Toronto TeaHouse 501 Yonge Condominiums | 170.98m | 52s | Lanterra | a—A

dt_toronto_geek said:
I'm on board with that. A two storey podium, eliminate parking - zipcar/autoshare only, plenty of resident & guest bicycle parking, lower the height of the buildings and it must go through a design review board.
Click to expand...

As I move through this issue/thread, I realize that I am closer to dt's opinion(s) than most others', with respect to the parking garage issue. I am not too terribly concerned about height as dt is (but his point is valid). I would accept very slender tall buildings here.

More than anything else - and I say this with a caution that I am not catering to aA bashers - as much as I love aA work, I wish for an architectural firm that can foil them, on this particular site. Eventually, aA will have entirely designed the area to the west of this site, and I firmly believe that we are in need of an architectural contrast, because that's the Toronto solution.

Scrap the parking, though .. just scrap it.
 
Hello all,

I was also at the meeting the other night but have been way too busy and tired to report the details of the meeting. Most of the meeting content has already been discussed and mentioned but I did take notes of the events throughout the night. I stayed until 9 pm, but there was ongoing discussions as I left. I was told that Kristin Wong-Tam would address the crowd at the end of the meeting, but I had to leave so not sure if that happened. I also have photos but they're the same as Interchange's so I won't repeat them.

Here are my highlighted points from the meeting (Sorry if some facts have already been known or stated):

Application summary: 2 x 58 storeys on a 7 storey podium. 960 units, retail at grade, 5 levels of parking. The site is designated as mixed use, which the proposal is so it's permitted. 192 m in height is proposed but according to former zoning standards, 18 m is allowed. The final report will be available in Jan/Feb 2012.

According to Clewes, the application has been temporarily placed on hold. There's too much pressure from this section of Yonge Street. Research and studies are ongoing to seek what is most appropriate growth for this stretch of Yonge in the future. Fractured lot ownership is the main reason why this stretch has remained low-rise. Difficult to gather up land. Subway runs diagonally through property, thus above grade parking. With retail at grade.

The renderings were meant to be very conceptual massing studies to show impact on the area. I was personally disappointed to not see any actual renderings but understandable considering the circumstances of how it is still very preliminary. Most of the NIMBY protesters were unable to understand this and took shots at the unpleasant "design". But those forumers who were upset by the elevation drawings can be assured that those are not the official plans.

Various podium ideas were presented with conceptual renderings. A modern podium is important for the evolution of Yonge Street. Vertical slices in the facade was brought up, to create a simple and effective design. Possibility of vertical green, gardens. Also possibility of play of glass, to insert colour, and possibility of public art.

The first commenter, the guy from 501yonge.ca presented a well prepared but biased speech. Interpreting the elevation drawings and massing studies to be bland and banal. Recommended 4 storeys on Yonge Street to preserve the human scale pedestrian corridor. The crowd which was pretty much heavily against the proposal of any scale breaks out in huge applause.

Other concerns included construction impact and the mess it would cause in the area. Typical rants about height and increased density, and impact on shadowing and sunlight. Also concerns on not enough city services to accommodate for these new residents. Also mention that most of the units will be investment properties, which are not family friendly. Clewes responded that initiatives will be taken by counsellors for more family sized units. And also concern for a wider sidewalks, and possible spaces for patios. Clewes responded that there will be setback of retail on Yonge to allow for planting of trees.

I would say around 95% of the auditorium was heavily and stubbornly against the proposal. Many people in the crowd ignored the fact these were massing study images and constant snarky remarks were made towards Clewes and the design. Attacks at planning guideline loopholes were targeted against the hosts but to no avail. The predictable and repetitive issue of falling glass was brought up, with Clewes responding that proper measures will be taken to ensure full safety. A couple people were upset that their views would be blocked. But a city counsellor replied that there is no legislation that protects anyone’s views. During a series of rebuttals with Clewes and the presenters, one gentleman desperately replied that all he wants on the site was a large park. That weak and naïve request was automatically ignored by the hosts. The presenters also addressed the crowd saying that because the city is looking to increase density within certain zones on the city to accommodate future sustainable growth, this part of the Yonge corridor will potentially be part of the focus.

