Toronto Picasso Condos | 128.62m | 39s | Mattamy Homes | Teeple Architects

khristopher said:
City staff are idiots. Ugh.
Click to expand...

Read the report first.

This report reviews and recommends refusal of the application to amend the Zoning By-law. Refusal is based on a number of factors. The development exceeds the 30 metre as-of-right height by 91 metres. It has a density of 19.5x the area of the lot, exceeding that of proposed developments on the City’s most intense corridors including the Shangri-la on University Avenue and One Bloor Street East. In addition, the building does not complement the warehouse character of Richmond Street, creates a negative precedent for the area and detrimentally affects the character of the Queen Street West Heritage Conservation District.
Click to expand...

City staff are far from idiots. They can't be put on record for approving a development with such major deviations from the existing zoning bylaw, or they'd be powerless to stop other developments.
 
khristopher said:
City staff are idiots. Ugh.
Click to expand...

Why? Because they realised that the proposal was not suitable for that location? Sounds to me as though they were doing exactly what we pay them to do! The Report gives MANY reasons why the proposal was turned down, if you disagree with it you might want to offer a reasoned response.
 
I always felt the the height was inapropriate but, wow, 19.5 density is insane for that site. I doubt the developer's fortunes will be any different at the OMB.
 
Last edited:
Here's my reasoned response: I understand the City's objections but find them insufficient. Basically, what they keep on hammering is that the building is incompatible with neighbouring "warehouse-form" structures. My reaction to that is a big so-what?

I like the warehouses, but we are not talking about the 8th Arrondissement of Paris here. Clubland has a mix of truly historic warehouses, newer, taller buildings, brick Victorians, buildings massed like warehouses but decorated much differently (eg Scotiabank Theatre) and lots (and lots) of parking lots. A couple of blocks south there are plenty of proposed and completed buildings that are very tall.

To me, the City report reads like the developer wants to despoil some perfect historic district, and that's just not true. The King-Spadina secondary plan--which if I recall correctly dates from the Barbara Hall mayoralty--became functionally obsolete a long time ago, and with good reason. When it was written the idea of regenerating the 'two Kings' was a sort of hoary pipe-dream, and getting anything underway, like loft conversions, was seen as the way to do it. King-Spadina is now part of downtown, period.

A mix of high-rises and warehouses is, to my mind, a very exciting and attractive North American urban landscape, and that's just what we are getting elsewhere in its remit. There's no reason for such selective rejection of that possibility.

I hope the OMB overrules them on this one.
 
Last edited:
Picturing the city 25 years from now, we can look at this location in 2 ways.

1. Allow full development of the region and allow it to become an area full of 40 story facadectomies removing or taking away any sense of charm the could have in the future.

2. Allow suitable development to enhance the neighbourhood into a region of mid rise structures full of retail, restaurants, and patios. This could be our version of Soho which sounds a hell of alot better than something like midtown.

I think if were responsible developing this area over the next 20 years, we could easily see the King West and King East neighbourhoods becoming the biggest tourist attraction of the city.

I love huge towers like the rest of us but the city has to do its job and allow the city to grow in a responsible manor. Imagine this was the 80's and developers wanted to overwhelm the district with 40 story precast monsters. While this certainly isn't a monster the developer has to understand that they have to work within the guidelines of the plot of land they have purchased. If he wanted to build something so tall, he should have spent the extra dollars for a location with allowable density.
 
Last edited:
allabootmatt said:
Here's my reasoned response: I understand the City's objections but find them insufficient. Basically, what they keep on hammering is that the building is incompatible with neighbouring "warehouse-form" structures. My reaction to that is a big so-what?

I like the warehouses, but we are not talking about the 8th Arrondissement of Paris here. Clubland has a mix of truly historic warehouses, newer, taller buildings, brick Victorians, buildings massed like warehouses but decorated much differently (eg Scotiabank Theatre) and lots (and lots) of parking lots. A couple of blocks south there are plenty of proposed and completed buildings that are very tall.

To me, the City report reads like the developer wants to despoil some perfect historic district, and that's just not true. The King-Spadina secondary plan--which if I recall correctly dates from the Barbara Hall mayoralty--became functionally obsolete a long time ago, and with good reason. When it was written the idea of regenerating the 'two Kings' was a sort of hoary pipe-dream, and getting anything underway, like loft conversions, was seen as the way to do it. King-Spadina is now part of downtown, period.

A mix of high-rises and warehouses is, to my mind, a very exciting and attractive North American urban landscape, and that's just what we are getting elsewhere in its remit. There's no reason for such selective rejection of that possibility.

I hope the OMB overrules them on this one.
Click to expand...

I'm with allabootmatt on this one....there seems to be a kind of disconnect with the Planning Dept and what Adam Vaughan (sp?) is trying to accomplish in Clubland...I really hope this one will find a way to happen...
 
Jayomatic's second scenario is exactly what should be happening. Adelaide and Richmond are teeming with prime Soho/Nolita-style retail opportunities (long, narrow brick & beam spaces -- the kind that keeps the big chains out). This district's density of these types of buildings is unmatched elsewhere in the city (except maybe King East/Corktown?).
 
This is like M5V Life all over again. The Developer will go to the OMB.
 
Hopefully this building will show up somewhere else in the city, as it's a great design and I'd like to see it built. I honestly wouldn't mind if more dramatic and interesting proposals like this were built up Yonge St, and in North York. That place is going to turn into an architectural nightmare, they really deserve some outstanding buildings. That said, I don't want downtown to start getting more precast schlock.

As far as Richmond West, and the area this building is currently proposed goes, I'd like to see them intensify the density with lots of brick buildings that compliment the area's existing character. I absolutely love 19th/early 20th century industrial architecture, however there are a lot of ungainly parking lots marring the area. Fill it in with mid-rise structures reminiscent of London on the Esplanade's east tower. Characterful brick, and a decent form that doesn't overwhelm the existing built form. We need more proposals like that.
 
I am confident this will get build, it is like the M5V Life project. Festival Centre changed a lot of things in the area.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top