Toronto 66 Wellesley Street East | 101.78m | 31s | ONE Properties | S9

TwoDogs_39 said:
The original proposal was WAY too aggressive, and at that time they did NOT own the existing apartment building to the west. They still don't even own the laneway that they were trying to build on.

Your theory seems to be totally flawed. The City (IMHO) was totally right to reject the original proposal. That is not a BAD thing as you're suggesting. If we apply your logic to any other site in the city, then the approach would be to come in with a ridiculously aggressive application from the start, and then cheap out once the City rejects you, and then blame the City for your new, crappy application.

The better approach would be to come in from the start with a solid, thoughtful and defensible application that actually meets policy and built form objectives (beyond just high-rise development near a subway).
Click to expand...
What was so bad about the original app? It was unbuildable, sure, but what was problematic about the form or density?
 
Toronto Model 05-20-21 Church And Wellesley.png


Toronto Model 05-20-21 Church And Wellesley2.png
 
Thanks for posting the ruling. One interesting tidbit (maybe I am reading too far into this, looking at item 228) is talking about taller buildings off the main street (Church in this case) being more desirable so as to maintain the low rise retail nature of Church. Makes me think that keeping retail streets low or lower rise and having taller buildings on side streets might be better.
 
saynotofaux said:
Good riddance! Terrible proposal. However, not looking forward to that corner languishing and rotting for the next decade a la Giraffe...
Click to expand...
Hopefully they could actually put some retail in those unused spaces if they're going to be sitting there for a while.
greenleaf said:
Thanks for posting the ruling. One interesting tidbit (maybe I am reading too far into this, looking at item 228) is talking about taller buildings off the main street (Church in this case) being more desirable so as to maintain the low rise retail nature of Church. Makes me think that keeping retail streets low or lower rise and having taller buildings on side streets might be better.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I really like the vibe on church street of it being a small-scale main street but then there's towers around it. Certainly feels far more human than something like Bay Street. Maybe this is an idea we could apply to more main streets throughout the city, rather than just bulldozing them constantly (or building nothing in the area at all).
 
Rascacielo said:
I don’t know why the owners let that corner building rot since 2015. They could’ve leased the space vacated by the pharmacy more than 6 years ago.
Click to expand...
My barber, Michael, operated from the first building on Wellesley on 6 month leases since the buildings were "assembled" He had been there for 20 years. Very few retailers want to move somewhere where maximum 6 month leases are offered. Michael closed with covid closures and I doubt will be back. Too bad, he was a good barber and a nice man, I hope he is ok.
 
TossYourJacket said:
Hopefully they could actually put some retail in those unused spaces if they're going to be sitting there for a while.

Yeah, I really like the vibe on church street of it being a small-scale main street but then there's towers around it. Certainly feels far more human than something like Bay Street.
Click to expand...
The problem on Bay Street isn't the height but the design. Mirvish-Village proves that it's design and how buildings meet the street that matter, not how many floors exist above it. Height doesn't have to mean massive podiums and no human scale at grade .... although that's what alot of people seem to think.
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess, because I like the renderings and the location.
 
TossYourJacket said:
Rejected at the LPAT/OLT.

Tbh, I really didn't see this coming. But I am pleasantly surprised.
Click to expand...

Some elements of the judgement I found to be of note.

Please be aware these are highly selective on my part and refer to the link above for the full judgement.

1623289113105.png


*****

1623289147046.png



****

From paragraph 235

"The Tribunal sees a multi-unit structure here as almost inevitable"

****

Really, it all comes down to height here.........

In my reading, the Tribunal isn't that concerned about trees, shadows, laneways or much else.........just height, both of the tower, and the Church street frontage.

It's actually a pretty explicit guidebook to what they will allow on the site; give or take that they don't state an explicit height they would accept.
 
Northern Light said:
It's actually a pretty explicit guidebook to what they will allow on the site; give or take that they don't state an explicit height they would accept.
Click to expand...

I thought the decision was fairly clear on what they’d want to see in terms of height and set backs on Church. It was also clear that they’d accept a tower on Wellesley, though, at less height. But i didn’t see much guidance on how much of a height cut they’d actually accept.

Personally I’d love to see the developer and the city come to an agreement to allow all the requested height on Wellesley (preserving the facade of 64 Wellesley), while keeping the Church street frontages basically as they are. There’s no major shadowing impacts from the tower as the LPAT notes and the real concern is preserving the ‘main street’ character of Church. That would obviously involve a density cut, but that is what the developer is obviously looking at now regardless. And the City would have to move off what they appear entitled to from this decision (a shorter tower). But that compromise would serve both sides better than a ripping down a block of Church Street retail to put up an an awkward new building with stronger set backs and then a much stubbier tower. Why not leave Church street largely untouched and keep the height on Wellesley?
 
It's disturbing to think this was rejected over height as opposed to poor design elements on this...

...instead, it feels this downward spiral got started when The City slapped a gift horse in the mouth, which forced the developer to choose a more tactless architect. Or however that story goes. It's now ended up with increasing dilapidated corner on a prime signature and symbolic location.

Could not The City have been more open more to what was presented to them instead of bickering over height? Other projects have bridged that height divide (ie. Mirvish + Gehry), so I'm not sure what precedent would have been broken if The City went with the original proposal.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
It's disturbing to think this was rejected over height as opposed to poor design elements on this...

...instead, it feels this downward spiral got started when The City slapped a gift horse in the mouth, which forced the developer to choose a more tactless architect. Or however that story goes. It's now ended up with increasing dilapidated corner on a prime signature and symbolic location.

Could not The City have been more open more to what was presented to them instead of bickering over height? Other projects have bridged that height divide (ie. Mirvish + Gehry), so I'm not sure what precedent would have been broken if The City went with the original proposal.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why this is disturbing. The City's position is that a tower fronting on Church is incompatible with the main-street, neighbourhood character it is trying to preserve. It didn't matter if it was a unbuildable fantasy (like the previous proposal) or a shittier iteration (like the just-rejected proposal), it was never going to work. I am also not sure how the City's rejection of the original proposal forced the developer into a massive quality downgrade -- it's not like the City made them dump a legitimate architect and hire G+C in order to blight another downtown neighbourhood. Unfortunately, design elements are not something the City or OMB can control, except indirectly by approving higher-quality proposals.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top