AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
None of the renderings posted so far shows how the tower will "interface" with the heritage rowhouses on Yonge. I think there needs to be more clarity in that area.
AoD
AoD
Toronto 1 Yorkville | 183.18m | 58s | Bazis | Rosario Varacalli
- Thread starter cruzin4u
- Start date
That is still being worked on. The second to last front page article mentions that.
42
42
MileHigh
Active Member
I like this building... height and all. At least it's a box with some character.
ushahid
Senior Member
urbandreamer
recession proof
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Report from the Nov 14 DRP Meeting Minutes:
Introduction
City staff outlined the area context, history and area policy priorities and sought Panel's advice on the design of the following:
1. Please comment on the design "partii" of the overall project, including its massing and intricate cladding system as it relates to this important site at Yonge and Yorkville.
2. Please comment on how the tall building is integrated with the heritage context along Yonge Street.
3. Please comment on the ground plan and how the proposed development integrates with the existing and emerging public realm for Yorkville east of Bay Street.
The applicant team described the design rationale and responded to questions from the Panel.
Chairs Summary of Key Points
Panel commends the City team for their thorough portrayal of the future context of the Yorkville neighbourhood, providing a clear picture of how the proposed project contributes to that context. The proposed design is admired for its simplicity and focused intent, but work is needed to fully meet the Tall Building Guidelines:
-Further develop the design to achieve a better fit within the neighbourhood including reduction of shadow on adjacent open spaces and improvement to public realm along the laneway.
-Further develop the design of the built form to fully resolve the big idea including attention to tower pattern resolution and podium height to improve relationship with tower and surrounding context.
Related Commentary
Please comment on the design "partii" of the overall project, including its massing and intricate cladding system as it relates to this important site at Yonge and Yorkville
On the whole Panel was supportive of the design partii, expressing particular appreciation for the alternative building expression, with the proposal being one of the first tall buildings at Design Review without prominent glazing. Panel was also supportive of the approach taken to building composition. However, Members were conscious that the proposal was only at the stage of rezoning, that the proposal would have significant impacts upon the public realm, and that much further design development was warranted. More detailed comments relating to the design partii are as follows:
Building Form and Articulation
Panel was generally comfortable with the variation from the typical base-middle-top tall building composition, and suggested that this approach could work on this site both at street level and at the building top. Comments in the regard were as follows:
– The simplicity of architectural solution is appreciated
– The contrast and the tower shaft repetitiveness works well
РThe fa̤ade is visually intriguing/refreshing/potentially attractive/very interesting
– It could set an interesting new standard for residential development
However, Panel also felt that the proposal would be improved by conforming to the Tall Building Guidelines requirements relating to floor plate size and setback requirements, particularly to the north
– One Member suggested that the consideration of additional height might be a suitable tradeoff if it was to help resolve these issues, including their impact on the public realm (also see comments in Shadows, below)
One Member felt that the proposal might benefit from a more typical composition, by achieving better integration at the base and through a more defined and creative building top.
Cladding Material and Arrangement
The applicant described the cladding as a system of structural ornamentation, made of a metal material that was yet to be determined, but possibly titanium.
Panel was strongly supportive of the use of a prominent cladding system as a primary means of expressing the building (as opposed to balconies, for example), and providing it a sculptural form.
– One Member described this as a noble architectural effort.
Members noted that the material colour and detail would need to be exquisite for the effect to work successfully. Some commented that the building expression might also work as precastrather than metal.
Members noted that considerable development is still required to functionally merge the prooposed cladding system with the building floor plans and unit layout. As an example, it was noted that the typical floor plan shows two fins obscuring a recessed balcony.
Panel expressed an interest in seeing more detail of the proposed cladding system in the future. Shadow Study and Shadow Impact
Panel raised concerns both with the shadow study and the shadow impact of the proposal:
– They felt the study was misleading, in that not all publically accessible open spaces were
high-lighted
o E.g. the two open spaces on Yorkville immediately north-east of the proposal appear to be significantly impacted by shadowing of this proposal
– Given that the proposal will cast new shadows on these public spaces during the time of prime usage, Panel felt it was difficult to support in its current form
Subsequently, Members expressed a desire to see a comprehensive commitment to sunlight protection on these open spaces (one the conditions for support within the vote was a reduction in tower floor plate size)
Sustainability
In addition to exhibiting architectural creativity and innovation, Members noted that the tower expression Рwith less glazing than many contemporary tall buildings - also contained an important sustainable design element. The applicant was encouraged to take this aspect much further, including through the differentiation of each fa̤ade to orientation.
