Toronto East Harbour | 214.2m | 65s | Cadillac Fairview | Adamson

HousingNowTO said:
There's a new Change-dot-org petition being circulated by Architectural Conservancy Ontario (Toronto Branch) to retain the old Lever Soap-Plant building.

Like the "Save the Foundry" folks on the other side of the Don, I do NOT support this argument when the previous use was one that created a lot of environmental contamination.

An area like "The Distillery" can't be compared to what you will find at a Foundry or a Chemical Plant like the Lever building, the contamination is far worse from those previous uses. It is fine to tear it down old industrial buildings and cart away the soil underneath for a new neighbourhood.

www.change.org

Sign the Petition

Save Lever Brothers Plant No. 2
www.change.org www.change.org
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand your reasoning about not saving the Lever Soap Building because its former occupants created pollution. If a building is worth saving it's for its architectural and/or heritage properties. (That said, I really don't see the Lever Building as being worth saving but maybe others do and can convince me. (They will never convince CF or Metrolinx!)
 
AlexBozikovic said:
It’s almost certainly possible to save at least the structure of the main building. The previous owners studied this and had a development proposal for a reno and expansion m.

Having said that, this is over and the petition is years too late.
Click to expand...
yeah online patients rarely work as there is no way to trace if someone is an actual person or if they are signing it to be silly. Plus they are easier to ignore.
 
I hate to be defeatist, but it’s unlikely the petition will do much. It’s more important for City Planning to attempt to get CF to create decent ground level conditions on the site, and so far I’m unimpressed: it looks very similar to what I’ve experienced in Hudson Yards, i.e. large monolithic blocks, with very little to capture pedestrians. Then again, that is the norm for many new Toronto builds so…

It’s really surprising to me that architects would ignore lessons from comparable builds.
 
allengeorge said:
I hate to be defeatist, but it’s unlikely the petition will do much. It’s more important for City Planning to attempt to get CF to create decent ground level conditions on the site, and so far I’m unimpressed: it looks very similar to what I’ve experienced in Hudson Yards, i.e. large monolithic blocks, with very little to capture pedestrians. Then again, that is the norm for many new Toronto builds so…

It’s really surprising to me that architects would ignore lessons from comparable builds.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to pastiche,when done well.

I think even recreating the idea of an industrial facade done w/brick, and period appropriate glazing and trim, then tweaking it to support retail and having a contrasting tower coming up from within would work well; better still if you do a pair or a trio of them.

Loft-style space is marketable commercially and residentially.

There is so much room within the sphere of 'new build' to provide architectural variety; a good street-level experience, flavour, and a sense of a neighbourhood evolved over time, even if built/designed within a few years of each other.

To do otherwise isn't merely lazy or negligent, it leaves money on the table. Better development attracts higher rents/sales per ft2.
 
allengeorge said:
I hate to be defeatist, but it’s unlikely the petition will do much. It’s more important for City Planning to attempt to get CF to create decent ground level conditions on the site, and so far I’m unimpressed: it looks very similar to what I’ve experienced in Hudson Yards, i.e. large monolithic blocks, with very little to capture pedestrians. Then again, that is the norm for many new Toronto builds so…

It’s really surprising to me that architects would ignore lessons from comparable builds.
Click to expand...

When there's no existing urban fabric to work around, you're far less likely to get "decent ground level conditions on the site". The parts of town with the best ground level conditions are the ones where people kept carefully fitting in new buildings into the existing urban fabric over the decades and centuries (e.g. Bloor Street). Keeping the soap factory essentially mandates a finer grained design both architecturally and in terms of the new buildings' relationships with the street.
 
