Toronto Queen Central | 106.23m | 34s | Parallax | Arcadis

You know very well that there are very specific massings that the city will accept, while rejecting the notion of just about any other alternative. This means point towers on podiums; podiums of a specific height; tower floorplates of a particular size and articulation; a very specifically desired universal treatment of heritage regardless of context. The Tall Building Guidelines are a major part of this.

Any condo tower in this city begins with a shaping exercise that emerges from urban design reports that are created based on what the city will accept at a given location - it's very restrictive and essentially prescribes the resulting massing. I can't begin to explain the countless design exercises I have gone through where we were able to demonstrate a massing that created a much more desirable fit for its environment (i.e. a streetwall where there is currently a streetwall and where a dinky podium looks ridiculous and feels out of place - and where the resulting floorplate created better units or amenity - but was rendered impossible in the face of a very prescriptive planning envelope. This is not how good housing or architecture are made. Don't get me wrong, we need planning oversight and developers are all too happy to do the point-tower-on-a-podium-schtick. But in their inability (and lack of resources) to keep up with the current pace of development proposals, the planning department has encouraged and enforced a very prescriptive and formulaic approach to development in this city.

So no, the planning envelope is not only restricted according to the 3m setback. (And these days, they were likely asking for 10m setback since there is a heritage property on the site.) Every architect and developer in this city knows what flies at the planning department and what does not. Planning studies like the Golden Mile Secondary Plan or Consumers Road Secondary Plan are other examples of the absolute fixation our planning department has on this massing format, not to mention places like Yonge Street or Queen Street where it can feel particularly out of place.

Yes, they are restricted to a 750 plate here, but they are ignoring the typical 12.5m tower setbacks, which would otherwise "kill" the site. There is flexibility being applied here.

You can argue generalities as to whether existing planning regulations are too strict or not, but in this case specifically I'm struggling to understand how these regulations have resulted in the awkward massing. Those odd stepbacks on the upper portions of the building are purely architectural as far as I can tell, not led by a planning regulation.

And sure you need the additional setback from heritage on the lower floors from planning regulations, but the way it's been handled here is purely an architectural mishap. There are plenty of better examples of how heritage setbacks have been handled architecturally.

The massing here is awkward as hell - but my point was that it doesn't come from planning regulations, but rather just the inability of the architect to design a proper building within the sites constraints.
 
You know very well that there are very specific massings that the city will accept, while rejecting the notion of just about any other alternative. This means point towers on podiums; podiums of a specific height; tower floorplates of a particular size and articulation; a very specifically desired universal treatment of heritage regardless of context. The Tall Building Guidelines are a major part of this.

Any condo tower in this city begins with a shaping exercise that emerges from urban design reports that are created based on what the city will accept at a given location - it's very restrictive and essentially prescribes the resulting massing. I can't begin to explain the countless design exercises I have gone through where we were able to demonstrate a massing that created a much more desirable fit for its environment (i.e. a streetwall where there is currently a streetwall and where a dinky podium looks ridiculous and feels out of place - and where the resulting floorplate created better units or amenity - but was rendered impossible in the face of a very prescriptive planning envelope. This is not how good housing or architecture are made. Don't get me wrong, we need planning oversight and developers are all too happy to do the point-tower-on-a-podium-schtick. But in their inability (and lack of resources) to keep up with the current pace of development proposals, the planning department has encouraged and enforced a very prescriptive and formulaic approach to development in this city.

So no, the planning envelope is not only restricted according to the 3m setback. (And these days, they were likely asking for 10m setback since there is a heritage property on the site.) Every architect and developer in this city knows what flies at the planning department and what does not. Planning studies like the Golden Mile Secondary Plan or Consumers Road Secondary Plan are other examples of the absolute fixation our planning department has on this massing format, not to mention places like Yonge Street or Queen Street where it can feel particularly out of place.

You have a point with respect to the formulaic approach to development.

One would be deluded to think that, in the absence of such planning regulations, the architectural form would be dictated by anything other than the maximization of sellable floor area. If anything, these regulations and constraints, more often than not, create diversity as each lot has its own set of challenges, and force architects to think outside the box. Planning components like massing, density, setbacks and the like have very real impacts on livability and quality of life, moreso than "architecture". So in light of our planning departments shortage of resources to deal with the influx of proposals, I'd rather have the former rather than the later.

I think that overall, despite what one may hear on this forum, Toronto's architecture is relatively varied with different neighbourhoods (and developers) exhibiting different approaches to materials and styles (maybe with the exception of Southcore). I usually find myself more concerned with how developments address city building objectives rather than exclusively aesthetic ones.
 
