Toronto Five St Joseph | 160.93m | 48s | Five St. Joseph | Hariri Pontarini

Irishmonk said:
our small minded bean counters and easily stressed planners
Click to expand...

The planning department has been chronically under-funded and under-staffed for years now, which would be bad in any city, let alone one with the development pressures of Toronto. Characterizing them as easily-stressed flailing ninnies feels like punching down.
 
adHominem said:
The planning department has been chronically under-funded and under-staffed for years now, which would be bad in any city, let alone one with the development pressures of Toronto. Characterizing them as easily-stressed flailing ninnies feels like punching down.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't say they were flailing ninnies, but it's not a bad description. They did, after all, try to kick the legs out from under Massey Tower which is easily one of the most generous and forward looking private developments the city's ever had; meanwhile they look the other way when garbage like Aura and Signature present themselves. I think Keesmaat is out of her depth--she'd be more suitable for a smaller, quieter place like Waterloo or Kingston where stop signs and bike lanes are the most vital issues.

Anyway, I think this is now way off topic.
 
Irishmonk said:
Well, I didn't say they were flailing ninnies, but it's not a bad description. They did, after all, try to kick the legs out from under Massey Tower which is easily one of the most generous and forward looking private developments the city's ever had; meanwhile they look the other way when garbage like Aura and Signature present themselves. I think Keesmaat is out of her depth--she'd be more suitable for a smaller, quieter place like Waterloo or Kingston where stop signs and bike lanes are the most vital issues.

Anyway, I think this is now way off topic.
Click to expand...

I don't think you now how planning works, if thats what you think.

Council sets the rules on what flys or not, planning simply advises them. Council sets rules on what should and shouldnt get approved (minimum lot setbacks and tower spacing, in the case of Massey), and if a project violates those rules planning is forced to recommend rejection. I believe that during the meeting when they approved Massey Keesmaat voiced approval of the project on a personal level, but on a professional level the office was forced to recommend rejection as the tower was simply too close to the lot line.

planning also does not evaluate on architectural merit. Aura from a planning perspective is quite good, 4 floors of retail, restaurant space, high density residential above, wide sidewalks on Yonge, large stepbacks, etc. The fact that they used window wall was not a planning concern, that was the DRPs and the architect of the projects.

Further more, Signature is not yet approved and we have no way of knowing if planning will approve of it. They have just submitted the rezoning application, lets wait to see how much it changes between now and the version that gets approved.

Yonge has plans for a sidewalk widening from Dundas to Bloor, from my understanding. The BIA simply didn't move forward with it under Ford as they knew the reaction it would get. Yonge street is scheduled for reconstruction in the summer of 2016, and the BIA is talking about undertaking the work then. The work under the current plan involves reducing the road to a single lane each way with inset areas for taxis and delivery vehicles.

And of course these so called lazy planners have been busy with dozens of initiatives across the city that you seem to conveniently ignore, such as successfully lobbying the province to allow 6 floor wood structures, Eglinton connects, introducing annual planning reports, the new Development permit system, transportation plan review, portlands work alongside Waterfront Toronto, creating a complete street design guideline for transportation services, and doing the environmental assessments for the Downtown relief line and Scarborough subway. stuff such as street reconstructions are also being managed with local BIAs, such as the recently created financial district BIA which holds an ambitious initiative to rebuild most of the streets in the core by the end of the decade.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
I don't think you now how planning works, if thats what you think.

Council sets the rules on what flys or not, planning simply advises them. Council sets rules on what should and shouldnt get approved (minimum lot setbacks and tower spacing, in the case of Massey), and if a project violates those rules planning is forced to recommend rejection..
Click to expand...

