28 River Street | 65.76m | 18s | Liberty Development | BDP Quadrangle

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,325
Reaction score
51,909
Location
Toronto/EY
Can't really get myself to liking this design.

Why even try?

It's a complete clunker.

It manages to be both disrespectful to the heritage and context while offering only dull and devoid of design in the alternative.

This heritage is far from the finest we have; but if we're going to preserve it here, then it can't just be a facadectomy that overwhelms the original.

That would be true if the design were good (for the new); which this, most certainly is not.

The massing is wrong, the design is wrong, the material palette is wrong.

No need to go further, the idea is junk.
 

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
825
Reaction score
2,092
Location
Toronto, ON
this should be a slender point tower
Honestly, the Queen & River corner should be something closer to the massing of the rental building at 90 River Street - but I know that is a "bridge too far" for City planning --- and this project has been dragged-out long-enough as is...

...at this point, whatever can get thru the City Planning gauntlet - and actually get built this decade is fine.

 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,325
Reaction score
51,909
Location
Toronto/EY
...at this point, whatever can get thru the City Planning gauntlet - and actually get built this decade is fine.

I can't disagree with this strongly enough.

While we can't hold out for perfection on every site, that would be absurd; neither should we except mediocre pap based on the idea that any development is good development.
 

everydayhim

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
188
Reaction score
847
Honestly, the Queen & River corner should be something closer to the massing of the rental building at 90 River Street - but I know that is a "bridge too far" for City planning --- and this project has been dragged-out long-enough as is...

...at this point, whatever can get thru the City Planning gauntlet - and actually get built this decade is fine.

yea thats a pretty bad take. "build it fast because there's a housing crisis" doesn't fully overrule the need to carefully craft and thoughtfully consider a city's built realm
 

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
825
Reaction score
2,092
Location
Toronto, ON
yea thats a pretty bad take. "build it fast because there's a housing crisis" doesn't fully overrule the need to carefully craft and thoughtfully consider a city's built realm
...we just disagree on "the need to carefully craft and thoughtfully consider a city's built realm" - and exactly who's 'careful crafting and thoughtful considerations' should be given priority as 3rd-party participants...

The longer that I watch the "sausage-making" process in Toronto City Hall / City Planning -- the more that I am attracted to ideas like this...

 

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
450
Reaction score
898
...we just disagree on "the need to carefully craft and thoughtfully consider a city's built realm" - and exactly who's 'careful crafting and thoughtful considerations' should be given priority as 3rd-party participants...

The longer that I watch the "sausage-making" process in Toronto City Hall / City Planning -- the more that I am attracted to ideas like this...

Ineffective and delayed design review isn't a reason to cancel design review. We should improve it, make its design policies mandatory instead of advisory, and eliminate delays in the approvals stage.
As an example, in those parts of the waterfront that have in-force design policies (many areas were cut out because of the LPAT) the Design Review Panel has been generally effective in progressively achieving better quality and taste in design.

We have seen many times what happens when there is a housing crisis, such as in the Soviet Union.
We make the mistake of building soulless architecture and unlivable environments when that isn't even the reason why we're in a housing crisis.

One of the biggest reasons we're in this mess, from a planning perspective, is because we mostly restrict development in the Greenbelt but aren't adding enough in our existing settlements. The best solution from an affordability, urban design, constructability, and general common sense point of view is to build low rise (3 to 6 storeys) and mid rise developments (7 to 12 storeys) in our single-family neighbourhoods. Many are happy to simply see multiplexes legalized. That is not enough to build a true missing middle. We have to remember that a majority of Toronto, the largest city in Canada, is covered with car-centric sprawl and neighbourhoods that are decreasing in population. Even next to downtown, we have tiny homes next to skyscrapers. We've been pushing all that sprawl that would've been built in the countryside into small urban centres, which isn't keeping up with the growth we need and is creating the worst kinds of high-rise districts; ones that are unlivable. The largest step we can take to solve the housing crisis is to densify in our neighbourhoods while making our city beautiful.
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,325
Reaction score
51,909
Location
Toronto/EY
A 'with prejudice' settlement offer has been made to the City.

That offer is public.

The advice of planning and legal staff on whether to accept that offer remains confidential at this time.

This is in a report to next week's meeting of Council.

The offer in writing is below:

1654867978586.png

1654868005543.png

1654868030950.png


The link to the above is here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-226974.pdf

The architecture plans are here:

1654868103022.png

1654868129205.png


1654868149917.png


Site, as amended:

1654868188152.png


Overall Report, here:


OLT on July 13th.
 

Top