I take some of your points, and I am certainly not arguing against planning oversight or important issues around regulating density and ensuring livability. What I take issue with is the planning department's singular insistence on the tower-podium arrangement and obsessing over massing and shadowing while ignoring issues of livability within the units of the building or true contextualism. There are plenty of alternative types of building massings and many result in much better and more livable units as well as a better and more contextual built form.

The idea that developers and architects have the ability to address different sites in different ways is far from the truth in my experience. Especially in a city where - regardless of it being Yonge and Adelaide in a lot that forms a strong streetwall and joins at party walls with its neighbours or out in Scarborough in a shopping mall redevelopment - the same type of building is expected and enforced by the planning department until it has become a developer's formula. The planning department should be encouraging contextualism and diversity in built form - in my experience, they do not do this. The most painful examples in my experience were projects where we were going to insert something into an existing streetwall of chunky buildings that fit neatly into the existing street condition but the planning department's one-size-fits-all approach meant that a dinky podium and point tower was the only way to achieve the density. No problem solving permitted on the designer's behalf... no designing for context... no creative problem solving. Just a formula that insisted on something out of context and resulting in a very suburban built form on what is an established downtown site.

Yes, IBI is to blame for the architectural approach here, but the planning department is a part of it. Especially knowing what I know about the urban design staff's tinkering into architectural matters in hilariously ill-informed ways. (i.e. glass block on BIG's project, straightening out every slightly articulated street frontage, telling us what type of masonry to use because someone in the department has an affinity for it). But I digress.

Those odd stepbacks on the upper portions of the building are purely architectural as far as I can tell, not led by a planning regulation.

Those setbacks at the top of the tower are IBI's creation. But you are looking past the fact that we have a ridiculous little 3-storey streetwall (heritage!!! lol) and then a point tower (probably with terrible unit layouts as 750sqm floorplates in a square shape do, by design), as we do everywhere. These point towers are shockingly well accepted for what terrible floorplates and unit layouts they result in. Architects have been explaining this for years and years but - as I see demonstrated in posts here - planners pretend architects have little stake in fostering liveability or speaking to issues beyond aesthetics. Planners can keep on insisting on a 750sqm square floorplate and how it reduces shadows or ensures bigger separation distances, etc. etc.. I will continue to make it clear to everyone who will listen that these do not make for the most liveable residential units. Years of drafting up thousands of iterations of buildings and residential units eventually teaches you a thing or two about what liveability is, and what it is not.

One would be deluded to think that, in the absence of such planning regulations, the architectural form would be dictated by anything other than the maximization of sellable floor area.

In the current system, maximum sellable floor area IS what dictates just about everything - to think otherwise is delusional. The planning department flexes its muscles on a range of issues, some large, some small, but developers' profit is what shapes our buildings.

Planning regulations are not what I take issue with - we need planning policy that is effective policy. I would argue that the major issue is that the current policies have no teeth. I actually want them to be stronger, so that we can ensure it's not just about sellable area. But that does not take away from my critique that the form of development we are encouraging is not ideal. Our current approach needs 1) to have real teeth - more effective policy that actually achieves the desired goals, and then 2) learn to flex and encourage/enforce better housing typologies, including a greater range of them. One would be deluded to think that keeping developers accountable has to mean creating the half-baked results we currently get from the point tower and our "OMB planning" models.
 
Last edited:
3w4fe.JPG
6jtny.JPG
67itry.JPG
124e1.JPG
657uw.JPG
h45tressd.JPG


 
The five properties to the east of this development, which goes towards the NW corner of Queen East & Jarvis, are being submitted for inclusion on the City of Toronto's Heritage Register: 106-114 Queen Street East:


Summary
This report recommends that City Council include the properties at 106-114 Queen Street East on the City of Toronto’s Heritage Register for their cultural heritage value. This row of five attached properties completed together in 1886-1887 contains three-storey, Victorian-era brick, mixed-use (residential and commercial) buildings located on the north side of Queen Street East between Mutual and Jarvis streets in the Garden District neighbourhood. The five properties comprise part of a longer terrace of eight buildings in total. The three properties at 100-104 Queen Street East are concurrently being considered in a separate report, as they form the subject of an active development site and application at 98-104 Queen Street East and 3 Mutual Street.

Following further research and evaluation, it has been determined that each of the five properties at 106-114 Queen Street East meet Ontario Regulation 9/06, the criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, which the City of Toronto also applies when evaluating properties for its Heritage Register.

