Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

[Mike in TO]

You highlight a couple of the reasons why Toronto loses 99% of the time at OMB appeals.

''

Toronto does not lose 99% of the time at OMB appeals... between 2000 & 2006 23.5% of OMB decisions favoured the city, 6.3% were withdrawn and settlements were reached in 42.8% of the appeals. This notion perpetuated by the media & ratepayers associations that the OMB consistently rules in favour of development proponents is false and misleading.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Adam Vaughan's motion was to:

1. Submit this item to Council without recommendation.

2. Request the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, to work with the applicant, and local Councillor, and bring forward directly to City Council for its meeting on December 16, 2013, any settlement terms that may result from the negotiations with respect to the Zoning Amendment Application for 266-270 King Street West and 274-322 King Street West.

A settlement was not reached, which is a setback for M+G IMO. I am also surprised that City Planning is recommending refusal since Adam Vaughan's motion that carried at community council clearly directed that the report be submitted without recommendation. City Planning was only suppose to bring forward settlement terms, if any. Comments on this??

I am optimistic though that City Council will reject City Planning's recommendation alternative development concept.

The "without recommendation" is Community Council's recommendation, not the planners. It doesn't change what the planners recommend. The report is addressing the results of the settlement process - the applicant has refused to make any changes. It also offers suggestions for the type of changes staff would be looking for in order to recommend approval and recommends this be the basis of any future settlement talks.

 

[fedplanner]

My 99% comment is an obvious hyperbole. The majority of OMB appeals are ruled or settled in favor of the developer. I didn't think it would be taken literally.

 

[fedplanner]

The "without recommendation" is Community Council's recommendation, not the planners. It doesn't change what the planners recommend. The report is addressing the results of the settlement process - the applicant has refused to make any changes. It also offers suggestions for the type of changes staff would be looking for in order to recommend approval and recommends this be the basis of any future settlement talks.

That's not how I interpret Adam Vaughan's motion. I can't wait to hear city council debate this one, especially Vaughan's questions to planning.

 

[Patrick Smyth]

"To those bemoaning the planning department, I believe they have been understaffed 15-20% (stop the gravy train and all that jazz; understaffing causes further issues down the line,"

I'm happy to see that you agree there is a massive problem in the TO Planning Department. The causes you cite did not arise upon Ford's election. There has been a blatant dysfunction in "Planning" since Amalgamation. Lastman bullied the TPD and Millar ignored it, all the while as its function was relegated to bottom man on the totem pole. Raising awareness for a disaster waiting to happen is not "bemoaning". It is providing a public service that Councillors and Staff are ignoring at our the expense of good planning and city-building. the city is undergoing a development boom and good planning is missing in action. No need to shoot the messengers.

An even bigger problem for contests at the OMB is the fact that Planning and Legal report into different bosses. As in the recent case of 109 Ossington, it is common for one or the other to collapse without notice, Council approval or good planning reasons. A freight train of redevelopment is coming through Toronto that just might be the making of some future slums.

 

[buildup]

Lots of vitriol spewed here with no one bothering to read the document I assume. Classic message board.

The city addresses myriad issues of utmost importance inthe recent document. They have also laid out a potential plan to continue the conversation. This is a good thing. They are being clear that they understand the site will be developed but it also needs to be balanced contextually. They have to protect the interests of the city as a whole (the recent discussion of the King streetcar just shows the ripple effect of what buildings of this size can do to an entire system). This is a large and complex proposal that requires a large and complex show of care and management.

The treatment of the Designated heritage buildings in the city's plan pretty much shows the city's heritage planning service dept's expectations for what would be approved and considered appropriate. Toronto is starting to get this layered approach to its old and new buildings and can be a leader here. This shows what could be done and be exciting.

To those bemoaning the planning department, I believe they have been understaffed 15-20% (stop the gravy train and all that jazz; understaffing causes further issues down the line, such as dozens of projects going before the OMB instead of being handled by the city) throughout the past 5-6 years under which time as we all know the city has undergone an unprecedented boom. They seem to be doing their best under the resources they have. Fortunately next year's budget will allow the city to hire more planners.

From sources I have, there is still lots happening behind the scenes. An extraordinary project like like requires extraordinary thought and coordination between the developer and the city.

