Toronto 540 King West | 50.66m | 15s | Allied | Hariri Pontarini

'Hopefully the projected height of these buildings will get approved'

No way. The south tower at 37.4m +1.1m and the north tower at 48.95m +0.9m are out of line with the rest of the recently approved developments in this area and disrespecting 28.0m +5m.

Allied is dreaming if they think that everyone is going to let this one slide through at these heights...try again Mike E.
 
Way out of line? I believe Fashion House is set at 52m, is it not?

And SpadiaBus, can you elaborate on why these heights will be so detrimental to the neighborhood? 8 and 12 stories seem quite in keeping with the rest of Freed and others' development around there.
 
Fashion House is still Freed's wet dream and absolutely nothing has been approved on heights, so don't use that as your benchmark. Almost everything else in the near vicinity, especially mid-block, is under 40m + xm.
 
The existing buildings along this stretch of King St. form one of the most attractive streetscapes we have in Toronto. Invariably, these buildings are 4-5 stories tall. If you plop something twice that height next to them, you make the street less coherent and you make the "old" form less relevant. Of course the new heights will be used as a precedent to justify their becoming the standard for new construction, or even a stepping stone to greater heights. After a while of this, the "old" stock along King will look more and more like the remnants of the past which need to be replaced with something newer and larger. If this is what you want, then there's no problem.
 
And SpadiaBus, can you elaborate on why these heights will be so detrimental to the neighborhood? 8 and 12 stories seem quite in keeping with the rest of Freed and others' development around there.

BobBob puts it best in his response. I agree.
Also, saying that height has been approved elsewhere or adjacent; therefore, how could continuing a certain height be detrimental - that is the same as if they planned on building the Burj Dubai right beside the CN Tower and someone complaining about how that height and its location didn't make any sense and my rebuttle being, "well, they approved the CN Tower..."

I don't think FashionHouse is without any design faults (I too think that it dwarfs the Silverplate building too much), but I will admit that it's unique and that top "looking to be floating" layer of floors would look more impressive if it weren't hidden right beside Allied's office tower almost directly to the east of it (as depicted accurately in Allied's rendering). This stretch of King would have a better looking streetscape (looking west) if the buildings adjacent to FashionHouse reduced in height by a greater degree towards Spadina.
 
I think this building is perfectly scaled, and the only building that it's at odds with is the Pizza Pizza shed which ought to be demolished, anyway. Anecdotally, I think that buildings can relate to one another very effectively if they're between 4 and 12 stories. Consider the King and Sherbourne area and how Mozo and Kings Court seem to fit in well with 4 and 5 story buildings in the neighbourhood, while 1 and 2 story buildings just seem off.
 
Of course the new heights will be used as a precedent to justify their becoming the standard for new construction, or even a stepping stone to greater heights.

This is exactly my concern and the problem. The OMB looks at precendents way too much for height variances.

Example from 399 Adelaide OMB hearing last year: "....the Board is persuaded that what is most relevant in determining desirability of the height variance is considering what has occurred on the Block... "

So, until the City can take control of height variances independently from the OMB, it's 28.0m +5.0m and this building from Allied needs to be chopped.
 
I believe that the Grand and Toy/Pizza Pizza site is owned by Great Gulf. Based on what is to be developed in the area, there would be nothing to stop them from applying for the right to build up to 50m. There is a possibility that this structure would easily match FashionHouse and the Allied building in height.

I have no idea who owns the restaurant property behind Grand and Toy.
 
I have no idea who owns the restaurant property behind Grand and Toy.

Don't know exactly who owns the land but was told it was an oldtimer from the neighbourhood. GG has the option on the property coming up within a few years. The restaurant that is leasing the space is not that busy these days, so I am sure with the right "future considerations" such as new space on the ground floor with King frontage for a future resto, they would close down early at the request of the owner.
 
