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

SP!RE said:
I was tempted to tell people to stop being so rude and sarcastic to Peter Clewes (who was there representing the project; which sucks for him because Lanterra would have faced a riot if they showed up!) and be more constructive because going after height won't be fruitful for the neighbourhood's efforts-- in fact, if it gets cut down, it wouldn't be down to the 12 floors or so the majority of people there thought more reasonable. I did, however, end up saying (when I got the microphone after a couple hours of different comments) that I felt it was important not to complain so much about height/shadowing that the design of the ground level and podium is overlooked in these community meetings-- I suggested (although I realize the site is only so big) to put residential or office around the parking levels, a la Market Wharf condo.

Many people complained of lack of parking, which I thought was ridiculous. Given its urban site on a subway line (literally right above it), it should go for the minimum amount of parking possible. However, I do agree that the lane-way behind it is going to face some serious issues, and unfortunately, it really is a lot to squeeze on to one site. I'm not saying I'm against the height, but I do think that perhaps there is no way to put that many units into two towers on this one site without having many inconveniences first and foremost for the future condo RESIDENTS of this complex when using the alleyway and moving in and out, etc.
Click to expand...


SUCH good points! great review SP!RE. for starters, i'd like to say that i believe two 58 storey towers is ridiculous for this site. that said, i am of the opinion that the site is "highrise worthy" though at a more modest number (who knew 40 storeys could be considered "modest"!).

SP!RE's idea re: wrapping the above-grade parking with office/resi to better animate the street is brilliant; however, practically speaking it will be near impossible to achieve given the tight site envelope. i'm more interested in SP!RE's second point about providing less (as opposed to more) parking. we've seen the city approve this sort of thing at 21 grenville and RCMI (in the latter w/zero parking) and more recently consider proposals such as 2-8 gloucester (which is significantly underparked but is also carefully considered and revolves heavily around its gazillion bike stalls and car share etc).

in my opinion less parking is the only way to go if we are to continue development in this area. the city can't have it both ways - either they stop allowing developers to build huge skyscrapers (which we know will never happen) or they relax their stringent car parking requirement standards. it has to be one or the other, otherwise our streets will be f*d with traffic congestion. there's no two ways around it. yes the subway system is overcrowded at the moment but this can be fixed through technological upgrades to subway cabs/signalling/additional lines ie: eglinton lrt. what cannot be fixed is the width of our streets. simple.
 
I think it is a silly zoning requirement to require parking. If somebody needs/wants a parking space don't buy here that simple. A developer should never be required to offer parking or be required to ask for the exemption to provide parking.
 
I still haven't heard an explanation as to why parking is required for new condos. It seems like the epitome of misguided, intrusive bureaucratic meddling. And it's obviously a case of city hall's left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. The city is trying to reduce the number of cars within the downtown core, but they're also requiring new condos to provide large parking garages?

My only guess is that this requirement dates back to the 60's and 70's when the residents of new appartment buildings in the Grange or Annex would take up all the street parking to the determent of the more established homeowners (or at least a fear that this would happen).
 
Too bad I missed the meeting last night, I had tickets to a concert that I surely wasn't going to skip. Although from the one account I've read, I am glad to have skipped the histrionics from the immediate neighbours, and would rather approach criticism of this development from a city-building stance. Showing one's bad side to Clewes is inexcusable, too, no matter what one thinks of his work.

I am particularly enjoying the posts from ThomasJ and SP!RE this morning re parking. The parking requirement seems a bit out-of-sync with 2011 realities in this city (and in other cities, I might add).

So, we're talking about very slender here, now? That's good. (Why no renders released?). I see progress in the efforts to encase above-grade parking with commercial space.

The extra mile is required with this project. I hope OMB is avoided and that agreements can be arrived at in a more civil, win-win manner, because there is so much at stake. This is an opportunity to go for maximum benefit because of the prominence of the site, let's leave behind the "anything is better than what is there now" approach.

If I had far more money than I could use, I'd buy the entire site and donate it to the city for a new public square.
 
It does seem odd that no renderings were shown, you'd think they would have wanted to impress the pants off the crowd. Maybe the renderings aren't different enough from the massing drawings, as Project End has claimed. Uhm.....
 
