Toronto The Carvalo on College | 21.94m | 7s | Clifton Blake | Studio JCI

A question about this for someone more informed. It comes up in thread after thread that the city can't impose on aesthetic matters, e.g. they can't tell a developer not to use grey spandrel. But then how on earth can they make a call like this? Utterly baffling.

It's not that they made a "call", per say, but they probably said to the developer something like "If you remove some of the brick on the facade, we/Council would be more amenable to your proposal".

I have absolutely no idea why they would ask for the removal of the brick details though.
 
A question about this for someone more informed. It comes up in thread after thread that the city can't impose on aesthetic matters, e.g. they can't tell a developer not to use grey spandrel. But then how on earth can they make a call like this? Utterly baffling.

At a high level, it's complicated; the city can and does say "hey, we really think the development would be improved for reason x if you changed y, and we'd look more positively on the application as a whole if you do it", which is different from mandating or codifying a specific aesthetic guideline.

In this case, the city felt that the 383-esque brick treatment hindered one of the core goals of the design here, which both the architect and the city explained in their presentation. Because this is a long (wide) site, the city asked the architect/developer to come up with a design that "broke up" the facade in a way that made it feel like the building didn't overwhelm the block. The six "boxes", the fact that they are varying widths, and the use of a different colour of brick on each are the main design response to this goal; in the city's opinion, the amount of brick on each box in the first iteration of the design was a barrier to more fully achieving that goal.

Personally, I disagree with that judgment, which is of course subjective; in most cases, my feeling is that flat curtain walls (or mostly flat window walls), even when accented by fins, are much more oppressive and overwhelming than a more variegated and tactile material.

But that difference of opinion is a pretty good illustration of why aesthetics are difficult to create guidelines for; in this case, I agree with the goal that the city and proponent have set out for this design, but I disagree with their sense of the best way to achieve it.
 
Interesting....it's too bad they pushed for the removal of the brick frontage. I think it sits nicely with the neighbouring facade.
Sounds like a typical Planner approach by comparing recently approved/completed developments, but it's a fair stance. Will their be another consultation?

It's possible there could be one more, but the developer hinted that TEYCC might be the next time we hear about this.
 
Latest email from Councillor Mike Layton's assistant:

Thank you for attending the 871 - 899 College St Community Planning Meeting last month.

You are invited to attend the first Working Group session on Wednesday February 21st from 6:30 to 8:00 pm at the College Shaw Library in the Auditorium located at 766 College St.

The purpose of the working group is to provide interested individuals the opportunity to participate in a round-table session which will focus on collecting feedback on the following key principles as they relate to the site. This discussion will be based on the submission presented by the applicant at the public meeting.

1) Site Organization

2) Building Design

3) Public Realm

If you have any further questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact myself or City Planner Mladen Kukic Mladen.kukic@toronto.ca.

Ashley Da Silva

Constituency Assistant (South)
Office of Councillor Mike Layton
Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina
 
Just senseless and harmful NIMBYism that lopped off units from this one. Shame.

I also strongly dislike the move from the more brick-heavy College frontage to the more glass-heavy design, and we have Planning to thank for that one.
upload_2018-3-6_16-12-24.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-3-6_16-12-24.png
    upload_2018-3-6_16-12-24.png
    195.4 KB · Views: 2,050
Just senseless and harmful NIMBYism that lopped off units from this one. Shame.

I also strongly dislike the move from the more brick-heavy College frontage to the more glass-heavy design, and we have Planning to thank for that one.
View attachment 136504

The removal of brick between the floors is an older alteration to the design. It was presented to the public with the brick removed.

What I don't understand is why the 8th floor units were removed if the building height remains unchanged at 25 metres.
 
Deferred at Community Council today on a motion by Councillor Bailao.

Residents showed up concerned about:

  1. A working group that apparently started but was never reconvened;
  2. Concerns about car traffic in the lane (it sounds like the lane is not cleared of snow and that two cars cannot pass each other, which will be exacerbated by the new car trips from this development);
  3. Complaints that the current demolition is breaking the rules (construction on Sundays, for example);
  4. General concerns about shadow and height.
Councillor Layton, whose ward included this project before the election, actually defended the built form and said it basically conforms with the midrise guidelines and is good planning. However Councillor Bailao, whose ward now has the project, said these concerns should be heard and discussed, and moved for deferral accordingly.

She said she was surprised that the developer had not approached her about the project. (Can you imagine, having your final zoning report go to Community Council and not reaching out to the new Councillor before that? How stupid can these amateur developers get?)

Edit: Here's a link to the developer's planner's presentation, the deputations, and discussion and motion from Councillor Bailao:
 
Screen Shot 2019-04-29 at 1.04.39 PM.png


 
View attachment 183571


The (what I assume are) brick screens between each of the boxed volumes are new, I believe, and quite nice.
 

Back
Top