Toronto 18 Elm | 134.09m | 39s | Westerkirk Capital | BDP Quadrangle

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
31,700
Reaction score
88,675
Location
Toronto/EY
Let's start out by saying I find this proposal an abomination.

That said......

18 Elm is one of most beautiful heritage facades on Elm, on the north side, between Yonge and Bay. Before anyone has a heart attack, the intent is to retain said facades.
The building in behind those facades is already a newer build so in that sense, no heritage would be lost here.

However, the proposal, to my mind, is utterly overbearing and will greatly diminish the sense of this beauty:

1666188535787.png


Now, the app:

1666188610623.png


app.toronto.ca

Application Details

app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca

For such an 'ambitious' ask, the proposal has very mediocre quality renders:

1666188882138.png



1666189624377.png


The massing drawings below give a sense of that overhang:

1666189393278.png


1666189417233.png

1666189674226.png


Description:

1666189484633.png


1666188910512.png


Project tenure (supposedly) purpose-built rental.

Note the proposed Separation Distances, (shy of what would normally be expected/guidelines) and the unusually small floor plate size (about 1/3 smaller than typical)

1666189199285.png



The small working site area and need for some separation on the east/north sides is what leaves the tower, to me, feeling overbearing on the Elm Street side. I had a look, and I don't believe there is any opportunity to re-site the building within the land area; shrinking it to let the heritage stand proud, would reduce the footprint a further 25% to ~400m2 or a bit less than same.

*****

Additional Comments:

No real issue w/height here or the substance on heritage since the historical elements (facades) are being retained.

I just can't stand the overhang on top of the heritage which exudes greed to me, diminishing a lovely building just to make money..........

Psst, the owner here, Ms. Bryden, is the richest woman in Canada, worth many Billions.
 
Last edited:
The overhang looks necessary because even with it, the tower floor plate is only 571 square metres.

Whether this project works at all is another question.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The overhang looks necessary because even with it, the tower floor plate is only 571 square metres.

Whether this project works at all is another question.
Click to expand...

I note that in my comments. That to remove the overhang you would shrink the floor plate to a smidge under 400m2. Which probably isn't viable; to which my answer is leave as-is, thanks.
 
Wow! This development has a double edged sword feel to it. Though it would be nice not to touch this building for development! The tower part does blend in with its fancy Victorian arches below and fancy columns accenting the punctured window effect . That braces the tower upwards above the old building. Complimenting to structures together compared to some other developments seen in the photos up above . Giving this project a midevil feel to it in a sense lol!
 
This is where Bangkok Garden is? If so, the interior is pleasant enough, but nothing special. Also, it's a trek to get from the dining room to the bathrooms - multiple stairs - up, down, up again.
 
You could move this back somewhat, (5m for instance) and maintain the floor plate size as is. Less dramatic along Elm, but more appropriate. That would go against planning policy on setbacks but perhaps in this case an exception could be made. Then everyone would want that exception though.

In the end this one should probably be left alone, but nothing in Toronto is sacred.
 
Urban-Affair said:
You could move this back somewhat, (5m for instance) and maintain the floor plate size as is. Less dramatic along Elm, but more appropriate. That would go against planning policy on setbacks but perhaps in this case an exception could be made. Then everyone would want that exception though.

In the end this one should probably be left alone, but nothing in Toronto is sacred.
Click to expand...

Separation distance at north end of the property is already below guideline. Shaving another 5M would have folks in this building and the one to the north starting right into each other's windows.

It would also eliminate almost all natural light, not only at grade, but for tenants/owners in either tower.
 
cd concept said:
Wow! This development has a double edged sword feel to it. Though it would be nice not to touch this building for development! The tower part does blend in with its fancy Victorian arches below and fancy columns accenting the punctured window effect . That braces the tower upwards above the old building. Complimenting to structures together compared to some other developments seen in the photos up above . Giving this project a midevil feel to it in a sense lol!
Click to expand...
"Midevil" is an appropriate typo though I think this is fully evil. So it's Sherry Brydson herself who is having her building redeveloped?
 
ProjectEnd said:
It's wise to remember that just because someone submits an application for a site, doesn't mean it's real. Value increase is the name of the game here. We'll leave it at that for now.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but for two things.

1) If the application succeeds in some manner, even if not in the current form, ie. secures zoning for additional height/density which inflates a future sale price, that additional density/height still becomes the basis of a future proposal by a future owner at some point, as it would hardly make sense to pay a premium for greater zoning permission that you either could not or would not make use of..........

2) The owner here is among the richest people in the world. She has no need whatever for another few tens of millions or even 100M this might gain her on sale.

If there is no intention to mess w/this building, there is no need to waste private money or the City's money on addressing this application.
 
Northern Light said:
Fair enough, but for two things.

1) If the application succeeds in some manner, even if not in the current form, ie. secures zoning for additional height/density which inflates a future sale price, that additional density/height still becomes the basis of a future proposal by a future owner at some point, as it would hardly make sense to pay a premium for greater zoning permission that you either could not or would not make use of..........

2) The owner here is among the richest people in the world. She has no need whatever for another few tens of millions or even 100M this might gain her on sale.

If there is no intention to mess w/this building, there is no need to waste private money or the City's money on addressing this application.
Click to expand...
No question, but unfortunately both of those things are incorrect, as much as we'd like them not to be. The owner can submit anything they like (and has, in this case), and, under the Planning Act, the City is required to evaluate it and submit comments. Whether or not the proposal succeeds is up to both parties.
 
ProjectEnd said:
No question, but unfortunately both of those things are incorrect, as much as we'd like them not to be. The owner can submit anything they like (and has, in this case), and, under the Planning Act, the City is required to evaluate it and submit comments. Whether or not the proposal succeeds is up to both parties.
Click to expand...

Well, I was speaking not as a legal nicety, but as a practical matter (in an idealistic sense).

I don't disagree that the City is required to deal w/what's before it; I'm articulating that it ought not to have to.........
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top