paupah
Active Member
"Rejected. Get rid of this unnecessary modern visual element surrounding the building. Needs more spandrel to match the aesthetic of the rest of the city."
Toronto Kennedy Co-Ops | 142.55m | 41s | CreateTO | Henriquez Partners
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
rdaner
Senior Member
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
“The site’s parking will be aboveground, from the second through fourth floors. A shared amenity space links the co-op buildings at the fifth floor, and the apartments rise from there. People will live and relax above the road overpass, finding light and air up in the sky.” - @AlexBozikovic
www.theglobeandmail.com
Toronto’s new co-op housing points to a dense, beautiful future
Ambitious new project to be lead by the Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto highlights two valuable lessons: size and design matter
www.theglobeandmail.com
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
“The site’s parking will be aboveground, from the second through fourth floors. A shared amenity space links the co-op buildings at the fifth floor, and the apartments rise from there. People will live and relax above the road overpass, finding light and air up in the sky.” - @AlexBozikovic
Toronto’s new co-op housing points to a dense, beautiful future
Ambitious new project to be lead by the Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto highlights two valuable lessons: size and design matter
View attachment 532977
* Just to note off the top, let's please, with all due haste move away from copy/pasting or screenshots of oversized font. The above doesn't even fit on my 22' wide-screen monitor. Too much!
*****
On the substance, Alex doesn't outline the amount of parking to be provided, but he does say it will occupy 3 full floors; that's going to be several hundred spaces for a development that's right at a Transit Hub with a subway, an LRT, great bus connections, and a supermarket literally adjacent to this proposal.
Irrespective of whether parking goes above ground or below, savings could be booked by providing a whole lot less of it.
If it's well camouflaged above ground, I can live w/that; but my 1st choice would be zero parking, and 2nd would be a single-level of parking, underground.
The podium could be put to better use as a considerably enlarged community centre, or a new home for the Kennedy-Eglinton Library which is just to the other side of Kennedy in a moribund strip plaza and is distinctly undersized.
******
This paragraph needs discussing:
Whatever money may be saved by placing parking above ground, could be lost by having to construct a small mountain to link the hydro corridor landscape to the building; that is not a cheap undertaking at all.
Without seeing a site plan, I can't be sure, but it also strikes me that it could be quite a steep ramp, given that Hydro will not let them start raising the grade materially under their wires.
With great respect to CCxA of whose work I have generally been very fond, I am not sold on this concept; I think it reads and very maintenance intensive for a start. Parks does not have money lying around for a large horticultural commitment; they can't maintain what they have now properly.
I think something closer to the Meadoway concept, which is meant to be relatively low maintenance in the longer term is probably a better way to go, with CCxA integrating attractive and useful elements such as upgraded path, seating, drinking fountains, and possibly a thoughtful community garden as well.
Northern Light
Superstar
As I noted this is before the DRP today.
The recording link is here:
Planning is asking for comment as per the below:
Gregory Henriquez spoke for the proponents. Below are slides from his presentation:
This next one addresses a concept we heard about of ramping up the Hydro Corridor landscape to meet the top of the podium for these buildings.
I will note that the concept requires a portion of the adjacent private property.......... as well as modifying the hydro corridor.
I'll pause here to note that Gregory mentions in passing that they had a meeting with Hydro One this morning and apparently got an enthusiastic response.
While I'm encouraged by that, it also means they don't in fact have a done deal with Hydro One...........so that may pose a challenge to schedule, we shall see.
Not sure if we saw these renders:
Panel Question: Will the parking/podium roof be accessible? Answer: We're not there yet, we're thinking about how we could do that (ramps)
Panel Question: Should less parking be needed in the future could it be repurposed? Answer: We are considering that, and looking at different possibilities.
Panel Question: What is the preliminary assumption about cladding? Answer: We're just at the beginning, so it's not set; (no clear answer given) (could be precast, but not a given, example given was Mirvish Village)
Panel Question: Is the Hydro One proposal a solid commitment at this stage. Answer: A very political answer was given, the short answer is 'No'; it's aspirational but the proponent may be able to assist with delivery. (my words)
Panel Question: (paraphrase) What the role of food in the retail plans. Answer: We're thinking of maybe micro retail (sounds similar to the Kitchen concept at Mirvish). The space facing the hydro lands, they are hoping for a daycare, but TBD.
