Ty for covering this
@HousingNowTO
Thoughts so far: I like the overall scale, though the expression is a tad boxy.
I feel like they somehow need to hide the cantilever, it just looks weird. You could extend the building to grade around the shelter in a non-structural way........(ie. not supporting the tower form)
It really needs a bit more colour. But overall, I like the ambition. I don't see any changes required that would material $$$.
Just some refined stylistic choices.
You should really listen to the DESIGN REVIEW PANEL questions, comments (and votes) on the YouTube above...
The vote of the panel was 6-2 Non-Support.
I was pleased to see broad concurrence with my own take; Ralph Giannone was asking many of the same questions as I about enclosing the station box to bring some coherence to the design; while others were
for just ditching the cantilever by pushing the tower form east so as to keep the station box in the open and lower construction costs.
There was a consensus, I think, that aside from the station box being rather pedestrian, that the relatively narrow spaces around it, between the current entrance and the proposed building would not be pleasant and might be unsafe from a pedestrian perspective; (narrow, out of the sight of the street, non-animated building edges) and that the pedestrian space next to the Allen on-ramp would not be safe without some type of protection (bollards, guardrails, rocks etc.)
Ralph was speaking my language when he suggested just buying the 7 houses to the north of the site so that the entire block could be built out more sensibly, at lower cost, perhaps greater density and with larger public realm benefits.
That thought was concurred with by another member of the panel as well. One comment also highlighted that the podium is simply too visually large and requires breaking up a la Mirvish Village (my example).
Overall, I thought the panel hit the nail on the head.
The P3 process and Mx/Crosstown completely muffed the way the entrances were done, not planning for integrated development. Those working on this proposal made a sincere effort to maximize public gain on a constrained site.
While better may be possible within the existing lands available; the best option, ideally is adding more land to the north to allow for an easier and better laid out build.
*****
This really speaks to my frustration with many of the Housing Now sites and CreateTO/the City's take on how to lay them out.
@HousingNowTO and I have had extensive discussions, in the open here, and privately on the foolish way in which 1631 Queen East was laid out, the failure to expropriate the Harvey's, the failure to integrate a plan for the TCHC property and the Health Clinic and to create something that could have delivered more housing, renewed existing TCHC and been, perhaps, slightly less controversial by re-shaping the plan. We've discussed the challenges, that due to cumbersome TCHC revitalization processes, and the time lags involved in expropriation; but at the end of the day, the proposal designed to move forward more quickly has not, and probably won't, either because of an OLT appeal; or economic non-viability or both.
The City/CreateTO folks need to be tasked clearly with ambitious City Building, given the right tools and processes to achieve same, and not asked to design around bad planning, bad processes and needless timidity.
****
Edit to add: My comments above will very much apply to the Swansea Mews site now up for total redevelopment. If what's proposed leaves too many of the existing SFH in place, the proposal will be less tall and dense than it ought to be and the public benefits in connectivity and parks will be lower too. Ambition, ambition, ambition!
