Toronto 191 Dundas West | 149.55m | 41s | ICC Group | Scott Shields

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
35,927
Reaction score
104,995
Location
Toronto/EY
New to the AIC is this application to redevelop some of the low-slung retail fronting the south side of Dundas Street West, running east of Centre Street, along with a small surface parking lot in behind same.

The proposal is a peculiar one in that it's mixed-use office and residential on a site with no significant existing office, and with a floor plate that is very small for office especially, but even residential, with most floors set to have 4 units.

It makes me wonder if this is a value-exercise, however, they have gone and had docs done for both Zoning and SPA; though didn't splurge on renders, as you'll see.

First, the site as is:

1667660979375.png


1667661019930.png


Now the App:

1667661097034.png


From the Docs: (and yes, the one image below is the one and only thing to pass for a render in the app)

1667661238366.png



Site Plan:

1667661204048.png


Ground Floor Layout:

1667661478106.png



1667661589951.png


Landscape Plan: 2 trees are proposed for the Centre frontage with adequate soil volumes and soil cells. However, no trees are proposed on the Dundas frontage.

@ProjectEnd might know whatever happened to the old Official Plan policy for a wide sidewalk on the south side Dundas all the way to the Art Gallery. That's the policy that brought us the 52 division street-front parking lot and the wide sidewalks adjacent to the Eaton Centre; but it's a policy that has not been followed with more recent developments at Bay/Dundas and the northward extension of the Grange.

The proposal here envisions additional space for pedestrian movement by way of an overhang, which people here will know I lack enthusiasm for; and which doesn't allow for trees underneath. The existing sidewalk is simply too narrow for trees w/o widening.

***

To me the ground floor layout is goofy. It makes a compelling case for nixing any parking here, above and beyond the obvious, good policy reasons for same. The high voltage room should also go down one level, and the loading seems utterly excessive to my eye for this proposal.

A bit more retail with a more functional layout could be achieved with a better ground-floor plan.

I don't see a compelling reason, on the face of it, why this shouldn't get approval; the obvious issue (potentially) is the City Hall view corridor, which the applicant seems to have addressed suggesting the impact here is fairly peripheral (see below).

1667662317693.png

1667662369274.png


Hopefully, to the extent this is a serious proposal, some sensible refinements can be made; on the subject of architectural expression, one has precious little to discuss from the above.
 
JasonParis said:
This has become quite a restaurant row in recent years. I truly wish we could figure out a way that developments don't necessarily kill vibrancy.
Click to expand...

You know, I really don't think it's all that hard to sustain vibrancy; it's a choice that developers make and architects make to build the way they do. Some planning policies do aggravate the situation (Planning nominally likes 'weather protection' for pedestrians which often appears as overhang, though from the developer's perspective that's really all about more sellable/leasable space over what should be publicly owned sidewalk.)

Beyond that, we know what works, there are vibrant neighbourhoods with vital retail all over the place in Toronto. Be it Front Street near Church, King West, Queen West, Roncy, Yorkville or Greektown.

They make clear what's needed:

Architecturally:

The illusion of human-scale. Towers are fine, but must be set back and streetwalls should generally not exceed 3-4 floors, though exceptions can be made at prominent intersections or on wider roads.

Make the podium feel warm. It doesn't have to be brick, but what it almost never can be is glass/spandrel, metallic or precast. Though the latter can actually be redeemed a bit when done well, by using bright colours, rather than the usual beige and grey tones.

Give the buildings character. A cornice/roofline, some detail around/over/between the windows, and old-school signage band (no light box signs at all, ever).

Storefronts, by and large must be narrow and deep, rather than shallow and wide. Shallow/wide creates too much glazing visually which is problematic any which way, but moreso when it will invariably be covered in window film, because retailers can't afford to have that much dead space, they need storage, shelving, cash stations, office and possibly work spaces as well. Some retailers can support greater width, but that tends to be restos, or those with minimal back-of-house needs. Even then, where's the loading area? Where are the washrooms? etc etc. Except for purpose-built, retail needs to be narrow and deep.

We need room, if possible, for patios and exterior displays (the fruit markets of Chinatown, the flowers of Avenue Road by Davenport, the displays for books outside Book City), sidewalk width must be appropriate, well thought out, but not excessive.

We need good quality streetscaping. This we are improving on, but again, here we see a vision of Dundas with no trees, no flowers, no pedestrian luminaires and no seating. That's not a stroll, it's a thoroughfare, it's not a 'walk to', it's a 'walk through'.

No overhangs, no weather protection, architectural quality and variation. Not that hard.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the last twenty years has seen a resurgence of this part of Dundas; the Eaton Centre extension/Ryerson Business School and even the One/Two City Hall condos have spurred it. I like to think of it as the revenge of the Old Ward, as most businesses are East Asian restaurants or food/service retail that generally cater to a younger crowd than Chinatown to the west.

This proposal takes out a huge chunk of it, and the two token retail spaces are too tiny to accommodate anything other than a take out cafe. That’s my biggest problem with this.
 
