thecharioteer
Senior Member
Now if only planning and heritage staff had expended the same effort to preserve the I.M. Pei complex at Commerce Court....
Toronto 522 University Avenue | 232.35m | 64s | IA Financial Group | WZMH
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
indycase02
New Member
Absolutely terrible. It was ok with the original offset in the first design. Now it’s completely blocking the north views of all the units at 488 while being even closer. Who approves these buildings is beyond me.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Views are rightly not protected in Ontario planning policy.
indycase02
New Member
Oh we all know that. Thats why it’s terrible. Imagine living in these buildings and all you see is someone else’s windows? There’s no art to any architecture if they can’t design it to be pleasing from the inside.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Asking for towers not to block views in a city where vertical living is encouraged is like asking a forest not to grow trees...
indycase02
New Member
it’s not good design when you just throw another big tower up when it makes the units worth less because of terrible views. The first design of this project was way better. It offsets to the west of University so at least half of the North facing units of 488 remains unobstructed. Right now, 488 stands elegantly on University. You can see it prominently coming down Avenue road. With this new 522 design, it’s just another lump of a building which now completely blocks the North elevation of 488. 427 University is smartly designed so it is just below the penthouse and sub penthouse levels of 488 so the expensive units still have an obstructed views and everyone can still see every building. 427 University also offsets to the North of the block away from Dundas so the south side of 488 is also not blocked.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm going to suggest to you that by and large, it really isn't possible in a City with Toronto's density (or Manhattan or Hong Kong's) to avoid obstructing any view by by any party/building, ever.
You realize, from your building, not the current top mind you, closer to bottom, below the top of the original office portion you used to have an unobstructed view of the Lake.
Today an obstructed view may still be possible at those heights, but that too will likely disappear.
Dozens of tall buildings have been erected south of yours, and yours too obstructed views for those further north.
It is possible for the City to protect a limited number of strategic views (of buildings, not from buildings), as they do with City Hall and Queen's Park.
But even then, its quite challenging, and past development means those views are compromised from different locations.
I can appreciate that you think views from your building are uniquely important, but I'm afraid you may find a million or more of your fellow residents who think there view is not only at least as important as yours, but probably moreso. Why should their view be harmed and not yours?
The City does impose certain requirements around Tall Building Design which are meant, in part, to prevent you from just staring across into your neighbour's unit and also ensure you have sufficient access to open sky to appreciate the sun etc.
This is done through something called 'Separation Distances' primarily, with most new buildings in the City being required to be at least 25M from the next (at the tower level) .
You'll find some here who feel this requirement is excessive, and others who feel 30M or even as much as 40M should be required instead.
One can reasonably argue how to resolve competing priorities...... (Should your unit be worth any less, or should another site potentially worth 100M+ if redeveloped be neutered (rendered undevelopable) by tougher guidelines?
In a City with a clear shortage of housing, at all points along the income spectrum........... how do we weigh the comfort of the housed vs the needs of the homeless, those overpaying for mediocre units, be that ownership or rent, or those still living with mom and dad in their mid 20s, because they can't afford to move out?
Btw....what do you think impacts the value of your unit more, people living in tents on University Avenue nearby, or one more tower a block to the north?
I happen to feel there is a need for balance between competing goals and needs. While I regularly advocate here for more flexible rules, rules that are more focused on good outcomes than process; I'm also an advocate for some new rules and some toughened ones, such as ensuring reasonable elevator service in new buildings, and rules around how buildings design/layout retail/ground floors.
But I can't imagine supporting rules that specifically protect a particular view from a particular private residential or office unit. I'd be open to preserving certain views from public locations such as the Islands, public parks on the crest above Davenport, or Riverdale Park; though that would be very complex as you have to identify exactly what's in the view that you would seek to preserve a view of; and then you not only need to restrict new builds, but presumably designate many buildings as protected as well.
Perhaps I could encourage you to look back in this thread at the discussions that happened when this building went before the City's Design Review Panel.
I posted summaries of both both meetings.
1st iteration:
522 University Avenue | 232.35m | 64s | IA Financial Group | WZMH
I'm surprised it's worth it to demolish a 15 story office building in what seems to be decent condition. Is it really that difficult to build the same tower a few streets over? Yes, if you don't own a few streets over. You can only seek to maximize the density (redevelop) on property that you...
2nd iteration:
522 University Avenue | 232.35m | 64s | IA Financial Group | WZMH
This one will be back at the Design Review Panel, tomorrow:
***
This will help you understand how the design evolved the way it did, and why.
To be clear, you're entirely welcome to disagree with the Panel's thoughts, but you will still benefit, I think, from a realization that lots of thought was put into the changes here.
indycase02
New Member
I’m not saying not to build. The first iteration was way better from a value and enjoyment perspective. Who cares if the building is nice outside but it’s not enjoyable to live inside. Again, look at 427 University. They smartly offset the building and the top floors to maximize the views for everyone. And also, I am not worried about a building that’s a block down the street because the angle is stretched out for views. It’s also nice massing. People need to design things that people actually want to live in. Nobody wants to live inside a round floor plan either. Have you seen the proposals right in front of the south side of Aura? Hahaha. What a joke. I guess people will just keep moving as their unit’s value keeps dropping because they’re less enjoyable. I guess all the homeless people will be able to afford living in tiny boxes of a condo that you can stare at your neighbors.I'm going to suggest to you that by and large, it really isn't possible in a City with Toronto's density (or Manhattan or Hong Kong's) to avoid obstructing any view by by any party/building, ever.
