This one was at the City Design Review panel on May 4th, 2023.
Link to recording:
Some slides/notes from the above:
Denoted above is the ground floor plan, notable here is as follows, the bright white is the extend of the building at-grade, the outer lines show the cantilever over Bloor/Spadina
The black dots shown between the open space in the N-S lane at the east end of the building indicate bollards to protect from vehicle intrusion; but the intent is for the loading area to be 'woonerf-style' and usable for pedestrians to connect to the rear/north E-W walkway which will encourage cut-throughs to Madison/Spadina or between those 2 points.
Of note above is the red dashed line which is the Spadina LRT track underground, one can now see why the TTC is attempting to coordinate work with this development to expand the platform to the east, as the track literally runs under their ownership footprint.
****
In the Q & A questions raised included:
Will the park in the north-west (Paul Martell) be separated from the lane by a fence? (it is currently). The applicant would like the fence removed and the park and lane integrated, but that will be up to Parks.
Will the overhang impact wind conditions for pedestrians? Answer TBD.
Is the floor plate reasonable? (837M2); the City is leaning towards the idea it ought to be smaller, but have not yet taken a position on which side(s) the tower should be pulled back.
***
Panel Discussion:
Proposed columns - design may overly encumber at-grade environment; another panelist used the word 'overbearing'.
Discussion of the Woonerf - proposal to the east would feature loading and a blank wall up against this Woonerf, that will seriously impair this being a desirable pedestrian space.
One panelist argued for revisiting the proposal for the site to the east to remove the parking so that the mid-block connection could be made a viable space.
Discussion of northern walkway, covering it will make it dark.
Skepticism over whether Parks would consider removing the fence next to an area designed to allow trucks.
Much being made from many panelists that the tower is too stout looking and needs sculpting.
Also criticism of too many architectural expressions.
Two panelists arguing against the parking (27 spaces) which is primarily visitor. The number was dictated to occupy a single level.
Dislike for the way cyclists will access bike parking.
Upgrades to cycle tracks should be integrated into the design.
Not much love for the existing 'heritage' storefronts which most here like well enough but feel it makes sense to remove them entirely.
8 members, unanimous vote 8-0 non-support.