Register123 said:
It does seem odd that no renderings were shown, you'd think they would have wanted to impress the pants off the crowd. Maybe the renderings aren't different enough from the massing drawings, as Project End has claimed. Uhm.....
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a weird situation, isn't it. It reflects badly on the developer, too.
 
They did show renderings, but they are still at a very early stage... there are several different ideas for the podium cladding and the massing (i.e. how far to set back the retail/ first floor into the podium). The towers themselves look like SPIRE without the random yellow panels, and I imagine they could change depending on how long the proposal takes to go through all the different stages.

Actually, I just remembered another interesting/important point: The developer has agreed to wait until the North Downtown Yonge Street study (or whatever it's called) is concluded in approximately January 2012 before they propose the actual building (I think that's what; I wasn't entirely clear on what it was the developer had agreed to wait to do). So that was very interesting to me. So in January/February 2012 we should have a better idea of what the final decision is for what this project will look like.

More detailed renderings of the project would not have swayed hardly anyone in the crowd there last night. Though I was dismayed by how many people referred to it as a tasteless, monolithic, monotonous tower, and hated that it would be clad in glass. There were, also, of course, unfounded complaints about anticipated falling glass. (These people HATE Lanterra, evidently, and feel as though Clewes and the developer are out to ruin their neighbourhood.) None of them had any appreciation for neo-modernism. I mean... what would THEY put there? A 58-storey tower clad in brick? Concrete? Pre-cast?

There was such a lack of appreciation for the importance of putting public consultation into the PODIUM design. Everyone bitched about height and density incessantly (ironic because many of them live in apartment buildings that were once tall for the area) instead of focusing on making it better at pedestrian level. In fact, the crowd ridiculed Clewes' ideas such as putting a green wall over the entire parking podium... lots of sarcastic comments to an architect who is trying to make the parking garage as interesting as possible. He admitted that it's not ideal and didn't seem thrilled about it but saw it as "presenting opportunities as well as challenges".
 
Last edited:
The public will generally find any kind of excuse or irrelevant fact to bring criticism to the project. It is unfortunate as it wastes time and prevents valid and constructive comments from being expressed.
I am sure the City is used to these comments and don't take them as seriously.
I hate seeing these NIMBY antics, which makes them look pity, ignorant and stubborn.

I think the massing of this proposal is way too massive and not comfortable on a pedestrian level, but I am not opposed to any development on this site as Yonge Street (especially south of Bloor) is one of my least favorite major streets in TO and any quality development should be welcomed. I would think some renderings would only help the architect and developer to a certain degree, as it would start describe the character and design intensions of this project. I think the renderings shown for 2-8 Gloucester were helpful in generating constructive dialogue at their community meeting, and didn't create a negative air of mystery or secrecy on what this project may look like. But given the controversy of the 501 Yonge development, amount of negative press and a very vocal community opposition for this, any renderings would be buried by the overwhelming sea of complaints in this case.

Thanks SP!RE for your report. I am very curious to see how the design gets developed come February.
 
SP!RE said:
None of them had any appreciation for neo-modernism. I mean... what would THEY put there? A 58-storey tower clad in brick? Concrete? Pre-cast?

There was such a lack of appreciation for the importance of putting public consultation into the PODIUM design. Everyone bitched about height and density incessantly (ironic because many of them live in apartment buildings that were once tall for the area) instead of focusing on making it better at pedestrian level. In fact, the crowd ridiculed Clewes' ideas such as putting a green wall over the entire parking podium... lots of sarcastic comments to an architect who is trying to make the parking garage as interesting as possible.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure most of the people in the crowd wouldn't put a 58-storey anything there... more likely a 3-storey faux-Victorian :)

Anyway, you were one of the relatively few speakers who I agreed with. It doesn't really matter whether the towers on top of that podium are 58 storeys or 46 or 18, if they're sitting on top of a 7-storey parking garage it's still going to be overwhelming and lifeless on Yonge St. I appreciate what the architect was trying to do to liven it up, but at the end of the day, a parking garage with shrubbery or illuminated glass panels or whatever stuck all over the front of it is still a parking garage. No "eyes on the street", to quote another dude at the meeting quoting Jane Jacobs.