While I share a bit of your sympathy for the planners, insertnamehere, I don't quite agree with your analysis of how the process works. Council does not "set the rules for what flies or not", Council either approves or rejects the "rules" put forward by the Planning Department. The planners created the document titled "Tall Buildings Design Guidelines" which set out all the standards that would "guide" the planners in evaluating applications. Council approved this document under the understanding that they were guidelines, not rigid zoning bylaw requirements. The dilemma facing the planners with Massey Tower was that they were afraid to set a precedent for a midblock tall building that did not meet the guidelines, notwithstanding the uniqueness of the location and the plethora of public benefits. They issued a Refusal Report. They weren't "forced" to; they chose to. However, as we know, Council (led by KWT) rejected the planners advice and approved the development. In the end, it was not Council setting the "rules"; it was Council rejecting Planning's interpretation of the guidelines that they themselves created.
 
yes, I didn't word that correctly. In the end however what I meant to convey is that the rules are set out for planners, they just don't look at the renders and say whether they like it or not and base their recommendation around that.

A lot of rules do come from council as well, plus amendments that are often made to the planning documents. Plus the initial planning documents are often made with heavy consultation with council.
 
I have some sympathy for the planners' situation. Do they have another way to plan other than to create rules and attempt to apply them? The OMB will certainly enforce as level a playing field as they can by looking favourably upon anything they accept as a precedent for each particular case. I think that the mechanism for thwarting the rules when appropriate is the local Councillor and City Council. While I'm not saying that the road to approval wasn't fraught, the political solution ultimately worked for Massey Tower, as it should have.

Are all of the Planning Department's rules "right"? That's another question, and one that triggers the occasional reevaluation of the rules. Ones that don't make sense should be fought.

In regards to labelling some buildings "garbage", it's architecture that's being criticized, not planning. Ontario's laws simply do not grant Cities and Planning Departments the power to demand particular architectural style standards. The best Cities can do in that regard is through site plan control, and there's nowhere near enough they can currently do in those documents to protect against too many mullions, unsightly spandrel panels, or too much of the same colour brick in the neighbourhood, etc. Until there is recognition by Council and the Province that the market, which is supposed to take care of those issues, isn't able to, and that we therefore need more power to prevent unwanted architectural outcomes, things aren't going to change…

if that is what we want anyway, as more control over architecture also makes for a good way to clamp down on innovation. I imagine we will get more control over time, but it's going to be tricky writing the rules to prevent mistakes while still allowing for creativity.

42
 
Okay, thanks for all that info. It wasn't my intention, initially, to just single out the planners. The main players at fault are the developers who seem to have no conscience when it comes to the effect their sub-par creations will have on the city for many decades. Last minute switches, like cheaping out on mechanical boxes, might save the developer a few bucks--but at what cost to the city? The fact that they keep getting away with this nonsense is infuriating. To keep making excuses for the players who could do something--planners and council for example--is not going to improve things. Anyway, this might be the wrong thread for this argument, as "Five" seems to be a decent project thus far.
 
It's almost impossible to legislate taste and quality, and would we really want to live in a community that does?

The shoddiness we see here is a cultural by-product, it reflects the values and priorities of our city, in the same way that the built form and public realm in Chicago represent the values there and so on. We at UT form a fairly rarified/special interest group that does care about these things (even though some here only really care about height, it would seem) but the reality is that most in Toronto overwhelming do not - the right views beautification (in the broadest sense) as gravy and the left views the opportunity cost of it as too high vis a vis social programs. This is Toronto in a nutshell (as it has been over the last twenty or so years at least); the good, bad and the ugly (literally)!
 
This is getting seriously off topic, but why do we compare ourselves to Chicago? Toronto - aside from population - is not very similar to Chicago. Chicago's GDP is almost twice Toronto's, and it was once one of the ten largest cities in the world. It is still the third largest in the US. Chicago has access to cash for all of that fancy frou-frou architecture that Toronto simply doesn't. That isn't so much about different values - it's about cash. Our condos are built for middle class people, and they represent middle-class values. If we want to compare architecture to a city with comparable wealth and metro population, it would be a city like Atlanta.
 
