Toronto 287 Christie | 24.5m | 6s | Zinc Developments | RAW Design

I wouldn't blame that "feature" on the city - I just see it as a common design motif that's enjoying a certain amount popularity. I'd love to see that change myself, I'm all in favor of more contiguous cladding options in mid-rises. But I don't see the utility in blaming the city's setback policy for the status quo.
 
Lenser said:
I wouldn't blame that "feature" on the city - I just see it as a common design motif that's enjoying a certain amount popularity. I'd love to see that change myself, I'm all in favor of more contiguous cladding options in mid-rises. But I don't see the utility in blaming the city's setback policy for the status quo.
Click to expand...
Why not? The setback policy creates a break in the design where a switch to new materials becomes more natural. And also the setbacks create inherent messiness and awkwardness of form in the design. This common design motif seems to be at least partially born out of the City's policy to me.
 
Personally, I just don't see it following. The city's not telling developers that they must change the cladding once a setback occurs, after all. I don't think you can make a solid case for a causal connection there. I would tend to lay the bulk of the blame on developers.... it often appears that the cladding goes cheaper once you hit a setback. I see it as a cost-savings measure myself; I don't see it directly translating to being the city's fault.
 
The particular choice of cladding is up to the developer, but Urban Design (and by extension Planning) absolutely require that the cladding change above the first stepback. I'm not sure where it appears in any policy document (I just looked and it's not in the MRG), but it's certainly appeared in comment sets that I've received.
 
What's the reasoning behind that directive, though? I'm a bit mystified that it's actually encoded in city planning. Help a guy out!
 
ProjectEnd said:
The particular choice of cladding is up to the developer, but Urban Design (and by extension Planning) absolutely require that the cladding change above the first stepback. I'm not sure where it appears in any policy document (I just looked and it's not in the MRG), but it's certainly appeared in comment sets that I've received.
Click to expand...

You can see them ask for this in every detailed revision list. I always thought the city couldn’t mandate cladding types but they often do with very specific requests for changes to cladding or design motifs.
 
My experience has been they want a material change above the stepback to highlight the street wall, and usually push for lighter materials above to reduce '"visual impact"...
 
I prefer a more unified approach to cladding, but I'm a fan of step-backs for two reasons; it breaks up the visual mass, but it also provides nicer outdoor space with the terraces that are created. There are lots of people who value outdoor space, making them a better sell (and no doubt developers charge a big premium for those types of balconies).
 
egotrippin said:
I prefer a more unified approach to cladding, but I'm a fan of step-backs for two reasons; it breaks up the visual mass, but it also provides nicer outdoor space with the terraces that are created. There are lots of people who value outdoor space, making them a better sell (and no doubt developers charge a big premium for those types of balconies).
Click to expand...
I think having some buildings with step-backs is totally great. Adds variety to the topology of the city and also provides private outdoor space for those who can afford that and prioritize that. But to have it be the across the board rule with the City requiring it raises the construction costs and in turn the baseline price of all new housing, frequently causes compromises on unit layout that makes them functionally worse, and reduces the potential density that is possible on sites. Which is all not good for both the housing and environmental crises we're in.

If developers want to build buildings with step-backs sometimes to serve that market of buyers who want that, sure that's good with me, but the City shouldn't be mandating it.
 
concrete_and_light said:
I think having some buildings with step-backs is totally great. Adds variety to the topology of the city and also provides private outdoor space for those who can afford that and prioritize that. But to have it be the across the board rule with the City requiring it only serves to raise the construction costs and baseline price of all new housing, frequently causes compromises on unit layout that makes them functionally worse, and reduces the potential density that is possible on sites. Which is bad for both the housing and environmental crises we're in.

If developers want to build buildings with step-backs sometimes to serve that market of buyers who want that, sure that's good with me, but the City shouldn't be mandating it.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about maximizing density then why not build 20, 40, 60 or more storeys on every lot? I'm not against stepping back massing to lower rise residential streets either, though I know that's a contentious topic around here. There are a lot more factors than strictly number of housing units being built that are driving the housing crisis too, so I don't think step-backs on new development are much of a driver.
 
I think step-backs in mid-rise multi-units are popular in many neighborhoods like Leslieville and elsewhere because they tend to be not quite as daunting and dominating over the older, lower-height built form amongst them. That said, I agree with egotrippin, it'd be nice to have more instances of cladding continuity from the ground floor to the very top.
 
This development is almost at the corner of Christie and Dupont and now makes sense as the area is popping!
5214E1AA-7A87-41A0-A53E-1CC09B96D887.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top