You realize, from your building, not the current top mind you, closer to bottom, below the top of the original office portion you used to have an unobstructed view of the Lake.
Today an obstructed view may still be possible at those heights, but that too will likely disappear.
Dozens of tall buildings have been erected south of yours, and yours too obstructed views for those further north.
It is possible for the City to protect a limited number of strategic views (of buildings, not from buildings), as they do with City Hall and Queen's Park.
But even then, its quite challenging, and past development means those views are compromised from different locations.
I can appreciate that you think views from your building are uniquely important, but I'm afraid you may find a million or more of your fellow residents who think there view is not only at least as important as yours, but probably moreso. Why should their view be harmed and not yours?
The City does impose certain requirements around Tall Building Design which are meant, in part, to prevent you from just staring across into your neighbour's unit and also ensure you have sufficient access to open sky to appreciate the sun etc.
This is done through something called 'Separation Distances' primarily, with most new buildings in the City being required to be at least 25M from the next (at the tower level) .
You'll find some here who feel this requirement is excessive, and others who feel 30M or even as much as 40M should be required instead.
One can reasonably argue how to resolve competing priorities...... (Should your unit be worth any less, or should another site potentially worth 100M+ if redeveloped be neutered (rendered undevelopable) by tougher guidelines?
In a City with a clear shortage of housing, at all points along the income spectrum........... how do we weigh the comfort of the housed vs the needs of the homeless, those overpaying for mediocre units, be that ownership or rent, or those still living with mom and dad in their mid 20s, because they can't afford to move out?
Btw....what do you think impacts the value of your unit more, people living in tents on University Avenue nearby, or one more tower a block to the north?
I happen to feel there is a need for balance between competing goals and needs. While I regularly advocate here for more flexible rules, rules that are more focused on good outcomes than process; I'm also an advocate for some new rules and some toughened ones, such as ensuring reasonable elevator service in new buildings, and rules around how buildings design/layout retail/ground floors.
But I can't imagine supporting rules that specifically protect a particular view from a particular private residential or office unit. I'd be open to preserving certain views from public locations such as the Islands, public parks on the crest above Davenport, or Riverdale Park; though that would be very complex as you have to identify exactly what's in the view that you would seek to preserve a view of; and then you not only need to restrict new builds, but presumably designate many buildings as protected as well.
Perhaps I could encourage you to look back in this thread at the discussions that happened when this building went before the City's Design Review Panel.
I posted summaries of both both meetings.
1st iteration:
522 University Avenue | 232.35m | 64s | IA Financial Group | WZMH
I'm surprised it's worth it to demolish a 15 story office building in what seems to be decent condition. Is it really that difficult to build the same tower a few streets over? Yes, if you don't own a few streets over. You can only seek to maximize the density (redevelop) on property that you...urbantoronto.ca
2nd iteration:
522 University Avenue | 232.35m | 64s | IA Financial Group | WZMH
This one will be back at the Design Review Panel, tomorrow:
***
This will help you understand how the design evolved the way it did, and why.
To be clear, you're entirely welcome to disagree with the Panel's thoughts, but you will still benefit, I think, from a realization that lots of thought was put into the changes here.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Sorry, which building is "427 University"?
Northern Light
Superstar
Please be respectful and go back and read the posts I linked to.
Then you can articulate a thoughtful, evidence-based opinion.
"I don't like it, because I don't like it" provides no basis for discussion.
Sure, I agree. But the developer bares responsibility for the marketability of their build. Would you like the City to audit the wall paper choice in the hallways, or the choice of flooring? Exactly how much micro-managing would you have the City engage in?
I've given you real information you can use to discussion your concerns about views from your unit or these new ones, should they be built.
Use that information to explain to everyone how you would achieve a better outcome though guidelines or policies that the City would seek to enforce.
I'm happy to engage in that discussion........but you have to provide something we can discuss.
I think you'll find I'm being much kinder to your position here than most other members will be............... if you can't meet me half-way here, you're not likely to get any sympathy from anyone else.
Sure. Now describe the Planning Guideline or rule that you would pass to help achieve your goal. If I like what I read..........maybe we can get your idea looked into...
Why don't you look in the project threads for those 2 proposals and see if I've had a look at them?
Northern Light
Superstar
indycase02
New Member
Sorry 481 University.
indycase02
New Member
Sorry I didn’t mean to be disrespectful but I’m purely looking at it from a residence point of view. I don’t disagree with the podium and materials and street levels etc etc I don’t really have a strong opinion on those other than to say buildings are built to be lived in and to enjoy.
As I said, coming down Avenue Road and from Queen’s Park, it’d be nice to be able to see the various buildings if people put so much effort into the design and materials but in this case it is only possible if there are appropriate offsets. The way how Shangri La juts out at the bottom of University is nice. The way how 488 can jut out with the initial design of 522 could also be nice. Now 522 is a giant box right in front of 488 and will be built even closer together … I don’t have any specific proposal as I’m not an expert urban planner but to me, that’s not a better design if you look at factors beyond just the building itself in isolation. Again; I also think 481 is done well with the various offsets and height variations.