Parkdalian said:
This is getting seriously off topic, but why do we compare ourselves to Chicago? Toronto - aside from population - is not very similar to Chicago. Chicago's GDP is almost twice Toronto's, and it was once one of the ten largest cities in the world. It is still the third largest in the US. Chicago has access to cash for all of that fancy frou-frou architecture that Toronto simply doesn't. That isn't so much about different values - it's about cash. Our condos are built for middle class people, and they represent middle-class values. If we want to compare architecture to a city with comparable wealth and metro population, it would be a city like Atlanta.
Click to expand...


Your post is full of contradictions... and nobody was comparing Toronto to Chicago. On the contrary, the point was that Toronto's built form and public realm reflect its own context as any other city's does. That said, the problem with cherry-picking points of comparison is that you bastardize your own argument, ending up with the daft conclusion that Atlanta is comparable to Toronto, when clearly we know it is not.
 
Why not just think of Toronto on its own terms? Charles Dickens visited in 1842 and wrote in American Notes:

Our steamboat came up directly this had left the wharf, and soon bore us to the mouth of the Niagara; where the stars and stripes of America flutter on one side and the Union Jack of England on the other: and so narrow is the space between them that the sentinels in either fort can often hear the watchword of the other country given. Thence we emerged on Lake Ontario, an inland sea; and by half-past six o’clock were at Toronto.

The country round this town being very flat, is bare of scenic interest; but the town itself is full of life and motion, bustle, business, and improvement. The streets are well paved, and lighted with gas; the houses are large and good; the shops excellent. Many of them have a display of goods in their windows, such as may be seen in thriving county towns in England; and there are some which would do no discredit to the metropolis itself. There is a good stone prison here; and there are, besides, a handsome church, a court-house, public offices, many commodious private residences, and a government observatory for noting and recording the magnetic variations. In the College of Upper Canada, which is one of the public establishments of the city, a sound education in every department of polite learning can be had, at a very moderate expense: the annual charge for the instruction of each pupil, not exceeding nine pounds sterling. It has pretty good endowments in the way of land, and is a valuable and useful institution.

The first stone of a new college had been laid but a few days before, by the Governor General. It will be a handsome, spacious edifice, approached by a long avenue, which is already planted and made available as a public walk. The town is well adapted for wholesome exercise at all seasons, for the footways in the thoroughfares which lie beyond the principal street, are planked like floors, and kept in very good and clean repair.

It is a matter of deep regret that political differences should have run high in this place, and led to most discreditable and disgraceful results. It is not long since guns were discharged from a window in this town at the successful candidates in an election, and the coachman of one of them was actually shot in the body, though not dangerously wounded. But one man was killed on the same occasion; and from the very window whence he received his death, the very flag which shielded his murderer (not only in the commission of his crime, but from its consequences), was displayed again on the occasion of the public ceremony performed by the Governor General, to which I have just adverted. Of all the colours in the rainbow, there is but one which could be so employed: I need not say that flag was orange.

http://www.online-literature.com/dickens/americannotes/16/

Toronto when Dickens visited, the Kane map of 1842:

 
Last edited:
Parkdalian said:
This is getting seriously off topic, but why do we compare ourselves to Chicago? Toronto - aside from population - is not very similar to Chicago. Chicago's GDP is almost twice Toronto's, and it was once one of the ten largest cities in the world. It is still the third largest in the US. Chicago has access to cash for all of that fancy frou-frou architecture that Toronto simply doesn't. That isn't so much about different values - it's about cash. Our condos are built for middle class people, and they represent middle-class values. If we want to compare architecture to a city with comparable wealth and metro population, it would be a city like Atlanta.
Click to expand...

Toronto is the financial capital and largest economic centre in Canada, but somehow we don't have enough cash to build great things? I can understand your point about condos (even though there are condos in Yorkville that can't even impress), but how is it that Toronto build those gleaming bank towers like TD Centre and Scotia Plaza many decades ago when the city was much less wealthy, but today all we get are simplistic green/blue glass boxes in prime locations like Waterpark Place, Bay-Adelaide Centre, and Ritz-Carlton?
 
Last edited:
Because at the time those companies were going at it with their dick-measuring contest trying to outdo each other. Now that that already happened we don't really have big private players putting tons of money into beating each other.

(generally speaking)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top