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

btg said:
Oh, and there are a couple of other things to mention.

Here is a better image showing the potential view

View attachment 8626

The fire hall in the Beach is a local landmark - once one 6 storey building is allowed, then eventually development will block views of the tower - the clock is about 20m above grade - even if the rules are not violated, buildings under the Avenues guidelines can be 25m tall - 20m plus5m for mechanical penthouses etc.

View attachment 8627

Please visit our website - www.FoQS.ca - to see more images and get additional information on this project and why it should be refused and only more appropriate development should be permitted, in line with the 8-9 projects built under the Beaches Guidelines since 1987.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to come around to the opposition side, if only for the scale after seeing these images. It's going to be a lot bigger than anything else in the area, yet the architectural treatment looks as if it's supposed to be just another building, not even a landmark. Three storeys and an additional one to two storeys with a more substantial setback would be better than six and a mechanical box. It's important to maintain the significant historical views in a community as well, something that should be pressed for no matter what the final outcome is in terms of height.

It's important, though, not to become overly conservative. Modern architecture can be quite engaging and a better fit with the right scale and materials than a building with garish faux-historicist details. All buildings in their initial years stick out for their new construction. Sometimes sterility is a factor of the architecture; other times, it's simply because of the newness of the construction. Jane Jacobs said that successful neighbourhoods need new and old buildings to remain vital: new buildings can bring diversity and vibrancy and improve the stock of buildings, while old buildings can accommodate new businesses and other people.

And perhaps The Beach needs new construction because some of the insularity. It's a beautiful, walkable urban neighbourhood with a mix of uses and streetcars rolling through that Toronto is proud of, yet here we are hearing comments like "All of a sudden, it’s becoming Toronto". People shouldn't have this delusion that if an urban neighbourhood is pleasant and great to live in, it can't possibly count as part of the big city, it must 'like a small town' or 'like a village'. As great as The Beach may be, there are some cheap edifices on Queen Street that could be replaced--though not necessarily with a looming "infill" building that's double the height of the taller buildings in the area.
 
Last edited:
junctionist said:
And perhaps The Beach needs new construction because some of the insularity. It's a beautiful, walkable urban neighbourhood with a mix of uses and streetcars rolling through that Toronto is proud of, yet here we are hearing comments like "All of a sudden, its becoming Toronto". People shouldn't have this delusion that if an urban neighbourhood is pleasant and great to live in, it can't possibly count as part of the big city, it must 'like a small town' or 'like a village'. As great as The Beach may be, there are some cheap edifices on Queen Street that could be replaced--though not necessarily with a looming "infill" building that's double the height of the taller buildings in the area.
Click to expand...

i am not sure where that "its becoming toronto" quote comes from - i certainly don't feel that way - the beach is unique but has much of the same character you find on many of the "local mainstreets" across the city. when i moved here, the other places i was looking at (apart from don mills), all were areas with that type of low scale, pre-WW2 walkable street nearby. the difference is that many of those already have protection.

not that many architects are good at doing historic/traditional looking buildings - with the exception of architects who do work on a lot of heritage buildings and thus have figured out the detailing and proportions, and choices of materials, that work.

as i said, though, a lot of the design is driven by marketing or architectural fads - like the charcoal grey brick that seems the current cliche - it is being used here and it seems like RAW use it on nearly every project. i was at a store at dupont west of bathurst, and next to it was a small new condo that also used a variation of the same dark grey brick - or the condo on richmond beside centre honda, etc. - but the real thing is that condo buyers want big windows - which look lilke a great idea except that it means you are living in a fish bowl or else you have to keep the blinds down - plus the solar gain/heat loss is hardly "green".

the only condo i ever owned was at the Morgan - NW corner of richmond and spadina - i bought it before it was built - by and large, i think it fits in extremely well with the area and the architects did seem to understand how to make it look traditional and fit in with the old garment district buildings to the south (the top of the building is a bit odd, though). it can be done.

the problem with modern architecture is that the smaller the building, the harder it is to make it interesting... Yakov Chernikov-ian style massive complexes of buildings are great on posters because of their dynamism - but try to make a small storefront interesting is hard without resorting to ornament or things more akin to set design than modernism - and essentially, we are in an era of warmed over 50s/60s modernism.

i was thinking about the mies-ian dictum that "god is in the details" - architects don't both with details anymore - it is all conceptual design - this one had "flying brick donuts", and RAW has been forced to make this building look more conventional - so it is more bland and conventional, and at the same time, is still completely out of place.
 
