Spaces (former WE Charity HQs, 345 Queen St E, TriAxis, 3s, Kohn Partnership)

[Northern Light]

Uh, why not?

Because in order to support a tower, you require massive structural supports that would need to be built through the existing historical fabric of the building, greatly diminishing that space.

Moreover, residents of any tower over the top need elevators and stairs, in far greater capacity than what exists in the existing building, and to allow for that, you must subtract even more usable space.

That in turn means the library would be much smaller and no longer meet its stated goals, conservatively, you would be cutting the branch size by 1/3, potentially up to 1/2.

Which defeats the entire purpose of putting the library there.

Attempting to do this while preserving as much heritage as possible and anything resembling a functional library would also make the housing considerably more expensive as well.

It would also turn the library either into a tenant, a condo owner, or a landlord, all of which contravene Board policy as they add costs, complexity and lower the ability of the library to deliver quality service at a good value for money.

***

The idea of housing on top is what killed the last proposed branch south of St. Lawrence Market, because the Board couldn't reconcile the housing mandate and the library mandate, and that was on vacant site.

The Board has had terrible experience being a condo owner in the past (Dawes Road branch) and in rebuilding that location, they have removed the housing that was there.

That branch, aside from being undersized had perpetual issues w/leaks, and failing cladding materials and had to deal w/residents who didn't want to spend enough to fix things properly.

Its just not a good idea in general, and a particular bad one on a heritage building site with significant size constraints.

The per floor footprint is also below that typically required for a tall building, and there is already an adjacent proposal, which constrains things, and to the south, the City wants a mid-block pedestrian connection and park.

So it really doesn't make sense here.

 

[DSCToronto]

Because in order to support a tower, you require massive structural supports that would need to be built through the existing historical fabric of the building, greatly diminishing that space.

Moreover, residents of any tower over the top need elevators and stairs, in far greater capacity than what exists in the existing building, and to allow for that, you must subtract even more usable space.

That in turn means the library would be much smaller and no longer meet its stated goals, conservatively, you would be cutting the branch size by 1/3, potentially up to 1/2.

Which defeats the entire purpose of putting the library there.

Attempting to do this while preserving as much heritage as possible and anything resembling a functional library would also make the housing considerably more expensive as well.

It would also turn the library either into a tenant, a condo owner, or a landlord, all of which contravene Board policy as they add costs, complexity and lower the ability of the library to deliver quality service at a good value for money.

***

The idea of housing on top is what killed the last proposed branch south of St. Lawrence Market, because the Board couldn't reconcile the housing mandate and the library mandate, and that was on vacant site.

The Board has had terrible experience being a condo owner in the past (Dawes Road branch) and in rebuilding that location, they have removed the housing that was there.

That branch, aside from being undersized had perpetual issues w/leaks, and failing cladding materials and had to deal w/residents who didn't want to spend enough to fix things properly.

Its just not a good idea in general, and a particular bad one on a heritage building site with significant size constraints.

The per floor footprint is also below that typically required for a tall building, and there is already an adjacent proposal, which constrains things, and to the south, the City wants a mid-block pedestrian connection and park.

So it really doesn't make sense here.

Yes, the current St Lawrence branch is below a residential building and gets frequent floods.

 

[christiesplits]

On top of the designated heritage building? Uh, No.

Thanks, NL. I didn't know it was designated.

The Board has had terrible experience being a condo owner in the past (Dawes Road branch) and in rebuilding that location, they have removed the housing that was there.

It's telling that arguably the best run board in the city can't even do housing right.

 

[FormerTorontonianBackInTO]

Because in order to support a tower, you require massive structural supports that would need to be built through the existing historical fabric of the building, greatly diminishing that space.

Moreover, residents of any tower over the top need elevators and stairs, in far greater capacity than what exists in the existing building, and to allow for that, you must subtract even more usable space.

That in turn means the library would be much smaller and no longer meet its stated goals, conservatively, you would be cutting the branch size by 1/3, potentially up to 1/2.

Which defeats the entire purpose of putting the library there.

Attempting to do this while preserving as much heritage as possible and anything resembling a functional library would also make the housing considerably more expensive as well.

It would also turn the library either into a tenant, a condo owner, or a landlord, all of which contravene Board policy as they add costs, complexity and lower the ability of the library to deliver quality service at a good value for money.

***

The idea of housing on top is what killed the last proposed branch south of St. Lawrence Market, because the Board couldn't reconcile the housing mandate and the library mandate, and that was on vacant site.

The Board has had terrible experience being a condo owner in the past (Dawes Road branch) and in rebuilding that location, they have removed the housing that was there.

