Toronto 2 Carlton | 251.1m | 73s | Northam | Arcadis

Sure, but a mockery of what planning 'process'?

You've got a Planning Department that's so blindly steeped in their own anachronistic sense of what's 'right', it's almost impossible not to propose new things that way. The fact that, in 2016, we still have 'maximum' FSIs of 3-6 ON subway stations is absurd. Even the latest 'as of right' zoning on Eglinton (part of the Eglinton Connects Visioning Study) is so hopelessly below what is sensible both in terms of built form, density and real estate value that most things will still have to apply for rezoning. Another example is the as of right zoning in Etobicoke around Royal York and Bloor: 941-2003 encourages 6 storey buildings but imposes a height limit of 18m and maximum densities of 3 FSI. Hopeless.
 
We often comment how unfortunate it is Toronto buyers insist on their 60th-floor hurricane balconies since, from a design standpoint, they are clutter (non-withstanding some recent designs).

The argument ought be that, contrary to perception, balconies hinder views! Unless you are standing on the balcony, from inside the unit the balcony platform blocks your view downward, and the railing blocks your view horizontally. What sort of views do the residents of ICE and U Condos actually have from a sitting position in their unit?
 
ProjectEnd said:
Sure, but a mockery of what planning 'process'?

You've got a Planning Department that's so blindly steeped in their own anachronistic sense of what's 'right', it's almost impossible not to propose new things that way. The fact that, in 2016, we still have 'maximum' FSIs of 3-6 ON subway stations is absurd. Even the latest 'as of right' zoning on Eglinton (part of the Eglinton Connects Visioning Study) is so hopelessly below what is sensible both in terms of built form, density and real estate value that most things will still have to apply for rezoning. Another example is the as of right zoning in Etobicoke around Royal York and Bloor: 941-2003 encourages 6 storey buildings but imposes a height limit of 18m and maximum densities of 3 FSI. Hopeless.
Click to expand...
The Planning Department is pretty much trapped by Council's inaction though on updating the zoning. Blame your local Councillor: if they had the guts to pass new zoning, the department would have a freer hand to shape proposals more constructively. (And then if they still blew it, you could dump the blame in their laps.)

42
 
Last edited:
I agree entirely @interchange42 but my two examples of as of right zoning 'updates' were intended to show that even when it is done, it's still too low or involves caveats (6 storey buildings with 3x FSI) that are mystifying and reveal a lack of understanding about how development and architecture work (eg. a focus on external 'form', at the expense of how buildings actually function internally).
 
Sorry, it wasn't clear to me in your post that you were saying that those location had been recently rezoned. If that's the case, then I wonder if the spot-rezoning is fostering a more timid approach than a more wide-reaching rezoning of the city (which would be hard pressed to prescribe such surgical local changes) might accomplish.

42
 
Lenser said:
I dunno. That podium still reminds me of a busted accordion. Wish they'd just make it a single tower with a bigger footprint and have it sleekly rise straight from the street, rather than perched on a podium.
Click to expand...

While I am typically not the biggest fan of podiums, I do think this site demands one, if scaled appropriately to the building next to it, as the poster below has suggested:

DonValleyRainbow said:
Something else: a 7-storey podium may look awkward next to 14 Carlton. I would like to see more of an effort to match the height and style.
Click to expand...

This.

NorthshoreCity said:
This is essentially a cheap version of Harbour Plaza. Same heights except they stuff 72 stories into 233 meters on an undersized site.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say this is a cheaper version, as I consider these two in the same league (a compliment), but that doesn't mean I like the proposal. Speaking of which, this would have looked great where Harbour Plaza is being built, or somewhere closer to the lake.

buildup said:
We often comment how unfortunate it is Toronto buyers insist on their 60th-floor hurricane balconies since, from a design standpoint, they are clutter (non-withstanding some recent designs).
Click to expand...

I agree. While there are many great-looking buildings with wrap-style balconies like Casa II, Harbour Plaza, and One Bloor, it's a very repetitive design language by nature.
Of course, to many, the idea of a private outdoor space greatly contributes to the livability and enjoyment of a unit. That being said, their functionality is limited, and as a result, many don't often feel like an extension of the suite, also considering how small some units have become. Personally, I would appreciate the extra square footage and the unobstructed views as you have suggested instead- especially if my unit was 500sq ft or less.
 
I like the balcony gimmick in this one, the zigzags look pretty sharp. The podium is a mess though, it doesn't bare any relation to the towers and is a clutter of shapes where the towers have a single clearly defined line.
 
There's nothing approved nearby that comes close to the density proposed here. It's not a developer either. It's another property owner.
 
I admire mid-century architecture, but working at 2 Carlton has really made me appreciate the challenges to retaining this building. It would need a full reclad (many of the windows have duct tape around the edges that have been painted over), all new washrooms (everything is original on most floors that I've visited), a reconfiguration of the lobby somehow (there's a giant pillar right in front of the revolving door for some reason), and I'm sure the above-ground parking garage has its challenges. One of the biggest issues with this building is the entrance -- it's hard to get around all the people waiting for the streetcar on the corner to get into the building and there are several people panhandling against the side of the building every day (I have no problem with panhandlers, but it adds to the bottleneck on the sidewalk). We also had a fire alarm the other day and there is only one narrow stairwell, which didn't seem all that safe.

Without a direct subway-level connection or another entrance to the office space, I can't see the owners investing in renovating this building as it's not the most attractive location and you wouldn't get the same return on investment as mid-century renovation projects like Google's 111 Richmond Street. The current tenants seem to be mainly a mix of government and non-profits who would seek out other cheap space before returning to a renovated 2 Carlton and its higher rents (or return to a new build with office in the podium).
 
canarob said:
Without a direct subway-level connection or another entrance to the office space, I can't see the owners investing in renovating this building as it's not the most attractive location and you wouldn't get the same return on investment as mid-century renovation projects like Google's 111 Richmond Street. The current tenants seem to be mainly a mix of government and non-profits who would seek out other cheap space before returning to a renovated 2 Carlton and its higher rents (or return to a new build with office in the podium).
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the thing: the current building (warts and all) and its current tenancy demonstrate something of Jane Jacobs' why-old-buildings-are-necessary logic....
 
Big Daddy said:
True, the developer likely already has an application in to the OMB. With all the density nearby, it could be difficult for the city to deny it here.
Click to expand...
The developer would have no grounds upon which to launch an appeal yet, as the application has just been submitted and there has been no time for a response from the City yet. They can only appeal if the City goes beyond the 120 review period without a decision, or sooner if the City approves a refusal report before then.

42
 
adma said:
Maybe that's the thing: the current building (warts and all) and its current tenancy demonstrate something of Jane Jacobs' why-old-buildings-are-necessary logic....
Click to expand...
Indeed, canarob might as well have protested "and the colour is just wrong too".

For vastly less investment, and disruption to the area, let alone a message to our disposable society, the present building could me re-made much better. I agree, it's about as fashionable as the Queen's hats. It doesn't follow that making a new, taller hat with frills and thrills is any more attractive. Perhaps the project could be named "Ascot Place" in a tip of the hat to 'hats in the sky'?

Seems to me that there's still empty lots in this city where such largess as these towers can go if they're such an attractive, practical design.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top