Application: Partial Permit Status: Not Started

Location: 1960 QUEEN ST E
TORONTO ON M4L 1H8

Ward 32: Beaches-East York

Application#: 13 147105 SHO 00 PP Accepted Date: Apr 11, 2013

Project: Mixed Use/Res w Non Res Partial Permit - Shoring

Description: Part Permit - Proposal to construct a 6 sty condo with ground floor retail, 2 levels of underground parking, and 28 residential units. See active Demo permit.
 
So has this one finally gotten its blessing? I live in the area and this is exactly the kinds of development that queen east needs! bringing more people will only bring vitality to the beach, I can't believe how irate some local residents are.....
 
maxcity said:
So has this one finally gotten its blessing? I live in the area and this is exactly the kinds of development that queen east needs! bringing more people will only bring vitality to the beach, I can't believe how irate some local residents are.....
Click to expand...

Queen East in the Beach really needs to become an HCD - no different than Queen from University to Bathurst, so that development is designed to fit in. a modern condo with that dreadful dark grey brick (that has become a cliche because it is on at least 50% of condos) is what is needed.

What is needed is some modern office space - instead of condos. condos mean more people adding to the paking problems and traffic congestion - keeping the beach as a bedroom community where th eonly jobs created are in retail - actually - no jobs are created because the retail is the same or smaller than what is being demolished.

Retailers have a hard time in the Beach because it is a bedroom community and summer tourist area - weekedays and in winter there are not many people here - and condo dwellers will just mean adding to peaks.

The official plan calls for jobs, not just housing - but it seems that the idea of having jobs on the Avenues is an orphan. From an evenironmental and infrastrcuture point of view, don't we want jobs close to where people live, and to have people commuting in the opposite way to the majority of drivers and transit users.

A six stroey condo in between a bunch of one stroey condos makes no sense - particularly when the planners for both the city and the developer are saying that there are only 4-5 other condo sites. The idea of the avenues was to create beutiful streets full of buildings that fit in and work together to create a greater whole, not to cam in condos like sardines into a few raodnomly located sites.
 
btg said:
Retailers have a hard time in the Beach because it is a bedroom community and summer tourist area - weekedays and in winter there are not many people here - and condo dwellers will just mean adding to peaks.
Click to expand...

So "condo dwellers" will only live there during the weekends and summer? Huh? If anything they would increase the base-line and help retail thrive.
It also seems from your tone that if you live in a condo you're not as deserving when it comes to being a part of the neighbourhood. Single-detached or bust.

The official plan calls for jobs, not just housing - but it seems that the idea of having jobs on the Avenues is an orphan. From an evenironmental and infrastrcuture point of view, don't we want jobs close to where people live, and to have people commuting in the opposite way to the majority of drivers and transit users.

A six stroey condo in between a bunch of one stroey condos makes no sense - particularly when the planners for both the city and the developer are saying that there are only 4-5 other condo sites. The idea of the avenues was to create beutiful streets full of buildings that fit in and work together to create a greater whole, not to cam in condos like sardines into a few raodnomly located sites.
Click to expand...

I find it very hard to believe that residents of the beaches would welcome modern office buildings with open arms. You realize office buildings have typically larger floor-plates than condominiums right? The residents can't even stomach a modest six storey building.
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
So "condo dwellers" will only live there during the weekends and summer? Huh? If anything they would increase the base-line and help retail thrive.
It also seems from your tone that if you live in a condo you're not as deserving when it comes to being a part of the neighbourhood. Single-detached or bust.