****
Panel Comments:
- Maybe the retail footprint should consider the need for a supermarket.
- The 'guts' of the building, particularly loading, garbage, mail, bike parking etc. Could these be shifted up to the above-grade parking level in order to reduce their footprint at grade?
- Unit sizes are very small, if that is necessary, then greater onsite storage would be useful.
- Great to see a proactive sustainability strategy
- Nice to see proponent team daring to dream beyond the legal site boundaries.
- Mid-block Access from Service Road to the Hydro lands seems too encroached by vehicles both with servicing and a turnaround, needs to be rethought to be an appealing pedestrian space.
- Separation distances are a bit tight, and floor plates are a bit large, maybe something that could be worked on.
- Does the parking need to be open on the north side?
- Some concern about the quality of the pedestrian experience along the service road.
- Interesting comment from Ralph, the pro-forma on the retail should be zero value; treat it as an amenity for residents.
- Prepared to support above-ground parking, not sold on it being 'open'; don't believe the plants shown on the garage will survive, definitely a maintenance issue; seen this before, poorly maintained, plants removed, filled w/concrete.
- Fan of this architect's pre-cast elsewhere in the City, happy to support this. 3 volumes might benefit from different shades/hues rather while retaining a common design language
- Ralph, the over-sized floor plates and lower separation distances will be a precedent which will be used by my clients who own nearby sites. Ralph clarifying he has no issue w/the floor plates here (~800m2); just thinks it's opening 'Pandora's Box'
- Further question of retail viability here, suggestion that major retail will from Eglinton and Kennedy. Maybe this frontage should be well designed lobbies and amenities.
- Paul, discussions w/Hydro over the Meadoway gave me PTSD Anything within 15M of a hydro pylon we were not allowed to plant anything, no way they'll accept grade changes.
- Absence of balconies is supportable, but does put extra pressure on delivery of a high quality public realm.
- Public realm spaces need champions (ie. Councillor, TTC Chair etc.)
- My comments: I think the above ground parking is supportable, but Ralph's concerns are fair. The heights are supportable; the separation distance came up lots of times, and I wonder if its possible to go a bit taller on the 10s in order to get some extra separation. I raised the issue of Hydro, and Paul's opinion aligns w/my own on dealing w/Hydro.
No vote at this stage.
The recording link is here:
Planning is asking for comment as per the below:
Gregory Henriquez spoke for the proponents. Below are slides from his presentation:
This next one addresses a concept we heard about of ramping up the Hydro Corridor landscape to meet the top of the podium for these buildings.
I will note that the concept requires a portion of the adjacent private property.......... as well as modifying the hydro corridor.
I'll pause here to note that Gregory mentions in passing that they had a meeting with Hydro One this morning and apparently got an enthusiastic response.
While I'm encouraged by that, it also means they don't in fact have a done deal with Hydro One...........so that may pose a challenge to schedule, we shall see.
Not sure if we saw these renders:
Panel Question: Will the parking/podium roof be accessible? Answer: We're not there yet, we're thinking about how we could do that (ramps)
Panel Question: Should less parking be needed in the future could it be repurposed? Answer: We are considering that, and looking at different possibilities.
Panel Question: What is the preliminary assumption about cladding? Answer: We're just at the beginning, so it's not set; (no clear answer given) (could be precast, but not a given, example given was Mirvish Village)
Panel Question: Is the Hydro One proposal a solid commitment at this stage. Answer: A very political answer was given, the short answer is 'No'; it's aspirational but the proponent may be able to assist with delivery. (my words)
Panel Question: (paraphrase) What the role of food in the retail plans. Answer: We're thinking of maybe micro retail (sounds similar to the Kitchen concept at Mirvish). The space facing the hydro lands, they are hoping for a daycare, but TBD.
****
Panel Comments:
- Maybe the retail footprint should consider the need for a supermarket.
- The 'guts' of the building, particularly loading, garbage, mail, bike parking etc. Could these be shifted up to the above-grade parking level in order to reduce their footprint at grade?