Please comment on how the tall building is integrated with the heritage context along Yonge Street
Panel was appreciative of the unique heritage context. They noted that the subject properties were part of a complete block-long row of traditional buildings along Yonge Street, and make anmportant contribution to the character of Yorkville. For this reason, some Members expressed a preference to see more substantial portion of the heritage properties retained as objects.
– Specific mention was made of the 4-story corner building in this regard
РSimilarly, some reservation was expressed about the product of fa̤ade retention, with the
example of BCE Place given to illustrate this
Specific to the proposal itself, Panel felt that more work was required to make a successful/ respectful blending of tower shaft with the heritage base. Comments in this regard were as follows:
– The tower looks to be crashing into it
– Pursue a more neutral integration
– The return of heritage building looks unfinished
– The Yorkville elevation requires significant attention
- The tower should have a greater step-back from the heritage properties
At a more granular level, Members encouraged a continuation of the fine grained/small scale retail activity at-grade that is a typical characteristic of Yonge Street.
Please comment on the ground plan and how the proposed development integrates with the existing and emerging public realm for Yorkville east of Bay Street.
Laneway
Members were fully supportive of the plan to pedestrianize the laneway as a means of expanding the Yorkville mews "brand" and as a way of creating more pedestrian-scaled spaces. They encouraged the applicant to continue refining this aspect of the proposal, increasing the quality and safety of the pedestrian environment as follows:
- Animate the laneway through programming and activities within the base
- Think about how the proposed retail at the north west corner could help with laneway animation
o E.g. a cafe
- Also think about how the space could be animated at night
o E.g. Catenary lighting strung over the area
One Member commented that many of the open spaces in Yorkville are beautifully designed, but questioned how functional they are for everyday use (how do people use them?). This Member encouraged the applicant to develop a more playful and inventive character to the laneway.
Tree Planting
Members expressed a preference to see trees planted in the ground, rather than in planters
http://www1.toronto.ca/staticfiles/...n Design/Files/pdf/DRP/DRP Minutes Nov 14.pdf (p. 11-13).
AoD
Introduction
City staff outlined the area context, history and area policy priorities and sought Panel's advice on the design of the following:
1. Please comment on the design "partii" of the overall project, including its massing and intricate cladding system as it relates to this important site at Yonge and Yorkville.
2. Please comment on how the tall building is integrated with the heritage context along Yonge Street.
3. Please comment on the ground plan and how the proposed development integrates with the existing and emerging public realm for Yorkville east of Bay Street.
The applicant team described the design rationale and responded to questions from the Panel.
Chairs Summary of Key Points
Panel commends the City team for their thorough portrayal of the future context of the Yorkville neighbourhood, providing a clear picture of how the proposed project contributes to that context. The proposed design is admired for its simplicity and focused intent, but work is needed to fully meet the Tall Building Guidelines:
-Further develop the design to achieve a better fit within the neighbourhood including reduction of shadow on adjacent open spaces and improvement to public realm along the laneway.
-Further develop the design of the built form to fully resolve the big idea including attention to tower pattern resolution and podium height to improve relationship with tower and surrounding context.
Related Commentary
Please comment on the design "partii" of the overall project, including its massing and intricate cladding system as it relates to this important site at Yonge and Yorkville
On the whole Panel was supportive of the design partii, expressing particular appreciation for the alternative building expression, with the proposal being one of the first tall buildings at Design Review without prominent glazing. Panel was also supportive of the approach taken to building composition. However, Members were conscious that the proposal was only at the stage of rezoning, that the proposal would have significant impacts upon the public realm, and that much further design development was warranted. More detailed comments relating to the design partii are as follows:
Building Form and Articulation
Panel was generally comfortable with the variation from the typical base-middle-top tall building composition, and suggested that this approach could work on this site both at street level and at the building top. Comments in the regard were as follows:
– The simplicity of architectural solution is appreciated
– The contrast and the tower shaft repetitiveness works well
РThe fa̤ade is visually intriguing/refreshing/potentially attractive/very interesting
– It could set an interesting new standard for residential development
However, Panel also felt that the proposal would be improved by conforming to the Tall Building Guidelines requirements relating to floor plate size and setback requirements, particularly to the north
– One Member suggested that the consideration of additional height might be a suitable tradeoff if it was to help resolve these issues, including their impact on the public realm (also see comments in Shadows, below)
One Member felt that the proposal might benefit from a more typical composition, by achieving better integration at the base and through a more defined and creative building top.
Cladding Material and Arrangement
The applicant described the cladding as a system of structural ornamentation, made of a metal material that was yet to be determined, but possibly titanium.
Panel was strongly supportive of the use of a prominent cladding system as a primary means of expressing the building (as opposed to balconies, for example), and providing it a sculptural form.
– One Member described this as a noble architectural effort.