I find it very hard to believe that residents of the beaches would welcome modern office buildings with open arms. You realize office buildings have typically larger floor-plates than condominiums right? The residents can't even stomach a modest six storey building.
Click to expand...

most of the condo units are one bedrooms - the people buying them will likey be away 9 to 5, monday to friday. many businesses are not open very late - and in particuarl, restuarants have bery little lunch business and busines in wionter is a money losing proposition - but in the evening, particularly in the summer, they might be full, but certainly, parking is near impossible.

Lick's is 29 units so it is 40 to 50 people - which will do nothing in a community of 5,000 to 15,000 depending on how you define it. The planners keep saying to the community "don't worry, there are only 4-5 other condo sites" - so if we are taling 300 people maximum, this is not going to create an econmic impact.

any empty nesters downsizing likelt will treat a small condo as a pied a terre and spend most of their summers in muskoka and/or winters in florida.

i am not talking about a full size modern office building - but small midrise office space above retail - the avenues guildines seemed to anticipate this yet nowhere on the avenues are they insisting on it and condos are more profitable everywhere, even downtown. any buildings must comply with the same restrictions under the new Queen Street East guidelines see http://www.toronto.ca/planning/queen-study.htm

lick's/lakehouse far exceeds these guidelines and didn't even comply with the mirise guidelines - so any other condos will likely be only 5 storiys. i do not know if there are threads for the 2 condos ate queen and woodbine, but the city is applying the new guildines and refusing both - see items te23.15, 16 and 17 from april 9th TEYCC.
 
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).
 
To take Xray_Crystal_Junkie's point even further...

Btg:

You're completely leaving aside the fact that construction and operational restrictions essentially make 'boutique office space' a near impossibility. Things like core sizes, minimum travel distances, servicing requirements and so forth make small-scale offices a difficult and money-losing proposition. Come to think of it, outside of heritage conversions and the hideous Hakim Optical building just east of Dundas Square, I can't think of a single small floor plate, low-rise office building that's been constructed in the city in the last ten years (at least).

I appreciate your passion, but that the architectural firm who designed it (RAW), the two different planning firms who vetted it (Hunter Armstrong and BrookMcllroy), the Planning Department and Council who accepted it and, ultimately, the OMB who defended it are all of the opinion that this is positive intensification, don't you think you're being a bit unreasonable?

Most of your post is conjecture and is based on your subjective projection of what might happen. In reality, there's no way to know exactly how residents' will use their units and what sort of time they'll spend there. In lieu of that certainty, the various agencies and departments listed above have decided that at a base level, putting 29 units on a streetcar line makes all the sense in the world. It seems to me that the burden of proof is therefore on you to present evidence as to why this is not a successful piece of city building.
 
Picture1.jpg


Section through the 6 storey 1884 Queen Street proposal = the red line is what is allowed - on this site 5 storeys (15.5 + Mech) is the maximum the planners say can be built, compared to 20m + Mech on the lick's site
 

Attachments

  • Picture1.jpg
    Picture1.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 608
Picture2.jpg


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.
 

Attachments

  • Picture2.jpg
    Picture2.jpg
    20.9 KB · Views: 948
ProjectEnd said:
To take Xray_Crystal_Junkie's point even further...

Btg:

You're completely leaving aside the fact that construction and operational restrictions essentially make 'boutique office space' a near impossibility. Things like core sizes, minimum travel distances, servicing requirements and so forth make small-scale offices a difficult and money-losing proposition. Come to think of it, outside of heritage conversions and the hideous Hakim Optical building just east of Dundas Square, I can't think of a single small floor plate, low-rise office building that's been constructed in the city in the last ten years (at least).

I appreciate your passion, but that the architectural firm who designed it (RAW), the two different planning firms who vetted it (Hunter Armstrong and BrookMcllroy), the Planning Department and Council who accepted it and, ultimately, the OMB who defended it are all of the opinion that this is positive intensification, don't you think you're being a bit unreasonable?

Most of your post is conjecture and is based on your subjective projection of what might happen. In reality, there's no way to know exactly how residents' will use their units and what sort of time they'll spend there. In lieu of that certainty, the various agencies and departments listed above have decided that at a base level, putting 29 units on a streetcar line makes all the sense in the world. It seems to me that the burden of proof is therefore on you to present evidence as to why this is not a successful piece of city building.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top