New rules could limit Building Heights

[Jarrek]

I would wholeheartedly support limiting the height of buildings in certain neighborhoods. Building height, does not always equate to an increase in population density.

 

[jaycola]

Tall Buildings Project City of Toronto Development Regulations

In essence, it is a number of regulations/guidelines by which developers must tailor thier plans in order to get a project approved to it's maximum density.

Find the complete report here.

I believe some consultation with the city planners would help development happen in an organized way, the ultimate goal of successful urban life is a noble one. Good architecture is something we all want to see and enjoy.

All the same, these regulations recommended by the study are beyond subjective and in my opinion a wide in scope.

Here are a few that gave me concern due to the linitations on the property owners.

Regulation #3: Street level façades of tall buildings will display a high degree of permeability between interior and exterior space through the use of transparent windows and doors that provide clear and unobstructed views into and out from ground floor uses. At least 60% of the frontage on High Streets between 0.5 metres and 3 metres in height must be glazed and transparent.

Regulation #4: Tall building podiums will be lined with active street-related retail uses on street segments identified as Priority Retail Streets to encourage activity and natural surveillance. At least 60% of the total building frontage on such street segments must contain active street-related retail uses. Lobbies should be limited in width.

Regulation #6: Entrances to tall buildings will be clearly defined with maximum visibility to ensure ease of access directly from the street, and be free of obstructions. Architectural treatment and, where appropriate, landscaping should be used to accentuate entrances, and to differentiate between residential and commercial entrances in mixed-use buildings. Each retail store in a building must be identifiable and accessible from the sidewalk.

Regulation #7: Tall building podiums will be designed to include human scale treatment of building mass, materials, texture and composition. Façades should be well articulated with an interplay of rhythm between transparent glass and solid materials. Pedestrian weather protection will be provided along High Streets, particularly over entrances to residential and retail uses. Blank walls will be avoided, and if necessary must be well articulated. Air vents and mechanical equipment will not be located adjacent to the public realm. Colonnades are discouraged.

This last one really gets me.
Imagine you get your project rejected because your facade wasn't "well articulated" "Oh, we felt there was a lack of interplay of rhythm between transparent glass and solid materials". That statement is ridiculous. That is a regulation?
I am sure there is a appeal process but these regulations take a lot power away from the property owner.

 

[jje1000]

Streets lined with nothing but monotonous glass or precast podiums quickly lose their sense of vitality. Compare older Toronto streets wth places like CityPlace, St. James Town and Bay Street (near Bloor).

I think these rules are perfectly reasonable, given the number of condos still going up around town.

 

[DSC]

Here's the News Release:

News Release

March 21, 2011

City of Toronto presents findings of study 'Tall Buildings, Inviting Change in Downtown Toronto'

Downtown Toronto is characterized by tall buildings. As the city grows and evolves, tall buildings will continue to accommodate people and businesses drawn to the downtown area. The City of Toronto is holding three open houses/community meetings in April to present “Tall Buildings, Inviting Change in Downtown Toronto,” a consultant’s study. Staff will present the objectives of the study, the study's findings and recommendations, and give the community an opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback.

Members of the public are invited to any of the following three meetings:
Monday, April 4, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., St. Basil's Church, Parish Hall - 50 St. Joseph St.
Thursday, April 7, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., Palmerston Library, Theatre Room - 560 Palmerston Ave.
Monday, April 11, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., St. Lawrence Community & Recreation Centre, Gymnasium - 230 The Esplanade

The study was conducted by Urban Strategies Inc. and Hariri Pontarini Architects. It identifies where in the downtown area tall buildings belong and sets out rules about their height, form and relationship to their surroundings. The study focuses on protecting and improving the quality of life of people living and working downtown.

The study area, which encompasses portions of Wards 20, 27 and 28, is bounded by Bathurst Street on the west, Dupont Street on the north, the Don Valley Parkway on the east and Lake Ontario on the south. Secondary Plan areas do not form part of the study. Secondary Plans are those plans that have already established development policies to guide growth in certain parts of the downtown wards affected by the study. Examples of these Secondary Plans include King-Spadina, King-Parliament and the Railway Lands East.

Regulations being proposed as a result of the study have been derived from an on-the-ground assessment of local conditions within downtown Toronto, and have been supplemented by an assessment of experiences of cities from across North America. The "Tall Buildings, Inviting Change in Downtown Toronto" study builds upon pre-existing, city-wide design guidelines known as the “Design Criteria for Review of Tall Buildings Proposals.”

Staff intend to report to Toronto City Council about the results of the community feedback and proceed with seeking Council's direction this spring regarding implementation options stemming from the study's findings.

