AlbertC
Superstar
It's a mediocre looking warehouse, not really historically significant and bad street presence. Good trade off IMO.
Toronto The Carlaw | ?m | 12s | Streetcar | TACT Architecture
- Thread starter VoiceofReality
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
Agreed! Travis is on point!
NikoS
Active Member
The building that streetcar is selling appears confused... rather looks like three buildings with three styles mushed together.... I could see anyone one style being more effective over a mash up.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
Thanks for that -- and I disagree, 42. Your new DB project is awesome for bringing together disparate info. I hadn't seen the render with the townhouses in the NE block, e.g. That's obviously a sop to the Filmic Lane TH folks, although it'll be interesting to see how integrated they can be (that's the alleyway behind their THs and a big fence, right now.)
BeeRich
Active Member
It is a complete sop. What's currently regulated to 3 floors, somehow wants to expand to 12 floors. It will be the highest building in the area, besides the other tall ugly residential building that is two blocks to the west. Nothing on Carlaw is this tall. Nothing along King Street, west of the Don, is that tall. Even the City agrees that 3 floors currently, is a proper limit. It is not a good trade-off.
If you want to feel how tall this building will be, go to the patio at Lolabar. Look up at the WorkLofts and realize how tall it is. That building is 2 floors short of what is proposed at 345. The wind has already kicked up. The parking alone is currently inadequate.
If you want to feel how tall this building will be, go to the patio at Lolabar. Look up at the WorkLofts and realize how tall it is. That building is 2 floors short of what is proposed at 345. The wind has already kicked up. The parking alone is currently inadequate.
Architecturefan
Active Member
Well first of all, its not currently regulated to 3 floors. The zoning for the site allows a height of 18 metres which would allow a 5-6 storey building.
Even so, I'm not sure how you can say the City agrees that either 3 floors or the 5-6 floors it already allows is a proper limit since the City supported the Flatiron Lofts project across the street at 11 storeys.
Out of curiosity, given that an 11 storey building has already been approved across the street, what do you think would be appropriate/fair to allow here?
Parkdalian
Senior Member
It should be noted that currently the city has intentionally low height limits across the entire city. It's part of a deliberate strategy to make developers trade other benefits for increased height or density. So don't get too stuck on the 5-6 as the right height for this area.
BeeRich
Active Member
The building that stands there applied for a height increase, and was denied. It is 3 floors. Regardless if you knock it down and put up 5 floors, it still has a recognized height limit. That limit is also for the building that is there at the moment, the farthest from the townhouses to the east.
You don't see the difference between 345 Carlaw and something across the street? Perhaps a simple map might help. You see, 345 Carlaw is North of Dundas. Flatiron is South of Dundas. Completely different blocks. They are not the same. The block south of Dundas has no residential on it. 345 is directly beside residential. If you don't see that, you really should take another look. It's really simple. As well, Flatiron are not building to 11 floors. They are building to 8. The Worklofts have been built even shorter to that. How you make buildings get higher as it gets closer to residential, makes no sense at all.
And like I already said, which you ignored, the Worklofts are too tall. It's dead obvious when you sit across the street. This is even before the Flatiron goes in.
None of this has to do with Flatiron, Worklofts, the west side of Carlaw, nor any City-derived policy. The building is just too high. It's too close to residences. It's brought up over and over again, but people don't seem to want to talk about that. It's not about Rob Ford, it's not about the Port Lands, it's not about City Place, it's not about any of that. RRR is the only person here to shed light on the issue. If not for that, why not put 140 floors in? Why such the low restrictions down Carlaw? I mean Carlaw should be another downtown, should it not?
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
+1
But in all seriousness, you're clearly biased on what you claim is appropriate for the area. This based on what you think this development will do to negatively impact your property, as you've stated previously. Not that you shouldn't have a say in how your neighborhood is shaped and grows but I feel like you're just ignoring out-of-hand some strong points put forth by other posters (namely the proximity to downtown, the presence of nearby structures of a similar height, etc.). And sorry but I've got news, this will not be the last project to come to this area within the next decade. If you're that opposed to density I'm sure you could find a nice place out in North York or the like where you won't have to worry about such issues.