That branch, aside from being undersized had perpetual issues w/leaks, and failing cladding materials and had to deal w/residents who didn't want to spend enough to fix things properly.

Its just not a good idea in general, and a particular bad one on a heritage building site with significant size constraints.

The per floor footprint is also below that typically required for a tall building, and there is already an adjacent proposal, which constrains things, and to the south, the City wants a mid-block pedestrian connection and park.

So it really doesn't make sense here.

Given the above, would it not make sense to make a deal to cantilever some residential GFA over the heritage building as part of the 333 Queen East proposal (housing crisis and all)? Is that something the city could work out with an applicant (based on city history with creative solutions)?

Or is the proposed floor plate at 333 already too large to make that work? ....maybe a future feature of the development to the south then?

 

[Northern Light]

Thanks, NL. I didn't know it was designated.

It's telling that arguably the best run board in the city can't even do housing right.

They don't do housing at all.

That's the thing, where they have been partnered, it wasn't their choice, and it wasn't their project.

The Dawes site dates back to the East York Library Board.

 

[Northern Light]

Or is the proposed floor plate at 333 already too large to make that work? ....maybe a future feature of the development to the south then?

The floor plate is already at 825m2 for most tower levels, the City would be keen to grow that.

As for the south, that block is already planned out by another applicant and not massed in a way conducive to that approach:

494 Richmond Street East | 152m | 45s | Colonia Treuhand | Sweeny &Co

It is hilarious that the owner of the white rowhouse on the left decided they would rather live next to a crazy construction site literally around their whole house then cash out. People are peculiar.

urbantoronto.ca

 

[ProjectEnd]

Given the above, would it not make sense to make a deal to cantilever some residential GFA over the heritage building as part of the 333 Queen East proposal (housing crisis and all)? Is that something the city could work out with an applicant (based on city history with creative solutions)?

Or is the proposed floor plate at 333 already too large to make that work? ....maybe a future feature of the development to the south then?

It's the applicant's (Generation Capital) responsibility to secure a Limiting Distance Agreement with TPL if they wish to do this.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

So, in essence, the library refused to do a colocation because they couldn’t satisfy their own completely arbitrary size and program requirements. Instead they’re spending $25-million, plus fitout costs, to put a new branch on a much inferior site.

And they are camouflaging that by moving in their IT department from Downsview.

“Cost savings.”





.

 

[Northern Light]

So, in essence, the library refused to do a colocation because they couldn’t satisfy their own completely arbitrary size and program requirements. Instead they’re spending $25-million, plus fitout costs, to put a new branch on a much inferior site.

And they are camouflaging that by moving in their IT department from Downsview.

“Cost savings.”

Completely and utterly disagree with this unfair slagging of Library and misrepresentation of the facts.

The site beside SLM was not ideal. It had long been contemplated as a park/public square........but the provincial decision regarding the Ontario Line took that first choice site off the table.

Then the proposal was made to move the branch to the SLM site, which wasn't yet available due to the interminable delays of the SLM North projects and which had contamination issues, and which is also a bit undersized given the need to carve out wide sidewalks.. But maybe, it was workable, without any further complications; then TPL was ambushed with the push for housing, making the project more complex, more expensive, and less functional.

Multiple UT members warned this would not work.

The outcome was as foretold.

There are lots of great places for housing, and lots of uses that can co-located, this was a poor idea on both fronts and we all pay with wasted money and time.

 

[DSCToronto]

So, in essence, the library refused to do a colocation because they couldn’t satisfy their own completely arbitrary size and program requirements. Instead they’re spending $25-million, plus fitout costs, to put a new branch on a much inferior site.

And they are camouflaging that by moving in their IT department from Downsview.

“Cost savings.”





.

That is a very extreme view - libraries work best if they have fairly large (and open or flexible) floor-plates and if you put a library below any other use you need to use some of the space for elevators and for stairs and a large residential building needs space on ground floor for garbage and moving trucks and probably needs a garage. As noted above, putting a library below a residential building often results in damage from water leaks - though this can be minimised if the two areas are well 'insulated'. 125 The Esplanade (the Tent) is really a small site and trying to squeeze a District Library plus many floors of housing was NOT a good fit. That site is now supposed to return to its original intended use - a park - but there are still some who want to see housing there.

It is worth remembering that the library processing centre folks who used to be in the building on SE corner of Front and Parliament were to move in with the new District Library to be built on the First Parliament site. (Their building was part of the swap). Then the FP site was expropriated by the Province for the Corktown Station and this new site is the result. It makes sense that the Library are using less desirable space in the new District Library for a non-public use and saving on rent.

 

[LUVIT!]