- Unit sizes are very small, if that is necessary, then greater onsite storage would be useful.
- Great to see a proactive sustainability strategy
- Nice to see proponent team daring to dream beyond the legal site boundaries.
- Mid-block Access from Service Road to the Hydro lands seems too encroached by vehicles both with servicing and a turnaround, needs to be rethought to be an appealing pedestrian space.
- Separation distances are a bit tight, and floor plates are a bit large, maybe something that could be worked on.
- Does the parking need to be open on the north side?
- Some concern about the quality of the pedestrian experience along the service road.
- Interesting comment from Ralph, the pro-forma on the retail should be zero value; treat it as an amenity for residents.
- Prepared to support above-ground parking, not sold on it being 'open'; don't believe the plants shown on the garage will survive, definitely a maintenance issue; seen this before, poorly maintained, plants removed, filled w/concrete.
- Fan of this architect's pre-cast elsewhere in the City, happy to support this. 3 volumes might benefit from different shades/hues rather while retaining a common design language
- Ralph, the over-sized floor plates and lower separation distances will be a precedent which will be used by my clients who own nearby sites. Ralph clarifying he has no issue w/the floor plates here (~800m2); just thinks it's opening 'Pandora's Box'
- Further question of retail viability here, suggestion that major retail will from Eglinton and Kennedy. Maybe this frontage should be well designed lobbies and amenities.
- Paul, discussions w/Hydro over the Meadoway gave me PTSD Anything within 15M of a hydro pylon we were not allowed to plant anything, no way they'll accept grade changes.
- Absence of balconies is supportable, but does put extra pressure on delivery of a high quality public realm.
- Public realm spaces need champions (ie. Councillor, TTC Chair etc.)
- My comments: I think the above ground parking is supportable, but Ralph's concerns are fair. The heights are supportable; the separation distance came up lots of times, and I wonder if its possible to go a bit taller on the 10s in order to get some extra separation. I raised the issue of Hydro, and Paul's opinion aligns w/my own on dealing w/Hydro.
No vote at this stage.
Last edited:
Undead
Senior Member
Wouldn't these concerns be mutually exclusive?
Always love this typo!
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
It's never caught during a spellcheck, which is why I often do a ctrl+F on my various reports/documents to make sure this typo doesn't happen
son of ugly
New Member
What is the reason for going with 1/3 Coop, 1/3 market rate, and 1/3 affordable? Why doesn’t the city go for a higher percentage of affordable? Also setting rents between 40-100% of the market rate seems to be a pretty wide range, is there any further explanation on that?
Sorry if these are naive questions.
Sorry if these are naive questions.
Northern Light
Superstar
So, the reason for the mix is to pay for the project.
The City is supplying the land here, but not the construction budget, nor any operating subsidy. The Co-ops market units will cross-subsidize the affordable units, and the condo units help offset the construction costs of the co-op units).
This is a way of leveraging affordable units with minimal cash investment by the City.
The City often does put some money into various projects like this (varies case by case) for servicing, or upgrades to public realm, but they try to keep those costs down.
We all learned by asking questions, at some point. Never really any harm in a respectfully asked question or two.
Northern Light
Superstar
ZBA has been filed with the City and is now up in the AIC:
www.toronto.ca
Arch.Firm unchanged.
Highest residential floor is now 41s - not sure on amenity.
@Paclo
Ground Floor Plan:
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
Arch.Firm unchanged.
Highest residential floor is now 41s - not sure on amenity.
@Paclo
Ground Floor Plan:
Last edited:
3Dementia
Senior Member
I quite like the materials/building envelope on just one of these buildings... but 3 of them the same feels like over-kill imo. Wouldn't mind seeing some subtle variations on the theme for 2 of 'em.
TwinHuey
Active Member
April 22
egotrippin
Senior Member
Same motif but in a different colour for each building would look great, or even just one in a contrasting colour. I'm thinking terracotta-esque, burnt orangey-red or something like that.
christiesplits
Senior Member
This is such an exciting project. I will be following closely.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Thanks for doing this so quickly - and on such a nice sunny day!