Toronto 50 Scollard | 147.62m | 41s | Lanterra | Foster + Partners

Comments on UrbanToronto about buildings are too often binary: building is great/building is terrible. Even less passionate members can sometimes only see in terms of building is good/building is bad. The DRP is not looking to say that with their votes. The DRP breaks down designs into elements and considers first how they work, and secondly, overall, how a design subsequently looks.

The only choices the panel have on an initial appearance are to vote for refine or redesign. Redesign, of course, means that they feel the plan needs a total rethink, while refine means that they are quite happy with the plan overall, and that only the tweaks that have been mentioned are required. Nothing gets through the panel with any member saying "there's nothing at all that could be improved". Refine is the best a design can do, so no, it's not that bad at all.

In regards to the "treated like gods" comment, and your quick list of Toronto greats, it's worth noting that David Pontarini (of HPA (as opposed to a computer manufacturer)) was one of the 4 architects to appear yesterday, for 1 Eglinton East. The committee was clear that they consider HPA to be immensely talented, ('The Well' was called one of the best ever designs for Toronto a couple of months ago by the DRP) but they still handed 1 Eglinton East a "redesign" vote. So, even though I know you were referring to non-architects treating some architects like gods, I thought it important to note that within the community their is also respect and admiration for colleagues and their work, but it doesn't make all of their designs untouchable if they see room for improvement.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The panelists don't deign to teach architecture to the proponent: that's not the purpose of the reviews. It's about the development benefitting from the collective experience.

I have seen some architects bristle at some of the comments given at DRP hearings, but that has been exception. The rule has been that the meetings are quite collegial (without being backslapping), and that comments are given to be helpful in producing a superior design. Not every panel member agrees on what constitutes an improvement, however, so some comments conflict with others, and it is left to the proponents as to which comments to take on board, and which ones to agree to disagree on. When the entire body of the DRP agrees on something, however, you better be willing to consider the input.

From what I have seen, the DRP can occasionally react too conservatively for my taste when faced with some bold moves, but generally the panel gets it, and the great majority of projects benefit from its scrutiny.

42
Click to expand...
How come we still get so much poop from developers? I remember Lago being sent back for redesign, but the monstrosity built is the same as what went in front of the DRP.
 
DRP is a voluntary process. If the developer decides it doesn't need it, it doesn't happen, especially on Board approved projects, where the city can't "highly suggest" they listen to the DRP.
 
Sorry Filip, but your response has to be called out as hyperbole. The DRP may not bring about the results you are seeking in every case, but it is not useless.

DRP reviews result in improvements to the designs most of the time, some more significant than others. Few developers turn down appearances at the DRP. (Invitations normally come long before a design might be headed to the OMB, so few invites are turned down.) Few proponents ignore the comments of the DRP entirely, but equally few respond to all the comments, because they normally can't as there's often one panelist at odds with the majority of them on some aspect of the design. So the proponents weigh the comments, the planners take the comments on board too (sometimes the panelists' enthusiasm for a bolder project at the DRP can help it get through the planning process), and everyone gets a chance for "sober second thought" on projects that can create a great deal of change in their corner of town.

42
 
From Toronto Preservation Board agenda:

"This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 54A, 56 and 58 Scollard Street and 1315 Bay Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The properties, which were listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties (now known as the Heritage Register) in 1974, contain a group of row houses dating to 1890.

Following research and evaluation, staff have determined that the properties meet Ontario Regulation 9/06, the provincial criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The designation will help to ensure that all of the cultural heritage values and attributes of the properties are identified and conserved."
 
ProjectEnd said:
What does this mean for the intended / proposed move of said properties?
Click to expand...

It is very curious because the report neglects to mention the development proposal, whereas most other applications do.

This is a pretty strong statement in the report: "Contextually, the buildings are historically, visually and physically linked to their setting anchoring the northeast corner of Bay and Scollard streets in Yorkville."

I wonder if there is a city staff disagreement with Clr KWT?
 
At TEYCC right now, KWT is proposing to amend the heritage designation to replace the words "northeast corner of Scollard and Bay Streets" with "north side of Scollard Street". This will have the effect of still allowing the buildings to be moved so that the public space can be created at the corner.

Carried!

42
 
interchange42 said:
At TEYCC right now, KWT is proposing to amend the heritage designation to replace the words "northeast corner of Scollard and Bay Streets" with "north side of Scollard Street". This will have the effect of still allowing the buildings to be moved so that the public space can be created at the corner.

Carried!

42
Click to expand...

That is great news.
 
Hear, hear. Love this development, both in terms of tower and public realm design. Seems the developers were really trying to provide a superior at-grade experience, and really nice to see KWT (if I follow the essence of the recommendation) recognizing that and trying to help this along.
 
Newest render based on the updated documents on the City website.

ok3oso.png
 
Ughhh, yeah, did they kill the copper (or similar), or is that just a crap render?
 
The bronze metal panels are still there
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top