Toronto 250 University | 155.76m | 47s | Northam | Arcadis

[maestro]

I hope they don't tear this building down and build something cheap! At least keep the facade and build a structure like 88 Scott building on top of it, making this development look clasic. We need to keep the University Ave look rich !

First. Why does every single 8 storey building in our expansive downtown area have to be topped up with, of all things, residential? University Avenue is our attempt at a grand institutional street. Do really desire to have every street undergo condofication? Second. 88 Scott is schlock. Third. The inspiration behind 88 Scott is of a style that would clash badly with 250 University's early modernism.

 

[maestro]

I meant about getting rid of that zoning that keeps SFH residential areas just that.

What was it, 80% of the city of Toronto is undevelopable basically?

Our zoning really isn't that strong. There's nothing to stop multi-family in the SFH areas. A developer even forged ahead building those weird condo houses on single family lots with little success in the Bell Trinity area. If those can get approved than there's openings for plenty of other options.

Before
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/11...73882401109e26f!8m2!3d43.650382!4d-79.4081191

After:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/11...73882401109e26f!8m2!3d43.650382!4d-79.4081191

It's a 2 condo semi on one lot. The density and height greatly exceeds its neighbours too.

https://themash.ca/realestategossip/2015/11/price-drop-b-110-palmerston-avenue.html

 

[innsertnamehere]

Oh trust me, it's plenty strong. There may be a few very rare exceptions, but if it isn't zoning it is some other form of prohibitive measure such as DCs that kill project financial feasibility.

 

[Skeezix]

I agree with the proposition that we need to allow for the "missing middle" - we need to loosen the performance standards in the R zone, and more importantly open up the permitted uses and performance standards in the RD zone (where the relatively larger lots would really lend themselves to nice, compatible multi-unit developments).

But, despite that need, I think this whole #yellowbelt bandwagon is overdone. Every time we see an awful tower proposal (like this one, or 8 Elm comes to mind), some people start squawking yellowbelt, yellowbelt, yellowbelt. Zoning reform in the R and RD zones isn't going to replace the need for higher density projects, nor should it. Nobody is ever going to bulldoze lower density neighbourhoods. And the yellowbelt is not going to produce the kind of housing we need at the rate we need it. And watching parts of the laneway housing debate today at TEYCC simply reinforces my belief that more meaningful yellowbelt zoning reform is absolutely going to advance incrementally (if at all).

As a city, we can't even develop midrise (different than the missing middle) along our Avenues and flankage sites. We don't even designate many of our thoroughfares as Avenues because of local politics. And then we adopt community guidelines/zoning rules in naked attempts to make midrise development on our main streets even less likely - good politics always trumps good planning. We can't even get realistic zoning on higher-order transit routes, as the City pushes through garbage like Eglinton Connects with the whole purpose of surpressing meaningful intensification. We are planning to build a subway on a stretch of Pape bordered on both sides mainly by houses, and we can't even designate that whole stretch as an Avenue, let alone intensify development even on that one street (which is unsually wide in that stretch, given the old Harbord streetcar route).

I was never a huge fan of Jennifer Keesmaat, in part because I was so sick of her posting vacation photos on social media, saying stuff like "Look at this wonderful, human-scale midrise development in Barcelona", when her own Planning department would never in a million years allow any buildings in the photo to ever be built on an Avenue in Toronto. Jen loved her nice photos, but she was the first to pull out the pitchfork and torch when a developer proposed anything like that in Toronto.

If we want meaningful intensification sooner than later in this city, prezone the Avenues with realistic performance standards for midrise that developers can actually work with, designate all thoroughfares (major and minor) as Avenues, allow for intensification/transition on flankage sites, stop using heritage conservation districts as a blatant attempt to stiffle development on main streets. We are already supposed to be doing this, according to the Official Plan - it's time for Council and the Planning department to actually put 10+ years of talk into concrete measures.

We're never going to get meaningful yellowbelt reform when residents and politicians don't even have realistic expectations of what is going to happen on and near the main drag down the street. Work on the Avenues - it will be far more productive than tilting at yellowbelt windmills. And it will help with the yellowbelt. That's why I think laneway housing is so important - some people scoff at the expected 100-300 units/year, but I hope (and maybe I am naive here) that it gets people used to different housing forms and tenures on the same street.

