Toronto Burke Condominiums | 163.4m | 53s | Concert | Arcadis

[marcus_a_j]

The city planning department is making me shake my head on this one. There are no "concerns" here - they (and all of us really) should be glad, even relieved, that a respected developer is proposing a project designed by a top class architect for one of the shabbiest, most neglected blocks in all of the downtown. This project will single-handedly give the awful St. Jamestown area a massively needed boost, and restore some lovely heritage buildings that have been sadly languishing for decades to boot. Hell, it might even inspire some investment within the St. Jamestown buildings themselves. If I were the president of Lanterra I'd feel rather offended. I hope they go to the OMB and get the green light for everything they're proposing.

Posts like this make me shake my head. There are a TON of concerns in addition to the height and density, many of which greenleaf pointed out. The S.37 dollars will be enourmous (though they would relatively be on par with other large developments on $/unit basis) and indeed will help to restore some of the heritage buildings. If I recall from the staff report several heritage listed buildings will be demolished, while the ones that are designated will be restored. To say this project will single-handedly give St. Jamestown a boost is a bit of a stretch don't you think? The S.37 dollars will help, but they only go so far. Besides, this is not the first large development in the area. Tridel's Verve and JCM and the Times Group's 500 Sherbourne are just down the street.

It doesn't matter how respected a developer/architect team is. Concerns are going to pop up no matter what. It appears that this is the first design submitted and will inevitably change. taal is right, just because it's big, adds lots of density, and an experienced developer is behind the application doesn't mean it should just be rubber-stamped as is.

 

[gweed123]

I am sure there are, just are there are legitimate reasons to even increase the building heights. The planners jobs are not to reduce proposed building heights, but to assess the merits of the applicaiton by reviewing the many pros and cons that are brought forward. They will look at the surrounding context in terms of built form and land uses, listen to the community and various groups that have an interest in the development (both for and against the development), and look at the available infrastructure capacities, amongst other things..

Very true. Most applications, after being submitted, come back with sometimes pages and pages of comments. Some are merely suggestions, some are "you need to change this or we won't approve it". Density isn't necessarily the problem. It could be a bunch of factors relating TO the density (building orientation, how they address the adjacent streets, unit mix, etc). Just remember, the proposal for Simcoe Place (what eventually became the RBC building and the Ritz Carlton) was initially proposed as 3 ~30 storey towers. The city staff decided the the site was too cluttered, and recommended 2 towers instead, but allowed them to build them taller to make up for the loss of 1 of the towers. It had nearly the same density as the original proposal. I'd say that arrangement worked out pretty well. Give it time, it'll get worked out.

 

[Mike in TO]

I'm going to jump in here with all the planning bashing going on...

Height and density are only two small aspects of any land-use development application - for better or for worse that is all some people on this forum seem to care about.

Any change in land use, especially a very significant change with a total GFA of 129,427 square meters and a 10.95 FSI with over 1,800 units will have very significant community, infrastructure capacity, environmental, social, economic impacts etc. All aspects of the application require careful scrutiny and a collaborative discussion between the applicant, approval agencies and all impacted stakeholders to ensure the proposal meets a variety of objectives and satisfies various municipal departments. Not all stakeholders will ever be happy, but planning is often a careful a dance to mediate and resolve as many outstanding issues as possible.

The legislative framework governing development is extremely complex and planners play an important role to ensure issues are dealt with ranging from archeological assessments to the Ministry of Culture, obtaining all necessary data to register a record of site condition with the Ministry of Environment, circulation of draft plan and other required applications to local agencies (various city departments, Toronto Region Conservation Authority etc) etc etc – these numerous complex issues happen in the background and the height, density, architecture discussions on this forum really only scratch the surface of the complexities within the development and planning process.

Height and density are but two of hundreds if not thousands of requirements under various pieces of provincial legislation that are implemented through municipal official plans, zoning by-laws, secondary plans etc… There are masses of conditions that must be met and for previous posters in this thread to somehow boil down the role of planners or the planning process to rubber stamping this because they think all that matters is height is simplistic and ridiculous - it would be similar to someone suggesting that all there is to planning within the context of the approval of a contentious application is ensuring that the TRCA is satisfied that the setback from the top of the nearby banks and their buffers are appropriate and that conservation authority will approve a sec 28 permit for work to proceed - that type of application can be just as difficult to come to terms with as the discussion about height, but it just happens to be something never discussed on Urban Toronto.