The "Tall Buildings, Inviting Change Downtown" study is available online athttp://www.toronto.ca/planning/living_downtown.htm. (Note by DSC The LINK is actually: http://www.toronto.ca/planning/tallbuildingstudy.htm

Toronto is Canada's largest city and sixth largest government, and home to a diverse population of about 2.6 million people. Toronto's government is dedicated to delivering customer service excellence, creating a transparent and accountable government, reducing the size and cost of government and building a transportation city. For information on non-emergency City services and programs, Toronto residents, businesses and visitors can dial 311, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Media contact: Bruce Hawkins, Senior Communications Coordinator, 416-392-3496, bhawkin@toronto.ca

 

[Mongo]

From post # 13 by Ramako, which I think says a lot about this proposed policy (and this is based on the absolute maximum heights allowable, not the as-of-right heights, which are quite a bit lower):

Let's review how the city would have developed under this proposed plan:

Four Seasons (93 metre reduction)
Casa (would not be built)
Ritz Carlton (30 metre reduction)
Aura (154 metre reduction)
Burano (11 metre reduction)
U Condos II (27 metre reduction)
L Tower (would not be built)
X (31 metre reduction)
X2 (53 metre reduction)
Couture (34 metre reduction)
250 Eaton Centre (14 metre reduction)
Uptown (would not be built)
Cyrstal Blu (would not be built)
880 Bay Street (35 metre reduction)
Cumberland Terrace (56 metre reduction)
151 Front Street (68 metre reduction)
FIVE (would not be built)
21 Avenue Road (36 metre reduction)
403 Bloor East (30 metre reduction)

 

[interchange42]

View Corridors
Report by Tyler Greenleaf

In general, I could care less about view corridors either in Toronto or anywhere else.

When someone mentions view corridors, a couple questions come to mind: why is protecting a singular viewpoint so important? And how is this conversation any different from someone in a high rise complaining at a neighbourhood meeting about their 6th floor view being wrecked by a new condo going up a block away?

When I look down a street, I like to see the city stacked on top of itself. Just yesterday the brilliant Daily Dose of Imagery posted a photo of a shot down Adelaide St from the east end towards downtown. Different styles of architecture are piled upon each other and it looks very Toronto to me. It’s messy, it’s urban, and from this view you also get see variations of glass that are not just green.

Some experts have weighed in further on the view corridor issue and I have read up on what they have said. The Tall Buildings Study included a regulation that three distinct corridors that should be preserved:

• the view of Queen’s Park along College Street at the intersection of University Avenue
• the view of City Hall from the south side of Queen Street between Bay Street and York Street
• and the view of Old City Hall from Bay Street at the intersection of Temperance Street.

The Study says:

Landmark buildings provide the City with cultural memory and a distinct sense of place. They are unique markers that help us attain a collective appreciation and understanding of Toronto’s past and future.

In Downtown Toronto many landmark sites and view corridors have origins that date to Toronto’s Victorian period, while others represent later iconic architecture of civic and cultural significance. Sites located at a street terminus have often been used to give the City’s public buildings heightened prominence. Views to any such landmark buildings should be considered in the review of any tall building proposal.

(page 28)

After reading the Tall Buildings Study explanation, as well as additional work done by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO), I am inclined to agree.

From certain vantage points, we can and should retain the three view corridors. I am proud of our city and our civic buildings.


Queen’s Park Silhouette

Let’s look at the view of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario building, which on the UT forum has been under heavy discussion due to the approved 21 Avenue Road proposal (the site of the current Four Seasons Hotel).

Recently, the ACO with the Centre for Landscape Research (CLR) and Du Toit Allsopp Hillier has done its own study on the Queen’s Park silhouette and whether the new criteria outlined in the Tall Buildings Study regarding the proposed allowed as-of-right and maximum heights will compromise the desire to retain the view corridor.

As you can see, the maximum height allowed along Bloor Street will compromise this view corridor from College:

While this view corridor point of view and the next are not recommended in the Tall Buildings Study, we can see the potential of having the as-of-right right be changed to the maximum height for this stretch of buildings along Bloor in the Study.

From Orde Street (that’s the massing for the 21 Avenue Road proposal you see behind Queen’s Park on the right hand side):

And from Queen Street:

Recently the ACO has also been working with other concerned citizen’s groups across Ontario, Toronto councillors Kristen Wong-Tam, and Adam Vaughan, MPPs Rosario Marchese and Glen Murray for civic improvements for the area that has been dubbed Ontario’s Capital Precinct. It covers the territory from Queen to Bloor along University Avenue, and over to Toronto’s Old City Hall. This area is home to many important civic institutions such Toronto’s two city halls, our law courts, the University of Toronto, hospitals, and museums. It is a major cultural heritage landscape with the Legislative Assembly of Ontario (LAO) building and Queen’s Park at its heart.

The recent OMB decision on 21 Avenue Road pointed out the clear lack of policy at both the City of Toronto and the Province to protect this view. MPP Rosario Marchese has introduced a private members bill (Bill 95) to protect the silhouette of the LAO from Queen Street and University Avenue, but so far there is nothing from the government side.


What are your thoughts?

 

[lolwut]

my thoughts are that Bloor St. should have a minimum height restriction of 1700 ft.

 

[Mike in TO]

You guys are getting a little over-excited by a report with "guidelines" - what is being proposed is not hard and fast rules.