Good points Greenleaf - thanks for the perspective.

 

[fedplanner]

From Adam Vaughan's November Newsletter

Update on Mirvish King West application

The Mirvish-Gehry proposal for King Street West is headed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

The applicant appealed to the OMB because Planning staff has not completed their review of the impacts and issues raised by this application within the timelines designated by the Planning Act.

At Toronto and East York Community Council yesterday, direction was given to continue discussions with the applicant between now and the next City Council meeting on December 17, 2013. I am deeply concerned that on this case, not only will decisions be made by an unelected body with no Toronto context, it looks like it will be made without a solid analysis.

My office has convened three community meetings and consultations on this application.

The key questions I have asked City Planning staff has not been answered. For over a year I've been asking for three reports from staff:

Analysis of density. How much density can the block hold, how much can the neighbourhood shoulder?

What is the right live work balance for this neighbourhood and how do we stop residential uses and current market from over-whelming all other uses?

What infrastructure changes are required before further intensification takes place?

In addition to the reports listed above, over the past seven years I've asked planning to undertake a number of studies in the neighbourhood that may address these questions. These studies are underway but they are not complete:

Heritage Conservation District study

Built Form Review (area is exempt from tall building guidelines)

transportation study

area has been nominated for piloting a development permit system

Community Services and Facilities study (social service audit)

I have significant concerns about the OMB's ability to base a decision on sound planning with regard for community interests at the best of times.

In order to address this application, city staff need to present their research, facts and planning rationale. Ideally, this information is what City Council uses as a basis for sound decision making. Unfortunately, this application is on its way to the OMB.

In the report presented to Toronto and East York Community Council yesterday, the only reference to density is the simple line that staff "fears" there may be too much density on site. I don't believe that level of analysis will hold up at the OMB.

The lost employment capacity on site is a significant issue. In my opinion the capacity of these warehouses is just as important as the brick and beam structure, building scale and environmental issues related to demolition. There is currently no application to demolish because I applied heritage protections on these warehouses. Demolition is not permitted without additional heritage approvals regardless of what the OMB does.

Finally the infrastructure for this neighbourhood must be updated from both a hard service and a social service perspective to accommodate the last decade's changes. Wider sidewalks, transit corridors, bike lanes, daycare, meeting space, and to a lesser degree water and hydro need to be studied and upgraded to accommodate density already coming to the neighbourhood, let alone what is proposed through this project. The studies and recommendations with respect to these upgrades are not complete.

I will continue to push for this slate of planning and infrastructure studies to be completed, not just to respond to this application, but for the sake of the neighbourhood as well. In the meantime, I believe we should continue to hold discussions with the applicant on this file rather than close the book and head for a fight at the OMB without a thoroughly research planning rationale.

 

[vatche]

I personally would prefer if Gerry kept those building and incorporated them in the modern structures that he proposes to put up. I think he could do wonders. It's always more attractive to have old with new. Especially when it's gehry.

 

[johnwood]

Oh god, give me a break, you clearly NEVER see a really ugly building. We got a lot of quality building and some not so handful others, like any other city in North America.

If you don't like Toronto, just leave. Nobody's gonna miss you.

and you clearly think ugly is nice. your taste of what a beautiful building must be awful. and im stuck here, so i can't leave quite yet

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Enough! All off topic postings will be deleted from this point onward.

MoD

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

''

Toronto does not lose 99% of the time at OMB appeals... between 2000 & 2006 23.5% of OMB decisions favoured the city, 6.3% were withdrawn and settlements were reached in 42.8% of the appeals. This notion perpetuated by the media & ratepayers associations that the OMB consistently rules in favour of development proponents is false and misleading.

It's also been shown that a lot of those losses were the OMB rejecting the council decision but agreeing with what staff had recommended so this has nothing to do with why Toronto loses at the OMB.

Whether the buildings are "pretty" is subjective. Whether they are related in scale to other buildings in the district, or whether the amenities being provided are sufficient...well, I don't see how any objective person could agree with those.

They city's photoshop job isn't supposed to be an alternate design but a suggestion to Gehry/Mirvish of what they might have to work with.

