Toronto 2180 Yonge | 247m | 65s | Oxford Properties | Hariri Pontarini

AlbertC said:
New article with more commentary from Matlow and a local rep:

trnto.com

Resident says Yonge and Eglinton plan is a ‘slap in the face’ | TRNTO.com

The Canada Square site is scheduled for an April 21 community council meeting
trnto.com trnto.com
Click to expand...
Skimming through the article I think a lot of the complaints are fair. It's not simply, ohh these are too tall. I'm sure theres some of that but even UT agrees the site needs a rework.

(Not implying you were posting this article to bash nimbyism or anything like that btw, just my commentary on it :)
 
I can understand the height issue about not having the morning sunlight on the thier property if anything. But this project is located the centre of the city having two main lines crossing each other at the intersection. Which called for large density to move population across town overall . And chances are that those homes around this development will probably be demolish for highrises in the future anyways.
 
Bjays92 said:
Skimming through the article I think a lot of the complaints are fair. It's not simply, ohh these are too tall. I'm sure theres some of that but even UT agrees the site needs a rework.

(Not implying you were posting this article to bash nimbyism or anything like that btw, just my commentary on it :)
Click to expand...
I think the problem is when the councilor is crowing about improving livability by making the buildings shorter. That is wrong-headed!

I can agree with trying to avoid shading important parks, but SFHs in major transit station areas.... ah no.
 
AlbertC said:
New article with more commentary from Matlow and a local rep:

trnto.com

Resident says Yonge and Eglinton plan is a ‘slap in the face’ | TRNTO.com

The Canada Square site is scheduled for an April 21 community council meeting
trnto.com trnto.com
Click to expand...
I went in expecting "make it shorter", but what I got were reasonable comments:
  • There's too little community space
  • There's no school, which the area really needs
  • The parkland is less than standard, and most of it is sloped and POPS, which means it'll be chopped up for other stuff
I've never liked the layout as well.
 
allengeorge said:
I went in expecting "make it shorter", but what I got were reasonable comments:
  • There's too little community space
  • There's no school, which the area really needs
  • The parkland is less than standard, and most of it is sloped and POPS, which means it'll be chopped up for other stuff
I've never liked the layout as well.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

A school is clearly the community's top priority, with young kids being bused material distances out of the community.

That should be a given.

Notwithstanding community suggestions, I'm not sold on the idea that the site is substantially short on open space, but I am sold on the idea too much of it is POPs vs Parks; and that it's poorly sited and thought out.

It should be a single or mostly single, contiguous park at the southerly limit of the community, maximizing utility and sunshine.

Let's compare this with what's being achieved at the Mr. Christie's site.

Worth saying, we don't need replication of every detail here, as this area, already has an excellent library nearby; what we do need is the same commitment to a public good; and to quality design.
 
Northern Light said:
A school is clearly the community's top priority, with young kids being bused material distances out of the community.

That should be a given.
Click to expand...
Challenge with a school is that there is no existing design or funding standard from the Ministry of Education for a new "Elementary-School in a Tower-Podium" model in an Urban setting. Which is partly why Canoe-Landing down in CityPlace LOST the original Housing planned above the School(s) and Community-Centre.

Our HousingNowTO volunteers have been waiting on "some kind of spec" to incorporate into many of the large HOUSING NOW sites.

Still ON HOLD.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1358835424681197578
 
AlexBozikovic said:
The area immediately at YE is growing, but the TDSB planning issues here are nuanced. A significant amount of the pressure has to do with French immersion.
Click to expand...
...and smaller Class-Sizes, and the addition of Full-Day Kindergarten (JK/SK)...

www.thestar.com

Ontario needs to fix the full-day kindergarten problem it created: Editorial

Urban schools are struggling to find space for full-day kindergarten, especially now that the Ontario government has told them to spend less on construction costs.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
 
Front Page story on this development being before the DRP:

urbantoronto.ca

Canada Square Development Makes First Appearance at DRP | UrbanToronto

Oxford Properties and CT REIT unveiled plans in December, 2020 to redevelop the 9-acre site at southwest corner of Yonge and Eglinton into a high-rise, mixed-use community. In March, 2021, it made its first appearance before Toronto's Design Review Panel.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

Very good piece by Julian Mirabelli.
 
From the front page article linked in the post above; there are several things mentioned by the panel with which I am in complete agreement.

"However, their positive comments ended there; while they loved the quantity of public space provided, they questioned the quality."

Amen!

"The Panel, however, questioned whether dividing the open space in two was a wise move, instead wondering if a more unified public realm would be more successful. They also felt that smaller, more intimate spaces needed to be considered, and that amenities like a dog park, playground, or more treed areas should be included to make it more family-friendly."

Amen!

"Another issue raised was how much of the open space was a POPS as opposed to a public park. Currently, the vast majority of the public realm would be privately-owned, with a small portion on the west edge of the site being maintained and operated by the City. This inevitably has an impact on the design, amenities, and function of the space. The Panel also pointed out that, since the central open space is above an underground structure, it would need to be completely dug up and redone in a few decades, and questioned whether more of the site should be proper public parkland."


Not a word out of place!

Also raised was the need for more community space; which if understood to be the need for a school merits a further Amen!
 
Another quote: "…the south residential portion of the site was too confined and not porous enough."

That's not particularly detailed, but to me it screams "What's up with the cul-de-sac?!?!?!" …so good, I'm glad the Panel sees that as an issue. I'm also glad someone on the Panel raised the question of the embodied carbon of the existing buildings (this year's Prtizker winners Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal would be appalled).

Overall, the review sounds like a "hmm, well, meh, maybe?" Not sure it's strong enough to provoke much change.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top