The existing buildings along this stretch of King St. form one of the most attractive streetscapes we have in Toronto. Invariably, these buildings are 4-5 stories tall. If you plop something twice that height next to them, you make the street less coherent and you make the "old" form less relevant. Of course the new heights will be used as a precedent to justify their becoming the standard for new construction, or even a stepping stone to greater heights. After a while of this, the "old" stock along King will look more and more like the remnants of the past which need to be replaced with something newer and larger. If this is what you want, then there's no problem.

So absolute adherence to presidents set X-number of years ago is the only way to create a coherent streetscape? Is the city not something which changes organically over time, keeping some aspects while jettisoning others? I find it interesting that this modest proposal is receiving so much flack from some members on UT.

You argue that this 'old stock' of buildings on King will inevitably be lost in a sea of taller buildings, yet in other places where such structures have gone up, they seem to knit quite well into the existing built form. Furthermore, the language you use to describe this urban evolution takes a deleterious tone, suggesting that that the new may never harmonize with the old. Buildings such as the CCBR or the current proposal for 134 Peter St. confirm that this is just not true.

You also describe the 'destructive' results of this transformation as leaving only "the remnants of the past," yet this anarchronistic form seems to be exactly what you currently argue for. These buildings are the remnants of the past and as such, deserve to be treated with respect and appreciation- embracing the past is just as important as constructing the new. One should, however, remember that this is a balancing act. BobBob is correct in stating that we should preserve our heritage and respect the existing King St. form, but not at the expense of the present since much of the city has changed and evolved since then. Were this a building which was clearly out of context (i.e. 30 or so stories), then I could see what was so egregious, but as it stands, the current
scheme proposes buildings which continue the low-rise nature of the street while giving a jaunty nod to the structures of the past.

If you wish to complain about something, how about questioning the rather bland styling of the structures, or their lack of color? Or would something too avant-garde set further precedents for interesting design and innovative material use and therefore destroy the 'attractive' homogeneous streetscape which you and others so dearly cling to?

So, yes, this is what I want, and no, there isn't a problem.

(Sorry if I come off a little harsh here, I just hate it when people expect the city to stay in a state of stasis for all time - your post was well worded BobBob).
 
You're assuming that I "expect the city to stay in stasis" which is simply not true. I actually agree with most of your points and have rarely found myself on this side of a heritage debate.

Here are some points on which we seem to disagree:

- I believe that this stretch of King St. is unique in the city and requires a specific approach in the interest of preserving its qualities - not preserving every brick as some sort of museum piece, but preserving the overall "character" of the place. The character doesn't have so much to do with any sort of historicity as much as a general urbane feeling of the form and massing of buildings along the street here. It is an enjoyable, civilized stroll rarely experienced in Toronto. I wouldn't apply the same rules across the city, I believe different areas require different approaches.

- I believe that size/form/height are very important, perhaps the most important parameter by which a new building "fits in" to a given context. An ugly/bland 4-5 storey building on this stretch would hardly put a dent in the urbane vibe of this stretch of King, whereas even a well executed 15-20 storey building would transform it quite a bit.

- I have less faith than you that modern additions, particularly the one being proposed, will be done in a coherent and respectful manner. Like you, I quite appreciate what was done at CCBR and what's proposed for 134 Peter, but this proposal does not look to be of the same caliber at all.
 
Change of Plans from Allied!

I walked by the site today and voila, a new posting for the December 3rd C of A indicating a 8 storey south building and a 9 storey south building. Whhhat?



So, they chopped 5m off the south tower and 13m off the north tower as follows:

Old design:
south tower at 37.4m +1.1m and the north tower at 48.95m +0.9m

New design:
south tower at 32.455m +1.15m and the north tower at 35.95m +0.85m

The link from Allied has been updated as well with the revised plans.
http://www.alliedpropertiesreit.com/documents/preliminaryprojectreviews/544King-Plans.pdf

Mr. Freed now has the next move on neighbouring FashionHouse.:D
 
I suppose that's a bit of a compromise, though this building will still be 2-3x bigger than anything else around it.
 
I don't think it'll look overwhelming at that height and massing compared to the Quad Lofts close by.
 

Back
Top