Toronto 733 Mt Pleasant | 93.25m | 27s | Rockport Group | Wallman Architects

I agree with you WislaHD, and JT O'Pooterpoot, I get it, intensfication is a normal part of any neighbourhood, especially in a rapidly growing coty like oue own...and one with new transit opening like this. I'm a bit disappointed in all honestly by our city and province, the planning in this city is a complete mess, and the province only counfounded problems IMO with their recent decisions for this area.

I've lived nearby for most of my life, and 15-20 floors is fine by me. This proposal will be a sore thumb in height as proposed, but I'd be much happier seeing them respect the narrow commercial storefronts by replicating that to a degree, and also creating better massing for this project since there must be a transition to the lowrise areas to the east and south...or else this will look very clunky. Unfortunately, I expect this to come through as proposed, for this is the reality of city and provincial planning these days. The hotel redevelopment concerns me as well...but we'll see how that goes.
 
DavidCapizzano said:
I agree with most of what you've said, however I would argue that the "unique character of mount pleasant" isn't that unique at all, and it resembles literally dozens of cutesy 2-3 storey main streets found all over the city, and the province. I'd say the interaction between old, new, short and tall are what gives the area it's unique flavour, including the diversity the nearby mid century apartments provide.
Click to expand...

Fair point - I don't know about dozens (within 416) but there are certainly a lot of these old town-style main streets that have been absorbed into the City over the years. When you walk down the street, it does feel a bit like you're in one of those other streets you might find in Port Hope or wherever, which is unique given where it's actually located.

I guess the question becomes about the value/feasibility of "preserving" them in the face of intensification and especially transit investment. The Danforth has a bit of a similar built form, for example, but the street is much more of a proper, urban main street and should have more intensification than it currently does.

In this case, as you mentioned, there's a huge "apartment neighbourhood" just on the north side of Eglinton, stretching over to Yonge and beyond and the City wanted to insulate Mt. Pleasant a bit. I also acknowledge this site is within a block of Eglinton, as opposed to down near the cemetery, for example.

Having that interaction is definitely the challenge. I think there's room for more height and for that kind of mix. I'm just wary that this precise level of height may be too much for that, at least in the face of certain urbanist types who really have a blanket logic when it comes to any land in the city anywhere near transit.

I expect hysteria on both sides :)
 
At the end of the day, what we all can agree on would be this:

Screen Shot 2020-01-06 at 8.30.25 AM - Copy.png
 
Oh boy a box on a box. As for the location did anyone really believe low density would persist for any amount of time beside a new subway station or is that stop reversed for the few currently living at the intersection?
 
toronto.webex.com

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com toronto.webex.com


Event Information: 717, 719, 723 and 733 Mount Pleasant Road - Community Consultation Meeting


Date and time: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 7:00 pm
Eastern Daylight Time (Toronto, GMT-04:00)
Change time zone
Duration:2 hours
Description:
The City of Toronto Planning Division has received an Application for Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 27-storey mixed use building containing 264 residential units and 586 square metres of retail gross floor area on the ground floor, resulting in an overall density of 6.68 times the area of the lot.

Join us at the Virtual Community Consultation Meeting to participate, which will include: an update on the status of the Zoning By-law Amendment application including its process and potential outcomes; opportunities for local residents, employees, businesses and landowners to provide feedback; and next steps for the Zoning By-law Amendment application.
 
Things we may not, but should agree on.

a) This proposal is ugly as .....

b) Because of same it will automatically draw more blow back than it otherwise would. Many will be concerned with the height or other project details; but bottom line, beauty induces at least some forgiveness and ugly amplifies hate.

c) This area needs to densify.

d) This area already was densifying to a typical height ~9 storeys.

e) There are legitimate arguments for going higher; there really are credible arguments for status quo (meaning intensification to ~9 stories)

f) The additional height is not intrinsically bad, but will not make housing any more affordable given the additional per sq ft costs of taller construction.

- as per this construction cost guide, the increased height will drive the cost of units higher due to construction costs ~10% higher than the shorter height.

That is not, unto itself an argument against greater height here, just making sure we agree on facts.

g) The height will appear greatly inordinate given other developments in the area, and the way in which the massing is proposed.

h) That could be mitigated by different massing/design choices.

i) People opposing height that is literally 3x the most recent precedent are neither irrational or evil. That doesn't mean they're right either.

j) Persuading people to accept height is not achieved by yelling, name-calling and swearing nor by misinformed arguments about affordability.

Persuading is done by stating legitimately compelling reasons for said height; then listening to concerns and making reasonable efforts to accommodate same.
 
Northern Light said:
a) This proposal is ugly as .....

b) Because of same it will automatically draw more blow back than it otherwise would. Many will be concerned with the height or other project details; but bottom line, beauty induces at least some forgiveness and ugly amplifies hate.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. If this was Art Shoppe coming to this site, that would be an utterly different story.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I mean, it's Rockport, who think an appropriate streetscape for a downtown new build is:

View attachment 271441
Click to expand...
Ignorant design terror. City does not have a Plan. They only have planning division. How can you have system where design is not part of the approval process - “The project’s standout architecture, while not a factor in the imminent OPA and ZBA approvals,”
 
Dimvim said:
Ignorant design terror. City does not have a Plan. They only have planning division. How can you have system where design is not part of the approval process - “The project’s standout architecture, while not a factor in the imminent OPA and ZBA approvals,”
Click to expand...
Because the city has no authority beyond what the province grants it, and the provincial government is consistently (although especially in its current iteration) owned by developers.
 
ProjectEnd is bang on. People would put up with density concerns and the hideous nature of the tower a lot more if they just copy and pasted the retail layout from the rest of the block. I will say.. Having been to some of the ward8 planning meetings, I know what Matlow is dealing with in the community.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top