Overall, I was impressed by Clewes’ presentation and the way he carried himself through the tough crowd. I like how initiatives will be taken to make the podium as urban interactive as possible, and confident that Clewes will deliver another quality product.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
I would say around 95% of the auditorium was heavily and stubbornly against the proposal. Many people in the crowd ignored the fact these were massing study images and constant snarky remarks were made towards Clewes and the design. Attacks at planning guideline loopholes were targeted against the hosts but to no avail. The predictable and repetitive issue of falling glass was brought up, with Clewes responding that proper measures will be taken to ensure full safety. A couple people were upset that their views would be blocked. But a city counsellor replied that there is no legislation that protects anyone’s views. During a series of rebuttals with Clewes and the presenters, one gentleman desperately replied that all he wants on the site was a large park. That weak and naïve request was automatically ignored by the hosts. The presenters also addressed the crowd saying that because the city is looking to increase density within certain zones on the city to accommodate future sustainable growth, this part of the Yonge corridor will potentially be part of the focus.
Click to expand...

Thanks for filing the report, Travis.

That 95% in the auditorium do not represent the general thinking in that neighbourhood. I was once a resident in the area, and I can testify that many of my neighbours and I had a desire to see that stretch of Yonge redeveloped. To this reader it seems like only the rude hot-heads showed up. It is naive to think that a developer wouldn't want to profit, and it is also naive to expect the city to pony up for another square or park with all the squabbling about city funding these days. (What planet was that one guy on?).

The trick is to have this site redeveloped with maximum benefit for all, in other words "win-win" for developers and residents, and I am 100% certain that good taste can prevail.
 
Yeah, the people that showed up were generally self-interested, wanting to preserve their views and prevent shadows from falling on their properties. There were probably about two speakers who WERE dead-set against the proposal that I saw as being genuinely concerned for the COMMUNITY, even if I didn't entirely agree with them.

The woman beside me was driving me crazy... she was so rude and a bit of a heckler. She was entirely self-interested.

Of course, many developers conduct themselves in a very self-interested manner too.

Hopefully the groups can meet a half-way point... I think that's where I stand. Not in terms of height, but in terms of the entire proposal. The rear laneway is a bit too small, the parking is way too generous, and otherwise, I think it will be on the right path once changes are made to those features and the design is further developed.
 
SP!RE said:
Yeah, the people that showed up were generally self-interested, wanting to preserve their views and prevent shadows from falling on their properties. There were probably about two speakers who WERE dead-set against the proposal that I saw as being genuinely concerned for the COMMUNITY, even if I didn't entirely agree with them.

The woman beside me was driving me crazy... she was so rude and a bit of a heckler. She was entirely self-interested.

Of course, many developers conduct themselves in a very self-interested manner too.

Hopefully the groups can meet a half-way point... I think that's where I stand. Not in terms of height, but in terms of the entire proposal. The rear laneway is a bit too small, the parking is way too generous, and otherwise, I think it will be on the right path once changes are made to those features and the design is further developed.
Click to expand...

What do you think the fair "halfway point" is, SP!RE? i'm thinking 2x40 storeys with a token amount of parking, maybe 5-10% (with a significant chunk dedicated toward auto-share). also, of course lots of extra bike stalls....which developers seem to hate to include but really make a difference imo.
 
SP!RE said:
Yeah, the people that showed up were generally self-interested, wanting to preserve their views and prevent shadows from falling on their properties. There were probably about two speakers who WERE dead-set against the proposal that I saw as being genuinely concerned for the COMMUNITY, even if I didn't entirely agree with them.

The woman beside me was driving me crazy... she was so rude and a bit of a heckler. She was entirely self-interested.
Click to expand...

Imagine that! Self-interested people with the temerity to express their self-interest at a community meeting on a matter that directly impinges on their interests!! For the record SP!RE, I have yet to meet an individual who is not motivated by self-interest. Perhaps, you're my first introduction to magnanimous self-sacrifice.

As for the issue at hand, I can attest to the fact that most people in this community are not opposed to development. Indeed, many do see development of the site in question as an opportunity to improve a blighted strip of Yonge Street. What they take issue with - and this is where their self-interest comes into play - are matters like scale, traffic (both automotive and pedestrian), consequences of a raised parking lot, poor traffic studies of the proposed development's impact on Maitland Terrace and, yes, shadows (although I recognize that you don't assign much weight to the matter) to name just a few of the issues raised that evening.

Bottom-line, don't denigrate self-interest. Communities that are engaged in civic life can only lead to a better city.
 
I never said that to a degree self-interest wasn't a good thing. You have probably only read a couple posts and instantly became defensive.

I am talking about the numerous people who seem to think a park or 3-floor development should go there. That's completely unrealistic, and doesn't serve the greater good, which is to increase the population and density of the city. It's selfish to think a development should be scaled back to ridiculously small proportions (you'll notice I AM in favour of something less than 58 floors here though, or at least a much smaller podium) simply to save your view or stop shadows from going on to your balcony.
 