Northern Light said:
Storefronts, by and large must be narrow and deep, rather than shallow and wide. Shallow/wide creates too much glazing visually which is problematic any which way, but moreso when it will invariably be covered in window film, because retailers can't afford to have that much dead space, they need storage, shelving, cash stations, office and possibly work spaces as well. Some retailers can support greater width, but that tends to be restos, or those with minimal back-of-house needs. Even then, where's the loading area? Where are the washrooms? etc etc. Except for purpose-built, retail needs to be narrow and deep.
Click to expand...
I'm just leaving the bit above to address: narrow and deep retail is anything but easy in redevelopments. Sizeable retail spaces are key to retaining vibrancy, but all of the new space above requires program at ground level: lobbies that didn't exist before, service spaces that were not required. Some of that can go underground, but not without considerable expense when it comes to service/loading spaces, and in smaller sites like this one there may be no practical way of moving that program below ground.

It's possible that some retail/restaurant space could be moved a floor higher (people are willing to go up a level for a good restaurant for example), but developers don't seem to be particularly serious about providing such spaces in most developments. More attention has to be paid architecturally to presenting an exterior that will attract people up a level, for example, and few developments show anything particularly beguiling on second floors these days.

Anyway, if it were easy to maintain vibrant street retail when these Victorians get replaced by soaring condos, etc., then we would be doing it. It is not remotely easy.

42
 
interchange42 said:
I'm just leaving the bit above to address: narrow and deep retail is anything but easy in redevelopments. Sizeable retail spaces are key to retaining vibrancy, but all of the new space above requires program at ground level: lobbies that didn't exist before, service spaces that were not required. Some of that can go underground, but not without considerable expense when it comes to service/loading spaces, and in smaller sites like this one there may be no practical way of moving that program below ground.

It's possible that some retail/restaurant space could be moved a floor higher (people are willing to go up a level for a good restaurant for example), but developers don't seem to be particularly serious about providing such spaces in most developments. More attention has to be paid architecturally to presenting an exterior that will attract people up a level, for example, and few developments show anything particularly beguiling on second floors these days.

Anyway, if it were easy to maintain vibrant street retail when these Victorians get replaced by soaring condos, etc., then we would be doing it. It is not remotely easy.

42
Click to expand...

Perhaps easy isn't the right word, but it is utterly achievable. I've seen it done, several times.

There are a plethora of options, of which you've shared a few.

Other options would include:

1) Eliminating parking and downsizing loading so that these occupy a smaller footprint at grade (no ramp, and loading with reduced depth captures more usable space.)

* loading is complicated by the City's insistence on most new developments being able to accommodate their super-sized garbage trucks or forcing private-hauling on developers; that nonsense needs stifling. I have regularly heard extreme frustration by transportation and planning consultants and City Planners frustrated by this policy.

2) Moving retail storage and work space down to what would typically be P1. Assuming loading remains at-grade this obviously requires sufficient freight elevator capacity for any goods movement required.

3) You can simply out law the use of the window film; but since that will impair space utilization, you now need larger units with a lower per ft2 price to maintain viability.

4) This particular building by attempting mixed use in a very strange way (not many companies will want the small footprint................) is forcing the need for a separate commercial lobby.

5) Lobbies themselves can move to one above or 1 below just like stores can. Obviously, there's an elevator core to contend with either way, and if lobby space is not at-grade, at least one elevator must connect a grade-level entry to the remaining lobby.

It's not difficult to envision how to organize layouts for optimal performance; its difficult to challenge convention, government policy, architectural laziness, and pro-formas on retail etc etc.

When the industry and government use the wrong metrics, it makes life far more difficult.
 
Northern Light said:
Perhaps easy isn't the right word, but it is utterly achievable. I've seen it done, several times.

There are a plethora of options, of which you've shared a few.

Other options would include:

1) Eliminating parking and downsizing loading so that these occupy a smaller footprint at grade (no ramp, and loading with reduced depth captures more usable space.)

* loading is complicated by the City's insistence on most new developments being able to accommodate their super-sized garbage trucks or forcing private-hauling on developers; that nonsense needs stifling. I have regularly heard extreme frustration by transportation and planning consultants and City Planners frustrated by this policy.

2) Moving retail storage and work space down to what would typically be P1. Assuming loading remains at-grade this obviously requires sufficient freight elevator capacity for any goods movement required.

3) You can simply out law the use of the window film; but since that will impair space utilization, you now need larger units with a lower per ft2 price to maintain viability.

4) This particular building by attempting mixed use in a very strange way (not many companies will want the small footprint................) is forcing the need for a separate commercial lobby.

5) Lobbies themselves can move to one above or 1 below just like stores can. Obviously, there's an elevator core to contend with either way, and if lobby space is not at-grade, at least one elevator must connect a grade-level entry to the remaining lobby.

It's not difficult to envision how to organize layouts for optimal performance; its difficult to challenge convention, government policy, architectural laziness, and pro-formas on retail etc etc.

When the industry and government use the wrong metrics, it makes life far more difficult.
Click to expand...
Ok, so in this particular instance, how are we achieving the objectives stated above?

1667661478106-png.437214
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top