I have no problem with 58-storey towers here, but I don't buy that we're doomed to accept a hulking above-ground garage there just because there's a subway tunnel below the property. If the developer can't figure out a parking solution that doesn't involve a dead garage wall (dressed up though it may be) looming over Yonge St., I think this project should be rejected outright.
 
I think there's three problems here:

-The above ground parking block.
-Height
-Simplistic unto crude massing.

People in Toronto aren't unsophisticated. It's not the neo-modernist look they're objecting to - it's the three big problems listed above. I mean, if Clewes was going to erect his version of the Barcelona Pavilion, I don't think we'd hear a peep.

The parking garage - well, er...because it's a parking garage. The green wall to dress it up comes across as specious. I mean, unless it's evergreens or plastic plants, it ain't gonna be that green for a lot of the year. I think the developer should bite the bullet on this one and either build a parking garage elsewhere (?!) or just be bold and do away with parking altogether. Wrapping the garage in offices is a good idea, but I think the site is too tiny. Just make it an office block and everything gets instantly more pleasing.

The height. "If the base is done right it doesn't matter...", well - yes and no. The base being done right will certainly make the stroll down Yonge an improved experience, but the inescapable height of the towers will cast quite the impression on the neighbourhoods around them. It's not just shading or views. It's the uneasy precedent being set. Little side streets like Maitland have a wonderful, irreplacable charm. Having this building go in, in this current developer-happy condo boom climate, will make those antique low-rise buildings look at about at ease and assured as a chihuahua sitting under an elephant. Just look up the street to Charles. Is that really the template we want to be allowing for our small-scale residential side streets?
If, instead of two very tall point towers, they were essentially joined and lowered and spread out - you could fit the same number of apartments in a thirty - some storey building. Carefully articulated, that could create a real and enjoyable streetwall. Plus, all the apartments would look outwards - no apartments would be looking each other in the eye.

Simplistic unto crude massing. AA's big strength - and sometimes weakness - is svelte, easy-to-read simplicity. Their buildings use the latest technology well to produce finely assembled, surprisingly comfortable homes. Sometimes, that's a cool, urbane strength. Other times, it looks like the dullest of cliches.
Yonge is a lively, polygot hot mess of a street. Cool urbanity and svelte restraint are not it's calling card. Nor are large, chilled-down blockish buildings. It's not that Aa are bad architects, not by a long shot. It's that are they the right architects for this stretch? I don't want to push this too far towards contextualism, but...if the heiress is too refined to get dirty, do we want her at the party? Now if Alsop or MVRDVhad been given this job...!

So, I don't think Toronto folks are unsophisticated and rejecting this 'just because'. I think there's heartfelt issues at stake.
I guess we'll have to wait and see until those final renders start showing up.
 
Last edited:
Silence&Motion said:
I still haven't heard an explanation as to why parking is required for new condos. It seems like the epitome of misguided, intrusive bureaucratic meddling. And it's obviously a case of city hall's left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. The city is trying to reduce the number of cars within the downtown core, but they're also requiring new condos to provide large parking garages?

My only guess is that this requirement dates back to the 60's and 70's when the residents of new appartment buildings in the Grange or Annex would take up all the street parking to the determent of the more established homeowners (or at least a fear that this would happen).
Click to expand...

This may come as a shock, but condo owner own cars too. Transit may sound like the utopian solution, but it doesn't go every where and it is horribly overcrowded. Besides, who are you, or city council, to decide who will and who won't own a car?

If you really want people to adopt transit as their primary means of transportation in the city, we need to spend some money to expand it and make it work first. We need more Provincial and even Federal money to make transit the solution it needs to be. Until then, people will still need cars.
 
CanadianNational said:
If, instead of two very tall point towers, they were essentially joined and lowered and spread out - you could fit the same number of apartments in a thirty - some storey building.
Click to expand...

Would a shorter, slabbier building not cast a broader and more long-lasting shadow on Yonge? Tall point towers are the best way to minimize shadow impact.
 
Regarding above-ground parking, could they not build 2-3 storeys of commercial at grade and then the parking on top of that? See Ryerson's business school as an example - Canadian Tire at grade and parking on top.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top