junctionist said:
When there's no existing urban fabric to work around, you're far less likely to get "decent ground level conditions on the site". The parts of town with the best ground level conditions are the ones where people kept carefully fitting in new buildings into the existing urban fabric over the decades and centuries (e.g. Bloor Street). Keeping the soap factory essentially mandates a finer grained design both architecturally and in terms of the new buildings' relationships with the street.
Click to expand...
+1
 
junctionist said:
When there's no existing urban fabric to work around, you're far less likely to get "decent ground level conditions on the site". The parts of town with the best ground level conditions are the ones where people kept carefully fitting in new buildings into the existing urban fabric over the decades and centuries (e.g. Bloor Street). Keeping the soap factory essentially mandates a finer grained design both architecturally and in terms of the new buildings' relationships with the street.
Click to expand...
It is possible to at least try with new builds (see the Honest Ed’s site) but we almost always get monoblock ground-level conditions. I recognize that this is more costly for developers and I’m loath to add yet another requirement to their todo list, but…we’re building the streetscape for generations to come. Plus, CF has the money. (Of course, my guess/understanding is that Planning can’t force this ask.)
 
allengeorge said:
It is possible to at least try with new builds (see the Honest Ed’s site) but we almost always get monoblock ground-level conditions. I recognize that this is more costly for developers and I’m loath to add yet another requirement to their todo list, but…we’re building the streetscape for generations to come. Plus, CF has the money. (Of course, my guess/understanding is that Planning can’t force this ask.)
Click to expand...

More or less correct, in general; though Planning certainly, under normal circumstances, does have the means simply by being very cooperative and expedient or the opposite of that to induce some measure of cooperation.

Persuasion can do a lot too, if you can speak the language of a developer and explain why a design change would enhance potential ROI, garnering higher retail rents and possibly higher rent/sales on residential or office spaces.

That said, in this case, with a provincial MZO hanging over everything; unless the Province wants added criteria, there's little for Planning to do.

Though.......

*****

Would it surprise anyone if CF stuck its hand out for an IMIT grant for the Office towers? I bet it does..........and the City controls who gets IMIT; there's no provincial jurisdiction there, and that could easily be worth tens of millions of dollars
per tower; seems like a pretty big carrot.

The City can also choose to extend grants/funds for heritage preservation as well.

I certainly don't favour corporate welfare; I am on the record opposing the existence of IMIT; be that as it may; if the money is there, and being spent, why waste leverage?
 
Last edited:
allengeorge said:
It is possible to at least try with new builds (see the Honest Ed’s site) but we almost always get monoblock ground-level conditions. I recognize that this is more costly for developers and I’m loath to add yet another requirement to their todo list, but…we’re building the streetscape for generations to come. Plus, CF has the money. (Of course, my guess/understanding is that Planning can’t force this ask.)
Click to expand...
Planning in Toronto can force anything they feel like. Community planners and Urban Design make subjective demands all the time with no regard to cost or feasibility.

One problem with this "fine-grained" idea is that some people at city hall don't actually like it. All the biggest projects in the city are designed in collaboration between the developers, consultants and planning. The original East Harbour plan is, basically, what city planning's urban design division wants to see.
 
Screenshot 2022-06-14 at 2.13.17 PM.png



link to website

https://courbanize.com/projects/engage-east-harbour/updates
 
This will doubtless be discussed....

Engage East Harbour​

Posted on May 25, 2022

Over the last six months, the project team has been working with the Province and the City to advance the East Harbour Mixed-Use Master Plan and the TOC proposal. On April 6, 2022, City Council approved the East Harbour TOC proposal and on April 8, 2022, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued a Minister’s Zoning Order to support the creation of a complete and mixed-use community at East Harbour. The East Harbour project team and the City worked together to create an additional community benefits package to further support the vision of a complete community.

What has stayed the same/changed with the Master Plan since October 2021?

After working closely with the City, the project team has made the following changes to the master plan:

  • With the redistribution of the density, one residential tower has been removed in quadrant four to accommodate a City of Toronto Community Recreation Centre.
  • The overall amount of open space and park space is above City requirements with some changes to the distribution of the space. The public park space that was initially east of tower 2D has been reallocated to create a larger public park in quadrant four beside the new Community Recreation Centre.
  • An additional community benefits package, including the above noted community recreation centre, was created with the City of Toronto. You can view the details of this package here.
What is happening next?

An Open House will be scheduled for early summer 2022. We look forward to sharing the details once they are available. That's tonight's meeting.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top