Toronto Minto Westside | 68.88m | 20s | Minto Group | Wallman Architects

While it's not a Gehry or a 400 Wellington, it's not bad.

I wouldn't mind more nods to the brick warehouse history of the area, but it seems fairly decent.
 
Apart from losing that wonderful old building that houses the Sherwin Williams paint store, I mostly support this project. I agree with Solaris that the Bathurst facade could probably be trimmed down from 14 storeys (which is very bulky), and I think 8 storeys would be good here, with maybe a 20 storey tower at the corner. In contrast, I would probably raise the Front street podium (the middle portion) up to 8 storeys from the 4, or so, you see in the rendering. It'll probably even things out without costing too many units.

Otherwise, I like the varied facade, and the uneven massing between the buildings. We could've done a lot worse; back in the day, a developer would've proposed something really awful, like some monotonous, block-spanning midrise, or two point towers on a 2 storey podium.
 
Hipster, it was a block-spanning podium that the developer and architect first proposed. The varied facade was an idea pushed by the community and wasn't the idea of the developers. The idea was to make the facade along Bathurst look like four separate buildings. Unfortunately the absence of creativity on the part of the architect has still resulted in a repetitive design.

If you see the 3D renders of the massings, you would quickly see that this proposal is huge and completely out of scale with the area. If Minto and Freed can't make a profit with two-thirds of what they are presently proposing, then they shouldn't be in the development business.
 
Red Mars said:
The best thing the city did to worsen the traffic jam was to place a stop light between Wellington and Niagara on Bathurst. Placing the light in between these two intersections plugs everything up real good.
Click to expand...

I watched Adam Vaughn remind other councilors yesterday that anyone living in the grid pattern of old Toronto should expect traffic, and that traffic was a symptom of vitality. It is a good point, and certainly applies here: when I used to leave that climbing gym at 9 pm, the streets were silent, dead. The increase in traffic will promote more foot movement, and boost the retail and entertainment venue revenues accordingly.
 
gristle,

Having not seen the 3D model, and being only an occasional visitor to the neighbourhood, I'll have to trust your judgment on the appropriateness of the scale of the buildings. Still, I like core concepts of the design, such as a corner tower, varied colouring and massing. My feeling is that the scale, though out of touch, at least serves as a transition from the even taller Cityplace project going in to the south.
 
Red Mars said:
The best thing the city did to worsen the traffic jam was to place a stop light between Wellington and Niagara on Bathurst. Placing the light in between these two intersections plugs everything up real good.
Click to expand...
Crossing Bathurst as a pedestrian or cyclist can be a frustrating experience. The crosswalk sure beats dodging cars, but I don't see why they couldn't have put lights at Wellington instead. It could really use some lights now that there's a hotel generating traffic there.
 
Last edited:
grey said:
I don't see why they couldn't have put lights at Wellington instead. It could really use some lights now that there's a hotel generating traffic there.
Click to expand...

My guess - Its to create a snafu in order to deter traffic. We have a rapidly growing metropolitan neighborhood and yet we have odd numbered individuals in the area who will do everything to not let progress take place. I say let them move to Elliot lake.

On a side note, we finally have a Tim Horton's @ King and Bathurst after years of being denied access to the area.
 
I have trouble seeing any real reason to object to this development. The scale of the building seems reasonable - both in terms of height and in terms of the parsing of the site into multiple smaller footprints. I think the west façade is out-and-out good, with a variety of rhythms, textures, and materials that put it outside of the realm of the standard glass box. I think the south façade could use more of that type of love, particularly because of the road visibility it will have from the south due to the open space of the tracks. I also want to tip my hat to this proposal because it will conceal that hideous stepped-tier face of the Wallman building while leaving the punchy Front St. elevation exposed.
 
In fact, the scale of the buildings is unreasonable. The largest tower is nearly twice the size of anything else in the neighbourhood. Add to that, it's completely out of scale with respect to the secondary plan for the area - which is a well-considered plan. Once the developer bothers to allow actual massing studies for the building and its surroundings, it will become evident that this proposal is an attempt to jam way too much onto the lot in question. As for the the facade along Bathurst, it fails to capture the idea of creating an impression of multiple structures. What the architect achieved, in my opinion, was as little as possible. The Front and Bathurst location is not City Place, so any reference to that area is an error.
 