Lastly, even if all that did matter was height, there are impacts and all stakeholders and members of the public are afforded the right to participate in a rigorous public consultation process to which Official Plans are subject under the Planning Act – this process if of the utmost importance to members of the public, the development community and to public agencies, municipalities and the province. Public consultation gives all interested parties the opportunity to provide input before an OPA is adopted, in combination with appeal rights afforded under the Planning Act, it ensures that all applications are subject to the highest level of scrutiny and that policies concerning future growth and development are in the greatest public interest.

… end rant…

 

[marcus_a_j]

Most applications, after being submitted, come back with sometimes pages and pages of comments. Some are merely suggestions, some are "you need to change this or we won't approve it".

Yes, there can be many comments for planning applications from various commenting departments/agencies (not just the planning dept.) that could be mistaken for a mini encyclepedia set when consolidated. However, there will never be any comments saying "change this or we won't approve it". As you know, staff do not approve applications, Council does. They only make their recommendations to support or not to support an application.

 

[Architecturefan]

I'm going to jump in here with all the planning bashing going on...

Height and density are only two small aspects of any land-use development application - for better or for worse that is all some people on this forum seem to care about.

Any change in land use, especially a very significant change with a total GFA of 129,427 square meters and a 10.95 FSI with over 1,800 units will have very significant community, infrastructure capacity, environmental, social, economic impacts etc. All aspects of the application require careful scrutiny and a collaborative discussion between the applicant, approval agencies and all impacted stakeholders to ensure the proposal meets a variety of objectives and satisfies various municipal departments. Not all stakeholders will ever be happy, but planning is often a careful a dance to mediate and resolve as many outstanding issues as possible.

The legislative framework governing development is extremely complex and planners play an important role to ensure issues are dealt with ranging from archeological assessments to the Ministry of Culture, obtaining all necessary data to register a record of site condition with the Ministry of Environment, circulation of draft plan and other required applications to local agencies (various city departments, Toronto Region Conservation Authority etc) etc etc – these numerous complex issues happen in the background and the height, density, architecture discussions on this forum really only scratch the surface of the complexities within the development and planning process.

Height and density are but two of hundreds if not thousands of requirements under various pieces of provincial legislation that are implemented through municipal official plans, zoning by-laws, secondary plans etc… There are masses of conditions that must be met and for previous posters in this thread to somehow boil down the role of planners or the planning process to rubber stamping this because they think all that matters is height is simplistic and ridiculous - it would be similar to someone suggesting that all there is to planning within the context of the approval of a contentious application is ensuring that the TRCA is satisfied that the setback from the top of the nearby banks and their buffers are appropriate and that conservation authority will approve a sec 28 permit for work to proceed - that type of application can be just as difficult to come to terms with as the discussion about height, but it just happens to be something never discussed on Urban Toronto.

Lastly, even if all that did matter was height, there are impacts and all stakeholders and members of the public are afforded the right to participate in a rigorous public consultation process to which Official Plans are subject under the Planning Act – this process if of the utmost importance to members of the public, the development community and to public agencies, municipalities and the province. Public consultation gives all interested parties the opportunity to provide input before an OPA is adopted, in combination with appeal rights afforded under the Planning Act, it ensures that all applications are subject to the highest level of scrutiny and that policies concerning future growth and development are in the greatest public interest.

… end rant…

Agreed and thank you for posting this, well said.

I think it should also be remembered that the Staff Report only brought up issue of concern and is by no means a refusal report. I think some people are jumping the gun here a little. Like Mike said, there are numerous reasons for Planning Staff to raise concerns, not the least of which is to allow for an appropriate public consultation process. To blindly recommend approval (or refusal) of such a substantial development, especially at heights and densities that are not typical of the area would be reckless. That being said, I think the height, density and massing are appropriate given the location (minimal shadow impact, close to major transit stations, etc.).

 

[canarob]

From the Post

City planners concerned about Bloor East mega-project

Natalie Alcoba January 19, 2011 – 6:00 am

A proposal to transform a Bloor Street East strip with a series of condo skyscrapers has city planning staff concerned about density, even as the local councillor welcomed the chance to resuscitate derelict properties that have been neglected for years.

The project, by Lanterra Developments and architects Alliance, the firm of renowned Toronto architect Peter Clewes, would erect four towers, climbing 46, 50, 53 and 56 storeys, between Sherbourne and Parliament streets, at and just south of Bloor.