Members noted that the material colour and detail would need to be exquisite for the effect to work successfully. Some commented that the building expression might also work as precastrather than metal.
Members noted that considerable development is still required to functionally merge the prooposed cladding system with the building floor plans and unit layout. As an example, it was noted that the typical floor plan shows two fins obscuring a recessed balcony.
Panel expressed an interest in seeing more detail of the proposed cladding system in the future. Shadow Study and Shadow Impact
Panel raised concerns both with the shadow study and the shadow impact of the proposal:
– They felt the study was misleading, in that not all publically accessible open spaces were
high-lighted
o E.g. the two open spaces on Yorkville immediately north-east of the proposal appear to be significantly impacted by shadowing of this proposal
– Given that the proposal will cast new shadows on these public spaces during the time of prime usage, Panel felt it was difficult to support in its current form
Subsequently, Members expressed a desire to see a comprehensive commitment to sunlight protection on these open spaces (one the conditions for support within the vote was a reduction in tower floor plate size)
Sustainability
In addition to exhibiting architectural creativity and innovation, Members noted that the tower expression Рwith less glazing than many contemporary tall buildings - also contained an important sustainable design element. The applicant was encouraged to take this aspect much further, including through the differentiation of each fa̤ade to orientation.
Please comment on how the tall building is integrated with the heritage context along Yonge Street
Panel was appreciative of the unique heritage context. They noted that the subject properties were part of a complete block-long row of traditional buildings along Yonge Street, and make anmportant contribution to the character of Yorkville. For this reason, some Members expressed a preference to see more substantial portion of the heritage properties retained as objects.
– Specific mention was made of the 4-story corner building in this regard
РSimilarly, some reservation was expressed about the product of fa̤ade retention, with the
example of BCE Place given to illustrate this
Specific to the proposal itself, Panel felt that more work was required to make a successful/ respectful blending of tower shaft with the heritage base. Comments in this regard were as follows:
– The tower looks to be crashing into it
– Pursue a more neutral integration
– The return of heritage building looks unfinished
– The Yorkville elevation requires significant attention
- The tower should have a greater step-back from the heritage properties
At a more granular level, Members encouraged a continuation of the fine grained/small scale retail activity at-grade that is a typical characteristic of Yonge Street.
Please comment on the ground plan and how the proposed development integrates with the existing and emerging public realm for Yorkville east of Bay Street.
Laneway
Members were fully supportive of the plan to pedestrianize the laneway as a means of expanding the Yorkville mews "brand" and as a way of creating more pedestrian-scaled spaces. They encouraged the applicant to continue refining this aspect of the proposal, increasing the quality and safety of the pedestrian environment as follows:
- Animate the laneway through programming and activities within the base
- Think about how the proposed retail at the north west corner could help with laneway animation
o E.g. a cafe
- Also think about how the space could be animated at night
o E.g. Catenary lighting strung over the area
One Member commented that many of the open spaces in Yorkville are beautifully designed, but questioned how functional they are for everyday use (how do people use them?). This Member encouraged the applicant to develop a more playful and inventive character to the laneway.
Tree Planting
Members expressed a preference to see trees planted in the ground, rather than in planters
http://www1.toronto.ca/staticfiles/...n Design/Files/pdf/DRP/DRP Minutes Nov 14.pdf (p. 11-13).
AoD
urbandreamer
recession proof
So the panel basically agrees that NimbyTect's ideas rock? Thx 
SP!RE
°°°°°°
It's so sad to me that this even has to be mentioned. Every building should be designed taking the various exposures to sunlight into consideration and treat each elevation accordingly. This is a major part of the schematic design process. Instead of just slapping some 'cool pattern' on the facade, the style of this building and its approach to cladding could easily have responded to sunlight by varying the angles of the cladding and the degree of relief on the facade.
So the panel basically agrees that NimbyTect's ideas rock? Thx
No.
Last edited:
Mongo
Senior Member
So one likely change would be smaller floor plates, in exchange for allowing a taller tower? I would be on-board with that!
ushahid
Senior Member
so will they redesign the building.
Conrad Black
Senior Member
Not really. Just tweak the existing idea to make it taller and thinner assuming the developer can go taller/thinner in the first place.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The DRP recommendation is refine, not redesign.
AoD
AoD
whatever
Senior Member
Wow, I didn't realize this was such a slab. A thin slab, but a slab nonetheless. I'd be ok with them going taller if they could shorten the long side a fair bit.
fedplanner
Active Member
I'm thinking the same regarding the length. I dislike the south facing balconies. This is an interesting proposal, but the balconies look plain.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The perspective of the rendering is way off - accentuated the horizontal in a very unrealistic way. I would wait for something a bit more accurate before evaluating.
AoD
AoD