BeeRich
Active Member
Appropriate for the area? Name one other 12 floor building going in that close to residential east of the Don Valley. Is that a big enough area for you? Like I said, even locations along much more major streets, closer to downtown, aren't given that height. I think you're just ignoring that. Second, the two buildings that are going in just south of this, are shorter, and farther away from residential homes. I stated that, so I am in fact not ignoring it by any means. I also haven't ignored the current height expectations from the City. South of Dundas is a completely different story, and they do not bear much on anything on any of that property, nor anything east of there.
Development is one thing, over-building a location, especially the way Carlaw Avenue is going, is not supported by any reasonability at all. See, there are ways that people expect a neighbourhood to support any increase in density. If you like shiny buildings and bright lights, maybe New York City is for you. Carlaw Avenue is not Liberty Village, nor is it downtown. Hopefully any new projects for the area don't turn this area into the new Sheppard Ave.
BMyers
Active Member
Just for clarification, both Work Lofts and the Flatiron Lofts will be 11-storeys, not 8. And from the aerial view, those two properties (319 Carlaw and 1201 Dundas) appear to almost as close to the low-rise residential on Boston Avenue south of Dundas as 345 Carlaw will be north of Dundas.
The low rise residential on Badgerow and Filmic are farther away from 345 than Boston Ave residential to the Work Lofts and Flatiron sites.
The low rise residential on Badgerow and Filmic are farther away from 345 than Boston Ave residential to the Work Lofts and Flatiron sites.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
Welcome back, BeeRich! You might want to tone down the sarcasm if you want anyone to line up on your side of this discussion. Just sayin'...
BMyers -- there's a 'yeah, but...' comparison between Filmic and Boston, though, and that's the trees on Boston, which shelter Boston from the construction on Carlaw. It's Filmic's backyard, versus Boston's streetscape.
The next three sites to be considered for development along this stretch now that The Carlaw is going in, will be along Dundas -- the parking lot on the NW corner (past CN's triangle), the parking lot east of Flatiron, and the white cinder block one story on the north side of Dundas, east of The Carlaw. If all of those go twelve stories as well, is that too much massing? Do you allow 10-12 on Carlaw, but 4-8 on Dundas?
My take on Streetcar is that they've put out something as big as they can, assuming they'll get cut back. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.
BMyers -- there's a 'yeah, but...' comparison between Filmic and Boston, though, and that's the trees on Boston, which shelter Boston from the construction on Carlaw. It's Filmic's backyard, versus Boston's streetscape.
The next three sites to be considered for development along this stretch now that The Carlaw is going in, will be along Dundas -- the parking lot on the NW corner (past CN's triangle), the parking lot east of Flatiron, and the white cinder block one story on the north side of Dundas, east of The Carlaw. If all of those go twelve stories as well, is that too much massing? Do you allow 10-12 on Carlaw, but 4-8 on Dundas?
My take on Streetcar is that they've put out something as big as they can, assuming they'll get cut back. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.
Architecturefan
Active Member
What's on the site today is 3 storeys, but its not a 'limit' because its not limited to 3 storeys under the as of right zoning - you could build something up to 18 metres high without any need for an amendment. What I said was in response to you saying it was 'regulated' at 3 floors, which just isn't true.
I recognize that they're across the street from one another and that yes that makes them on different blocks. I don't think a map is necessary, but thank you for the offer.
Flatiron is 11 storeys, you can find the by-law on the city website which, again iirc, permits a building of 35-40 metres (most by-laws don't directly limit floors, just the absolute height of the building but you can look at the staff reports to get a sense of how many floors that amounts to).
I haven't ignored you on this point. I just think we might be talking about different issues. Your saying that Work Lofts (and I assume Flatiron) should never have been approved in the first place. I respectfully disagree, but thats not the point. The point is, given that they've already been approved (and that this can't be undone), what is the fair way to treat landowners who make an application to the City in a similar situation? Its a question of fairness going forward, not if what was done in the past was fair or appropriate.
I completely agree that this is not the Port Lands or City Place and that there is a need to be sensitive to nearby residential neighbourhoods. There are City policies that support this notion as well.
That said, in my opinion, some amount of intensification is appropriate and ultimately good for the area. That's why I think anything beyond a mid-rise building (say 15-16 storeys max) would be too tall for the site since beyond this point it's you'd likely run into a number of built form issues such as shadowing of the nearby houses, sidewalks etc. However, I recognize and respect that you have a different opinion on what's appropriate.
BeeRich
Active Member
Worklofts is already built. It is not 11 floors. Also, you need to have another look from the area itself. You're missing a lot. A street and a parking lot.