If forumers have concerns perhaps rather than posting your thoughts on Urban Toronto, people should actually go out and participate in the public consultations - because most of the people that are going to be showing up will be demanding much more stringent regulations regarding maximum heights.

 

[greenleaf]

You guys are getting a little over-excited by a report with "guidelines" - what is being proposed is not hard and fast rules.

If forumers have concerns perhaps rather than posting your thoughts on Urban Toronto, people should actually go out and participate in the public consultations - because most of the people that are going to be showing up will be demanding much more stringent regulations regarding maximum heights.

I was at the Tall Buildings Study meeting on Monday but didn't speak and will be submitting comments via email. Does it make a difference to the city either way?

 

[Mongo]

You guys are getting a little over-excited by a report with "guidelines" - what is being proposed is not hard and fast rules.

Actually, they are. The maximum heights mentioned in the report are just that. There would be NO allowable exceptions to the height limits -- which are so low that most of the tall projects currently planned or under construction would not be allowed. Toronto currently has the largest construction boom in North America. That would no longer be the case under the proposed plan.

 

[Peepers]

Actually, they are. The maximum heights mentioned in the report are just that. There would be NO allowable exceptions to the height limits -- which are so low that most of the tall projects currently planned or under construction would not be allowed. Toronto currently has the largest construction boom in North America. That would no longer be the case under the proposed plan.

This is a FACT. If these new building rules were to ever be implemented - strict height limits would be imposed. For example Aura would NEVER have been approved at 75 stories. This was nothing more than attempt by city planners to impose THEIR anti-skyscraper bias upon the city. Hopefully this report will get thrown in the garbage along with all the other half-baked initiatives from the Miller era (e.g. the "Mayors Tower Renewal Project"). To bad $100,000's were wasted on the commission of this proposal.

 

[jn_12]

I tell ya, what a failure of urban planning Vancouver is. Only one building over 50 stories tall. Just horrible. That whole Vancouver Model thing too? What's everyone thinking trying to copy that?

 

[DTowner]

Regulation #3: Street level façades of tall buildings will display a high degree of permeability between interior and exterior space through the use of transparent windows and doors that provide clear and unobstructed views into and out from ground floor uses. At least 60% of the frontage on High Streets between 0.5 metres and 3 metres in height must be glazed and transparent.

Regulation #4: Tall building podiums will be lined with active street-related retail uses on street segments identified as Priority Retail Streets to encourage activity and natural surveillance. At least 60% of the total building frontage on such street segments must contain active street-related retail uses. Lobbies should be limited in width.

Regulation #6: Entrances to tall buildings will be clearly defined with maximum visibility to ensure ease of access directly from the street, and be free of obstructions. Architectural treatment and, where appropriate, landscaping should be used to accentuate entrances, and to differentiate between residential and commercial entrances in mixed-use buildings. Each retail store in a building must be identifiable and accessible from the sidewalk.

Regulation #7: Tall building podiums will be designed to include human scale treatment of building mass, materials, texture and composition. Façades should be well articulated with an interplay of rhythm between transparent glass and solid materials. Pedestrian weather protection will be provided along High Streets, particularly over entrances to residential and retail uses. Blank walls will be avoided, and if necessary must be well articulated. Air vents and mechanical equipment will not be located adjacent to the public realm. Colonnades are discouraged.

I'm all for #4 and #6. I've always been against condos being downtown that do not have retail at it's base. It's very suburban and can kill an area (if I don't live there, why would I go there?)

 

[jaycola]

I've always been against condos being downtown that do not have retail at it's base. It's very suburban and can kill an area.

One problem I have with these regulations is that they do not take into consideration whether there is any demand for these retail spaces. What wil the effect be on established businesses already in place?
Is it better to have a vacant retail space than an artists live work space?
Maybe a reading room or private gym for the property owners facing the street is disired by a developer.
If a building is 40 or 50 feet wide, I don't see that having no retail for that stretch will have a great effect on the livibility of the street.

Maybe, rather than a percentage of each project, they should be looking at the percentage of commercial on the street? If a street is already 80% retail, maybe that's enough.
What if a business requires a discreet but central location (Prostetics, plastic surgery or hair replacement for exmple)?
Does everyone who enters the premises have to declare thier intentions? Why must the nature of the business be identifiable?

The height restrictions should never be absolute. I don't think we need any absolutes when it comes to development. As neighbourhoods and demand changes, we need a system that is flexible and adaptable.

 

[adma]

This is a FACT. If these new building rules were to ever be implemented - strict height limits would be imposed. For example Aura would NEVER have been approved at 75 stories. This was nothing more than attempt by city planners to impose THEIR anti-skyscraper bias upon the city. Hopefully this report will get thrown in the garbage along with all the other half-baked initiatives from the Miller era (e.g. the "Mayors Tower Renewal Project"). To bad $100,000's were wasted on the commission of this proposal.

"Anti-skyscraper bias" is to 2011 what "anti-highway bias" was to 1971.