If the subway tunnel is cutting through the property diagonally and causing all these problems I wonder what the feasibility of just moving the tunnel would be. I'm assuming the tunnel is currently running on an almost perfect diagonal from the southwest corner of the site to the northeast. If they were going to all of that shoring and pile driving work on the lot anyway how hard would it really be to do some excavation and move the tunnel? Maybe they could look at acquiring a couple properties on the block to the north and just shift the tunnel out of the way enough to allow for them to get a partial underground level on the south side of the site.

Really, that half-level is all they need to make this work. If they get that they'd have the room to get ramps going underneath the (relocated) subway tunnel, and they could have their parking underground, where it belongs. This honestly wouldn't be a Big Dig type of megaproject. The logistics would be a challenge, but nothing unsurmountable (especially if the upshot is being able to put up 120 storeys worth of condos)
 
Wait... you think we should re-route the subway so that Lanterra can build what they want here? Um...
 
Re-route? I'm not saying it should veer off to a new stop in St. Jamestown. I'm saying that if Lanterra were to exert a minimal amount of effort they could realign the tunnel fairly easily, and doing so would allow them to address the major problem of their development (i.e.; the hulking monstrosity of a podium). Really, if they could get the parking below grade they'd really free themselves up in terms of what they can do with the podium design. Maybe they could put up something more along the lines of Minto Midtown.
 
whatever said:
If the subway tunnel is cutting through the property diagonally and causing all these problems I wonder what the feasibility of just moving the tunnel would be. I'm assuming the tunnel is currently running on an almost perfect diagonal from the southwest corner of the site to the northeast. If they were going to all of that shoring and pile driving work on the lot anyway how hard would it really be to do some excavation and move the tunnel? Maybe they could look at acquiring a couple properties on the block to the north and just shift the tunnel out of the way enough to allow for them to get a partial underground level on the south side of the site.

Really, that half-level is all they need to make this work. If they get that they'd have the room to get ramps going underneath the (relocated) subway tunnel, and they could have their parking underground, where it belongs. This honestly wouldn't be a Big Dig type of megaproject. The logistics would be a challenge, but nothing unsurmountable (especially if the upshot is being able to put up 120 storeys worth of condos)
Click to expand...

Is this a serious post? "Do some excavation?" What happens to the subway for the months that it would take to dig, shore, form, pour, cure and re-track a tunnel serving the busiest rapid transit line in the country? Then what happens after that? Lanterra has to construct their parking under the relocated tunnel?

And as SP!RE notes, who's footing the bill? Rob Ford? Lanterra?
 
It would take months of construction... all the while, what are transit users supposed to do? All so that Lanterra can get away with building whatever they want for their own profit?

I am going to assume you aren't actually being serious, whatever.
 
Use your imagination, kids. Were you paying attention when they did the underground work for Aura? Or Maple Leaf Square? There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't do the shoring around the site, sink the extra piles in the northwest corner of the site, excavate down to the level of the existing tunnel box, build the new tunnel (while the existing one is still operational), outfit the new tunnel, punch a hole in the existing tunnel, and reconnect the new bypass.

I bet most of the work could be done after hours, with minimal service disruptions. Then they could demo the old tunnel and excavate under the new one (basically the same thing they did at Aura and MLS)

And why the assumption that I'd expect the city to pay for this? It's Lanterra's lot, it's their problem. But if they were willing to assume the cost (which I honestly think wouldn't be prohibitive), why not let them? The height of the point towers isn't the problem here, it's the height and massing of the podium.
 
whatever said:
Use your imagination, kids. Were you paying attention when they did the underground work for Aura? Or Maple Leaf Square? There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't do the shoring around the site, sink the extra piles in the northwest corner of the site, excavate down to the level of the existing tunnel box, build the new tunnel (while the existing one is still operational), outfit the new tunnel, punch a hole in the existing tunnel, and reconnect the new bypass.

I bet most of the work could be done after hours, with minimal service disruptions. Then they could demo the old tunnel and excavate under the new one (basically the same thing they did at Aura and MLS)

And why the assumption that I'd expect the city to pay for this? It's Lanterra's lot, it's their problem. But if they were willing to assume the cost (which I honestly think wouldn't be prohibitive), why not let them? The height of the point towers isn't the problem here, it's the height and massing of the podium.
Click to expand...

MLS and Aura have less than nothing to do with moving transit tunnels to bury parking.

The subway is none of Lanterra's concern - why would they pay the tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars it would take to complete a project of this scale? What's more, "why not let them?" Construction costs, design and engineering fees, logistics, jurisdiction, service disruptions, the current municipal administration...where do I stop?

The podium is the natural outworking of the problem of the subway. If moving it was such an enticing or lucrative venture, wouldn't Lanterra have proposed it in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top