Seems to be a feud

Wow, the Stop Minto Freed group is really entrenched against this development! Can’t believe someone would post a on the architect’s rendering like this.

I am a purchaser in Reve (same architect) of a suite overlooking the park, closing next month and was actually hoping the development of Minto Freed would actually have a taller tower at the corner of Front and Bathurst- like 30 plus stories or whatever. I couldn’t care less about the height on that site as it’s a prominent corner. What's the big deal?

Someone told me this development would “squash and spreadâ€. Its too bad its seems to be a personal ‘feud’ at this point. I hope the OMB resolves it.
 
I dont see the problem wiht this proposal. The argument that this proposal is not in line with other heights in the neighbourhood to me seems superficial at best. The reality is that toronto is full of these new communities and will continually be redeveloping other communities. This is what happens when people start to want to live downtown vs the burbs. New buildings will have to be built and they will have to go somewhere. It is no different then the transformation of Yorkville, the entertainment district or liberty village. The positives outweigh the negatives. We should be encouraging more pedestrian oriented communities, not arguing against them.
 
Scottish Sensibilities said:
Wow, the Stop Minto Freed group is really entrenched against this development! Can’t believe someone would post a on the architect’s rendering like this.

I am a purchaser in Reve (same architect) of a suite overlooking the park, closing next month and was actually hoping the development of Minto Freed would actually have a taller tower at the corner of Front and Bathurst- like 30 plus stories or whatever. I couldn’t care less about the height on that site as it’s a prominent corner. What's the big deal?

Someone told me this development would “squash and spread”. Its too bad its seems to be a personal ‘feud’ at this point. I hope the OMB resolves it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, imagine that, a community opposing a poor development in their neighbourhood! What's next? Democracy?

As for your purchase overlooking the park, you forgot to note that portions of the Minto Freed structure will add a shadow over Victoria Memorial Square due to the oversized Minto Freed structures. In addition, some of your neighbours within Reve living on the west side will look directly onto a long wall of Minto Freed suites pretty much running from Front to Niagra. That portion of the building will be much taller than Reve. Down below, they will get to see the service access and loading areas for the building and retail component in the proposal. More sensitive design considerations courtesy of the architect and developer as they try to jam as many possible units into this thing.

To note, the project isn't in front of the OMB yet. And there are no personal feuds. People in a community have a right to question poor design. After all, they are the ones who get permanently stuck with a poor building once its built.
 
I am reposting this from the 111 Bathurst thread as it seems to be an appropriate comment here as well.


Originally Posted by gristle
Have you read the secondary plan for the area? No, of course not.
Click to expand...

I have read the secondary plan (and the 2006 secondary plan review), and you are absolutely right that the Minto/Freed project contravenes it. But so does this project in equal measure. And yet, you see no problem with this one, but any support of the Minto/Freed project sends you into a spitting cyber-rage. What's the difference in your opinion?

I could see an objection that's based on a strict-faith interpretation of the Spadina-King planning regimen. It has worked very well over the last 15 years in creating an interesting and desirable neighbourhood west of Spadina. But that's not the argument you've been making. You vary on a case-by-case basis.

It seems to me at this point that both projects could be workable and valuable additions to the neighbourhood, and that, if anything, this project would be the more problematic of the two due to its proximity to a landmark church. The Minto/Freed one is in a location that has 'gateway' potential right at the very corner of the secondary plan, and is only overly tall right the intersection. The rest of the building fits in with the street wall established by other recent projects (Reve, Sixty Bathurst, that Core project right to the north, etc.). So why the different stances?
Click to expand...

I guess I am still questioning your insistence that this is uniquely and grossly mis-scaled for the neighborhood. I'm also questioning why the shadows this will cast onto the park are worse than the shadows 111 Bathurst will cast onto the church. Are there any studies or city reports available on this issue?

I think it's also worth stating that the renderings shown thus far look like an architectural project only midway through schematic design. There will be (and will have to be) much more refinement and detail in the months to come. Maybe you are confusing incomplete design for poor design?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top