An additional five-storey residential building and a low-rise mixed-use building is planned, with retail at ground level and parking underground. In addition, developers want to retain a heritage building at the corner of Sherbourne and Howard streets, and restore a cluster of semi-detached heritage houses on Glen Road for residential use.

Four listed heritage buildings would be demolished in this plan, city staff said. As it’s laid out, it would inject 1,840 new residential units into the North St. James Town neighbourhood, which is adjacent to the densely populated St. James Town and its 18 high-rise buildings, 14 to 32 storeys tall.

“The application in its current form is not supportable,†planning staff wrote in a preliminary report that was presented to the Toronto and East York Community Council on Tuesday.

“Of considerable concern to staff is the appropriateness of the proposed land use redesignation, along with the proposal’s significant scale, density, massing and transition towards the existing adjacent neighbourhoods … as well as the provision of open space.â€

Staff recommended seeking public input, which Toronto East York Community Council endorsed, “in order to determine the nature and extent of the changes to the application.â€

Councillor Pam McConnell said when it comes to the height of a condo, “developers go for the moon, and we discuss it.â€

“I think all of us, including the staff, were pleased that finally we would do something with vacant land. It has been 40 years of derelict lands and buildings falling apart through neglect,†said Ms. McConnell who represents Ward 28 (Toronto Centre-Rosedale).

She was keen on the plan to invest in some of the run-down properties and bring them back to “preservation quality,†essentially conserving a small block that she called Glen Road Village. “That’s a very exciting part of the proposal,†said Ms. McConnell.

She was also pleased that the application took a “comprehensive†approach to the entire block. The staff report said that the area is part of a new Community Improvement Plan that will encourage “open space improvements†for the area.

Ms. McConnell now embarks on the community consultation process to “help form a suitable proposal†for the land.

“Until we go through the process I don’t make decisions in my own mind,†she said.

Mr. Clewes and representatives from Lanterra Developments did not return requests for comment.

National Post
nalcoba@nationalpost.com

Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/0...-about-bloor-east-mega-project/#ixzz1BWJZjz00

 

[gweed123]

Yes, there can be many comments for planning applications from various commenting departments/agencies (not just the planning dept.) that could be mistaken for a mini encyclepedia set when consolidated. However, there will never be any comments saying "change this or we won't approve it". As you know, staff do not approve applications, Council does. They only make their recommendations to support or not to support an application.

Very true. However, there are certain issues that if the development does not meet the planners' requirements, they will sometimes go as far as saying "if [this] is not modified to meet what we think is appropriate, the Planning Dept will recommend that the application be denied". There are some things that the Planning Dept is willing to budge on (ie come to a compromise on), but there are some things where they will simply say "We don't agree. Change it, or you don't get our blessing." Usually, things like massing and density are things that can be negotiated and modified.

And very good post Mike in TO.

 

[marcus_a_j]

That's exactly what I said, they make their recommendations to support or not to support an application. My point was, regardless of what changes or compromises are made (or not), the planning dept. only makes recommendations, they don't make the final decision. It is up to Council (and the Committee of Adjustment for that matter) to take those recommendations to approve or deny an application. As you know, Planning's recommendations are not always followed.

 

[cdr108]

IIRC correctly, under the City's proposed future planning, the area just west of Parliament is zoned max for 25s and transitions to 50s toward Sherbourne/Bloor.

i have to say the density will be way too much considering current infrastructure for the area and location.
St. Jamestown is already the densest populated area in the province, if not the country.

Howard Street would certainly have to be widened to accommodate congestion and perhaps changed to 2-way traffic.

Sherbourne Street is only 1 lane each way without the option to widen for the added people/traffic.
the added developments of JCM, 500 Sherbourne, 575 (?) Sherbourne, etc will almost certainly strain the area, without 609 Sherbourne, et al adding more.

 

[Brans89]

I support this project. Hopefully they could come to an agreement. For example, how the podium meets the street and also incorporating the heritage structures in the proposal.

 

[lordmandeep]

maybe something smaller, however all of these developments are really transforming the more "shady areas" just east of the downtown core for the better.

 

[Brans89]

I would maintain height and look at the podium and heritage component.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I would maintain height and look at the podium and heritage component.

I agree, shorter and you may end up seeing all that junk behind it.

 

[wyliepoon]

Rough model in Google Sketchup/Google Earth:

The view from the DVP. The impact these towers have on this view is much greater than Number One Bloor or Four Seasons.

 

[canarob]

Wow, even if the developer has to knock off ten floors from each tower, they will still be very tall for the area.