Back to the OMB, it may be "developer friendly" as Mirvish might "win" but it would be a big thing for them to simply OK the demolition of the heritage buildings and approve the tallest residential buildings without some changes of their own.

 

[ehlow]

I personally would prefer if Gerry kept those building and incorporated them in the modern structures that he proposes to put up. I think he could do wonders. It's always more attractive to have old with new. Especially when it's gehry.

I agree. I've been conflicted about this proposal, since I really love the proposed buildings but I'd like to see the existing buildings stay. I actually really like the way the "alternative concept" looks from street level in those renderings, with Gehry's buildings on top of the existing ones.

In terms of height, I don't care, it can be original height, or somewhere between.

I just want to say adma, I've always enjoyed your posts throughout the years, thanks!

 

[Canadian Chocho]

I agree. I've been conflicted about this proposal, since I really love the proposed buildings but I'd like to see the existing buildings stay. I actually really like the way the "alternative concept" looks from street level in those renderings, with Gehry's buildings on top of the existing ones.

In terms of height, I don't care, it can be original height, or somewhere between.

I just want to say adma, I've always enjoyed your posts throughout the years, thanks!

Agreed. Despite my defence of these heritage structures, I too am fond of the proposal. And i think it would be so much greater if they were incorporated into what is being proposed. I think some of the best projects today in the city are the ones that are doing just that (st. Thomas/nicholas always confuse the two, queen-richmond, etc).

I'm not even fond of the height reduction. If these heritage structures are to be demolished in full or partially, i think it should be for something as audacious as mirvish-ghery at its full height and monumental size. I am not saying these structures are objectively beautiful, world-class, single handedly bring toronto to blah blah blah. However i do recognize their originality (in a local context) and intention on being landmarks of some sort. I can live with them not being built at all, i would prefer they didn't demolish the heritage structures outright, but having them be reduced to this degree i think leaves us with a comprimise where everybody loses.

Also i enjoy adma's post as well.

 

[ehlow]

Agreed. Despite my defence of these heritage structures, I too am fond of the proposal. And i think it would be so much greater if they were incorporated into what is being proposed. I think some of the best projects today in the city are the ones that are doing just that (st. Thomas/nicholas always confuse the two, queen-richmond, etc).

I'm not even fond of the height reduction. If these heritage structures are to be demolished in full or partially, i think it should be for something as audacious as mirvish-ghery at its full height and monumental size. I am not saying these structures are objectively beautiful, world-class, single handedly bring toronto to blah blah blah. However i do recognize their originality (in a local context) and intention on being landmarks of some sort. I can live with them not being built at all, i would prefer they didn't demolish the heritage structures outright, but having them be reduced to this degree i think leaves us with a comprimise where everybody loses.

Also i enjoy adma's post as well.

At the risk of agreeing with your agreement of my post : I agree that, to me, some of the arguments presented have been over-dramatic.

I don't find arguments that take the form "if we don't build this, Toronto is DOOMED!", "Toronto isn't a world-class city unless it builds THIS!" very convincing.

The most convincing thing for me is that I simply love the way these buildings look. They are far better looking than almost all the condos that have been built so far. Imagine if Aura was as good looking as any of these three, it would be iconic.

 

[jje1000]

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-65180.pdf

I think this plan has the potential to be superior. Remember that this is only a planning recommendation and hasn't been touched by Gehry or even an architect yet.

With the staggered building heights, you get a more varied skyline, and retaining some heritage buildings at the base is definitely possible without cheapening the design (it won't be cheap anyways). If Gehry does it correctly (he will), there can be fairly interesting moments where the new and old intersect. Libeskind plays with this a bit, and there's one instance of this at the AGO by Gehry himself. Imagine something like that, where the old buildings are altered and reimagined in a totally new way.

You don't necessarily need a lot of room for something monumental. The Princess of Wales theatre site offers a large enough site for something interesting, and the 1942 warehouse to the east of it can be sacrificed for additional room. Another note is that in the greater context, the towers aren't the element disagreed upon- the podium is. Even if the podium is altered, I think we'll still end up with a great project. Scotiabank Plaza and BCE Place are two great projects with some heritage incorporated into them with little detriment.