This tower proposal, based on what we know, sounds grim. But "yellowbelt" is a lousy reason to be dismissive of 50-storey proposals. It ain't the replacement some people make it out to be.

 

[Northern Light]

I agree with the proposition that we need to allow for the "missing middle" - we need to loosen the performance standards in the R zone, and more importantly open up the permitted uses and performance standards in the RD zone (where the relatively larger lots would really lend themselves to nice, compatible multi-unit developments).

But, despite that need, I think this whole #yellowbelt bandwagon is overdone. Every time we see an awful tower proposal (like this one, or 8 Elm comes to mind), some people start squawking yellowbelt, yellowbelt, yellowbelt. Zoning reform in the R and RD zones isn't going to replace the need for higher density projects, nor should it. Nobody is ever going to bulldoze lower density neighbourhoods. And the yellowbelt is not going to produce the kind of housing we need at the rate we need it. And watching parts of the laneway housing debate today at TEYCC simply reinforces my belief that more meaningful yellowbelt zoning reform is absolutely going to advance incrementally (if at all).

As a city, we can't even develop midrise (different than the missing middle) along our Avenues and flankage sites. We don't even designate many of our thoroughfares as Avenues because of local politics. And then we adopt community guidelines/zoning rules in naked attempts to make midrise development on our main streets even less likely - good politics always trumps good planning. We can't even get realistic zoning on higher-order transit routes, as the City pushes through garbage like Eglinton Connects with the whole purpose of surpressing meaningful intensification. We are planning to build a subway on a stretch of Pape bordered on both sides mainly by houses, and we can't even designate that whole stretch as an Avenue, let alone intensify development even on that one street (which is unsually wide in that stretch, given the old Harbord streetcar route).

I was never a huge fan of Jennifer Keesmaat, in part because I was so sick of her posting vacation photos on social media, saying stuff like "Look at this wonderful, human-scale midrise development in Barcelona", when her own Planning department would never in a million years allow any buildings in the photo to ever be built on an Avenue in Toronto. Jen loved her nice photos, but she was the first to pull out the pitchfork and torch when a developer proposed anything like that in Toronto.

If we want meaningful intensification sooner than later in this city, prezone the Avenues with realistic performance standards for midrise that developers can actually work with, designate all thoroughfares (major and minor) as Avenues, allow for intensification/transition on flankage sites, stop using heritage conservation districts as a blatant attempt to stiffle development on main streets. We are already supposed to be doing this, according to the Official Plan - it's time for Council and the Planning department to actually put 10+ years of talk into concrete measures.

We're never going to get meaningful yellowbelt reform when residents and politicians don't even have realistic expectations of what is going to happen on and near the main drag down the street. Work on the Avenues - it will be far more productive than tilting at yellowbelt windmills. And it will help with the yellowbelt. That's why I think laneway housing is so important - some people scoff at the expected 100-300 units/year, but I hope (and maybe I am naive here) that it gets people used to different housing forms and tenures on the same street.

This tower proposal, based on what we know, sounds grim. But "yellowbelt" is a lousy reason to be dismissive of 50-storey proposals. It ain't the replacement some people make it out to be.

But tell us what you really think, Skeezix!

 

[Northern Light]

PS (in reference to Skeezix post above)

I'm in full agreement on roads like Pape, or Dufferin south of Bloor, where not only is the density absurdly low, but the housing stock is somewhere between forgettable, and apologies to the owners, outright ugly.

I would add that street like Eglinton, east of of VP have abundant room for new density, as do portion of other major east-west arteries in Scarborough, amongst other spots.

I do, however, feel its important to say, there are sections of wonderful character buildings on Queen East and West or King which have already been molested, and which I would prefer to see left mostly alone.

Part of that is the refusal of the development community writ large to step up and build attractive storefront retail, with a nice podium/streetwall that is respectful of the character surrounding it, creates a nice walkable, shoppable ambiance, and the propensity of others for no shame in tearing down some of this City's best, while the adjacent moribund strip plaza is left untouched.

I'm fully aware of why these things sometimes occur, I'm simply of the opinion they shouldn't be allowed to happen.

 

[Skeezix]

But tell us what you really think, Skeezix!