Properties on the Heritage Register will be conserved and maintained in accordance with the Official Plan Heritage Policies.​


 
Planners can keep on insisting on a 750sqm square floorplate and how it reduces shadows or ensures bigger separation distances, etc. etc.. I will continue to make it clear to everyone who will listen that these do not make for the most liveable residential units.

You're referring to how a 750sm is way too deep as a square floorplate right? Maybe tower guidelines should have more nuance (if one side is between 24-30m, the other side must be less than 24m, if less than 21m wide, other side can be up to 36m long, etc). Or simply floorplate perimeter should always be within 8m of the public corridor. Square floorplates are mainly good for smaller Vancouver-style floorplates (about 600sm) and saving space via a scissor stair.
 
The Report was approved by Council with the following additions re Section 37:

9. Before introducing the necessary Bills to City Council for enactment, City Council direct that the owner of the lands at 90-104 Queen Street East and 3 Mutual Street shall provide, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, at no expense to the City, and secure such in the implementing Zoning By-law Amendments and enter into and register on title to the above noted lands, one or more agreements pursuant to Section 37, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor the following:

a) prior to the issuance of the first above grade building permit for the lands, the owner shall pay to the City a cash contribution of one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars to be allocated as follows:
i. five hundred thousand ($500,000.00) dollars towards capital improvements in Toronto Community Housing buildings and/or new or existing affordable housing units within proximity of the lands in the Ward, in consultation with the Ward Councillor; and
ii. five hundred thousand ($500,000.00) dollars towards local streetscape, parkland and/or community facilities within proximity of the lands in the Ward, in consultation with the Ward Councillor;

b) the cash contribution referred to in Recommendation 9(a) shall be indexed upwardly in accordance with the Statistics Canada Residential or NonResidential, as the case may be, Building Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, reported quarterly by Statistics Canada in Building Construction Price Indexes Table 18-10-0135-01, or its successor, calculated from the date of the Agreement to the date of payment;

c.) in the event the cash contribution referred to in Recommendation 9(a) above has not been used for the determined purpose within three years of Supplementary Report – 90-104 Queen Street East and 3 Mutual Street 5 the amending Zoning By-law coming into full force and effect, the cash contribution may be redirected for another purpose, at the discretion of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, provided the purpose is identified in Official Plan Policy 5.1.1 and will benefit the community in the vicinity of the lands;

d.) the Owner shall design, construct, finish, and convey to the City, in an acceptable environmental condition, for nominal consideration and at no cost to the City, a minimum 345.7 square metres Community Agency Space as measured from interior side walls, located on the second floor and inclusive of the ground floor entrance and elevator, and subject to the following:
i. the Community Agency Space shall be delivered to the City in accordance with the City's Community Space Tenancy Policy and finished to Base Building Condition, with the terms and specifications to be secured in the Section 37 Agreement, all satisfactory to the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration, Executive Director, Corporate Real Estate Management , the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;
ii. prior to the issuance of the first above grade building permit, the owner shall provide a letter of credit in the amount sufficient to guarantee 120 percent of the estimated cost of the design, construction and handover of the Community Agency Space complying with the specifications and requirements of the Section 37 Agreement, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Corporate Real Estate Management, the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;
iii. prior to conveyance of the community agency space to the City, the owner shall provide a one-time cash contribution in the amount of $280,000.00 towards operating costs of the community agency space;
iv. prior to conveyance of the community agency space to the City, the owner shall provide a one-time cash contribution in the amount of $560,000.00 towards the initial finishing costs, less the cost of constructing the kitchen, washrooms and janitorial closet, to be paid prior to conveyance to the City with the remaining funds to be used for future capital improvements to the community agency space;
v. the one-time cash contribution referred to in Recommendation 9(d)(iii) and 9(d)(iv) shall be indexed upwardly in accordance with Supplementary Report – 90-104 Queen Street East and 3 Mutual Street 6 the Statistics Canada Residential or Non-Residential, as the case may be, Building Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, reported quarterly by Statistics Canada in Building Construction Price Indexes Table 18-10-0135-01, or its successor, calculated from the date of the Agreement to the date of payment;
vi. concurrent with or prior to, the conveyance of the Community Agency Space to the City, the owner and the City shall enter into, and register on title to, the appropriate lands an Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement at no cost to the City, that is in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; the Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement shall address and/or provide for the integrated support, use, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and reconstruction of certain shared facilities, and the sharing of costs, in respect thereof, of portions of the subject lands to be owned by the City and the owner as they pertain to the Community Agency Space; and

e) the owner has withdrawn its appeal(s) of Official Plan Amendment 352, and By-laws 1106-2016 and 1107-2016.

See: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewPub...ion=getDecisionDocumentReport&meetingId=17157
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Back
Top