I'm happy that the library and the tower proposal slightly to the west will finally bring some well needed good attention to this area of Queen E which has been neglected for so long .

 

[Tuscani01]

So, in essence, the library refused to do a colocation because they couldn’t satisfy their own completely arbitrary size and program requirements. Instead they’re spending $25-million, plus fitout costs, to put a new branch on a much inferior site.

And they are camouflaging that by moving in their IT department from Downsview.

“Cost savings.”





.

What about this site is inferior? If anything, its a MUCH better site for a library. The SLM location was tiny and would have resulted in a mess of a library with all the requirements needed to accommodate residential on site as well. This gives the community a better library, more space, better programming, and brings it closer to a rapidly growing neighbourhood with a high need for services, all while still being close enough to SLM.

 

[teezapp]

Completely and utterly disagree with this unfair slagging of Library and misrepresentation of the facts.

The site beside SLM was not ideal. It had long been contemplated as a park/public square........but the provincial decision regarding the Ontario Line took that first choice site off the table.

Then the proposal was made to move the branch to the SLM site, which wasn't yet available due to the interminable delays of the SLM North projects and which had contamination issues, and which is also a bit undersized given the need to carve out wide sidewalks.. But maybe, it was workable, without any further complications; then TPL was ambushed with the push for housing, making the project more complex, more expensive, and less functional.

Multiple UT members warned this would not work.

The outcome was as foretold.

There are lots of great places for housing, and lots of uses that can co-located, this was a poor idea on both fronts and we all pay with wasted money and time.

You guys always cry about how we can't do things like in Europe or elsewhere. But as soon as there is any hint of difficulty in a project, its just unfeasible for the City to pull off.
Jeeze talk about setting the bar low.

 

[DSCToronto]

What about this site is inferior? If anything, its a MUCH better site for a library. The SLM location was tiny and would have resulted in a mess of a library with all the requirements needed to accommodate residential on site as well. This gives the community a better library, more space, better programming, and brings it closer to a rapidly growing neighbourhood with a high need for services, all while still being close enough to SLM.

I have no problem with putting a larger District Library at Queen & Parliament but if the current St Lawrence branch is closed and not relocated, this means there are ZERO TPL branches south of Queen Street between Yonge and Spadina. The current St Lawrence branch is not in a good location (or in good condition) but a huge number of people will really be TOO FAR from a TPL branch. See https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/hours-locations/

 

[teezapp]

Because in order to support a tower, you require massive structural supports that would need to be built through the existing historical fabric of the building, greatly diminishing that space.

I've done this before and you are right, but you can make try to align new columns with existing columns where possible.

Moreover, residents of any tower over the top need elevators and stairs, in far greater capacity than what exists in the existing building, and to allow for that, you must subtract even more usable space.

Agreed. The property does have some open space at grade (SE corner) which could be built out for lobby space.

That in turn means the library would be much smaller and no longer meet its stated goals, conservatively, you would be cutting the branch size by 1/3, potentially up to 1/2.

The library can be more than 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 storey's tall to make up the space?

Which defeats the entire purpose of putting the library there.

If the City had vision it could build affordable housing on top.

Attempting to do this while preserving as much heritage as possible and anything resembling a functional library would also make the housing considerably more expensive as well.

So now its expensive to preserve heritage?

It would also turn the library either into a tenant, a condo owner, or a landlord, all of which contravene Board policy as they add costs, complexity and lower the ability of the library to deliver quality service at a good value for money.

Not necessarily. The library can be cut out of the condo corp and be freehold. Would need a shared access agreement with the building, however it is structured.

***

The idea of housing on top is what killed the last proposed branch south of St. Lawrence Market, because the Board couldn't reconcile the housing mandate and the library mandate, and that was on vacant site.

I would say lack of effort, not necessarily a building being mixed use.

The Board has had terrible experience being a condo owner in the past (Dawes Road branch) and in rebuilding that location, they have removed the housing that was there.

That branch, aside from being undersized had perpetual issues w/leaks, and failing cladding materials and had to deal w/residents who didn't want to spend enough to fix things properly.

Sounds like poor construction management on the City's part.

Its just not a good idea in general, and a particular bad one on a heritage building site with significant size constraints.

Agreed, but doable if there was effort and competence by the City.

The per floor footprint is also below that typically required for a tall building, and there is already an adjacent proposal, which constrains things, and to the south, the City wants a mid-block pedestrian connection and park.

Maximum floor plate of minimum? The reason we get these terrible bowling alley units is every developer wants the maximum and builds floor plate for the sake of building floor plate. Sure, its not as efficient, but you can build good units on a smaller floor plate.

So it really doesn't make sense here.