Toronto's problem is that there is no order, and the parts themselves are often pretty poorly designed.

Toronto is not one of the most beautiful cites of the world, nor will it ever be - a mediocre skyline (when viewed from the island, dvp or qew) is the best we can claim.

 

[egotrippin]

No, there is a huge difference starting about 150 years ago with structural steel, elevators, mass transit, the car, etc. combined with rapid social changes and changes in architectural theory and planning... in effect changes in scale.

european cities, or even the walkups of brookyn, meant that over time it was near impossible to go over 5-6 floors, and little changed from decade tto decade so that buildings next to each other but built 100 years apart were not that much different in termsof height or style or relationship to the street. you end up with streets that have a consistent street wal and even if they were not planned, the buildings still seem to follow a set of unwritten rules. look at rome, for example, with buildings that span 2000 years...

essentiually, cities were alot like the parts of new york that Jane Jacobs wrote about - except that those areas developed in a short time and therefore had a unity, and had remained intact.

in other cases, like in paris or washington, government has kept the original built scale in place.

i look at the juxtapositon of restaurant row on king street, with the bell lightbox across the road, and it makes me cringe!

When the fabric of a city is designed properly, or has some underlying order, then the total effect should be greater than the sum of its parts - Toronto's problem is that there is no order, and the parts themselves are often pretty poorly designed.

Toronto is not one of the most beautiful cites of the world, nor will it ever be - a mediocre skyline (when viewed from the island, dvp or qew) is the best we can claim.

Buildings taller than 5-6 storeys have existed for thousands of years, and many historic cities have drastic differences in scale within close proximity (though not to the extend of modern cities, obviously). Though Toronto isn't beautiful in a classical Europe sort of way, its messy urbanism and contrast of scale adds to the visual interest and its uniqueness. I mean, one of the most banal and generic parts of the city is Southcore, where most of the buildings are of similar style and scale.

Now I do agree that a lot of the individual parts (buildings) that have resulted from the past building boom are mediocre at best, especially on a world scale. What needs to be done next is build thoughtful midrise (like Lakehouse here) in the outer neighbourhoods and suburbs of Toronto to fill in the gaps (see the avenues plan), and focus on above average to exemplary design for our buildings across the city. Design includes taking into context scale and relation to surroundings, but the bigger impact overall comes from how a building relates to the street and its surroundings, rather than strictly height alone.

 

[urbandreamer]

5 November 2013: Looks like demolition is happening 'round back:

 

[salsa]

 

[interchange42]

Another floor taller yesterday:

42

 

[Benito]

Wow finally! As of last summer when I still lived in the Beaches there was nothing happening.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

Has this ever happened before?

http://www.beachmetro.com/2015/09/08/omb-rules-resident/

 

[torplanner]

Yes, but it is very uncommon.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Residents often forget to actually prepare an arguement for an OMB hearing, forgetting that it is a legal proceeding and that they cannot just go in and rant and expect the judges to favor their position. If a developer drops $30k on defending something that isn't even going to be argued, its a fair assessment to tell the resident to repay the developer for wasting resources.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Magical. This truly made my day.

Has this ever happened before?

http://www.beachmetro.com/2015/09/08/omb-rules-resident/

From the decision:

[15] The Board does not routinely award costs because the Board does not want to discourage parties from bringing legitimate land use planning matters to a hearing; however, the Board holds that parties must be accountable for their conduct, and if, during the course of the proceedings determines that conduct has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious, or if a party has acted in bad faith, then the Board may exercise its discretion to order costs.