Ha ha. Sorry for the rant. And I don't really want to debate the point at all. But #yellowbelt (while correct) is not a panacea, it won't save us from applications like this, and it's not even the best way to achieve more density in good neighbourhoods.

 

[Northern Light]

Ha ha. Sorry for the rant. And I don't really want to debate the point at all. But #yellowbelt (while correct) is not a panacea, it won't save us from applications like this, and it's not even the best way to achieve more density in good neighbourhoods.

Don't be sorry.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, and thought you made some excellent points.

 

[Skeezix]

I do, however, feel its important to say, there are sections of wonderful character buildings on Queen East and West or King which have already been molested, and which I would prefer to see left mostly alone.

Agreed. But as a City, we are also making the crappy stucco buildings on those same stretches of street parts of heritage conservation districts too.

 

[Northern Light]

Agreed. But as a City, we are also making the crappy stucco buildings on those same stretches of street parts of heritage conservation districts too.

You're making me work, ya know.

I'm on the Heritage Conservation Districts web page for the City.

It would seem to imply that the crappy properties aren't protected.

I'm reading the HCD for King-Spadina.

As noted in the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value,
the District's primary period
of significance is the 1880s-1940s. If a building was
constructed within this date range
it was then examined individually to determine if it
supported one or more of the District's cultural heritage values and
therefore warranted inclusion as a contributing property.
Properties that fell outside of the periods of
significance or properties whose integrity was
substantially compromised were classified as
non-contributing.

In reference to the treatment of non-contributing properties:

Unlike contributing properties, non-
contributing properties do not support
the District's cultural heritage value. Buildings on non-
contributing properties may be demolished.....

The HCD Plan requires that new development, additions and alterations to non-
contributing properties be complementary to the District's cultural heritage value
and adjacent contributing properties.

For more info:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-105147.pdf

 

[maestro]

Oh trust me, it's plenty strong. There may be a few very rare exceptions, but if it isn't zoning it is some other form of prohibitive measure such as DCs that kill project financial feasibility.

Perhaps. I've built in the US and I've built here. Comparably, it is weak. Financial feasibility is also hampered by a market where a tear down will elicit a bidding war and sell for a value that makes developing a Mcmansion the only recourse.

 

[Skeezix]

You're making me work, ya know.

I'm on the Heritage Conservation Districts web page for the City.

It would seem to imply that the crappy properties aren't protected.

I'm reading the HCD for King-Spadina.

As noted in the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value,
the District's primary period
of significance is the 1880s-1940s. If a building was
constructed within this date range
it was then examined individually to determine if it
supported one or more of the District's cultural heritage values and
therefore warranted inclusion as a contributing property.
Properties that fell outside of the periods of
significance or properties whose integrity was
substantially compromised were classified as
non-contributing.

In reference to the treatment of non-contributing properties:

Unlike contributing properties, non-
contributing properties do not support
the District's cultural heritage value. Buildings on non-
contributing properties may be demolished.....

The HCD Plan requires that new development, additions and alterations to non-
contributing properties be complementary to the District's cultural heritage value
and adjacent contributing properties.

For more info:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-105147.pdf

Don't get me started. Most of the recent HCDs impose constraints whether a property is contributing or non-contributing, such as angular planes and setbacks to match neighbouring properties, effectively rendering non-contributing properties difficult, if not impossible, to redevelop in a realistic way. So the crappy stucco buildings are saved. The HCDs, are all about controlling development. That, not heritage protection, is the major objective.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Depends a lot on which HCD you are talking about. the St Lawrence and especially Queen West HCD's are notorious for killing development. There are a lot of them too however that aren't very constrictive. They are far from automatic development killers.

 

[Skeezix]

Depends a lot on which HCD you are talking about. the St Lawrence and especially Queen West HCD's are notorious for killing development. There are a lot of them too however that aren't very constrictive. They are far from automatic development killers.

I'm not referring to the older ones, which were actually done with heritage conservation in mind.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not referring to the older ones, which were actually done with heritage conservation in mind.

So then the problem isn't HCDs per se; but some HCDs, the motivations for same and the details within same.

How about we avoid baby and bathwater syndrome and fix the problematic ones rather than banishing HCDs writ large.