Toronto The Woodsworth | 58.21m | 17s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

Miscreant said:
I think he's referring to the gaps between buildings, something he mentions in numerous threads. And he's completely right, I think. Recent developments, given their use of podiums, mark an uncomfortable mix between the urban and the suburban: urban because they're large-scale developments allowing for high population density, but suburban because they're developed on clearly identifiable lots or plots of land the boundaries of which are physically separated from adjacent plots.

I'm not sure why the podium ever came into vogue at all. I find them clumsy, most of the time.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of podiums but, I wouldn't necessarily count them as gaps particularly when they do tend to be mid rise in form in Toronto for towers upwards of 40+ storeys or more. Comparably, maybe about half the developments in Toronto have podiums extending outwards. They are everywhere too. The supertalls on 57th Street would greatly exceed the allowable maximum FAR if they weren't these skinny towers on large podiums. Density transfers will only take you so far. The podium is a step up from the tower in a park and there are financial reasons behind the popularity of the tower in a park 30 years ago and the podium of today.


I've seen some discussion to the effect of gaps in the streetwall . The big one Chaz on Charles. Of course, I see little reference to the tower being surrounded by a public lane.
 
Miscreant said:
I think he's referring to the gaps between buildings, something he mentions in numerous threads. And he's completely right, I think. Recent developments, given their use of podiums, mark an uncomfortable mix between the urban and the suburban: urban because they're large-scale developments allowing for high population density, but suburban because they're developed on clearly identifiable lots or plots of land the boundaries of which are physically separated from adjacent plots.

I'm not sure why the podium ever came into vogue at all. I find them clumsy, most of the time.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The way buildings used to be built—the most urban (for lack of a more specific term) way of building—is such that their sides are never exposed, like the old buildings on our retail streets (like on Queen West, on Bloor in the Annex, etc.). Not an inch was wasted on the sides of buildings, as everything seems to be built onto each other, which allows for more efficient density and a more coherent street wall. Now for some reason everything seems to need gaps on all sides (e.g. podiums).

In the case of this proposal, I mean the gap at the front and on the east side (as compared to the NYC building mentioned above). And yeah, it makes sense if there are windows on adjacent buildings, but I guess my complaint is broader than this proposal; buildings downtown should be built to accommodate immediately-adjacent buildings.
 
I don't think there really is much of a gap here. Am I wrong to assume from the blank wall to the east that they (Brad Lamb owns this too?) are saving the space to the east for another development?
 
bilked said:
I don't think there really is much of a gap here. Am I wrong to assume from the blank wall to the east that they (Brad Lamb owns this too?) are saving the space to the east for another development?
Click to expand...

My guess is that the thread title is a bit out of date. The renders look like James goes only as far east as 450 Richmond, at most, leaving a tight but developable lot between it and the Morgan. This plus the huge blank wall that is the eastern face of James suggests to me that we should (hopefully?) expect another project next door. And we all know Lamb likes skinny things...
 
OAXTCM5.jpg
 
452-458 Richmond Street W (pre-application)

Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Time: 7:30pm
Location: Metro Hall (Room 308)
 
452 RICHMOND ST W
Ward 20 - Tor & E.York District

Proposed 18 storey mixed-use building with a total of 429 square metres of retail commercial space located on the ground and basement levels and 135 residential units above.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 15 223802 STE 20 OZ Sep 16, 2015 Application Received
 
This is off to the OMB for a 4 day hearing starting on Tuesday, July 19.

July City Council voted to oppose it there, but to negotiate over it in the meantime with the intention of:

a. reducing the proposed height and massing to avoid overdeveloping the site and to limit negative impacts on adjacent properties;

b. improving compliance with Council's approved planning framework for the area including the King-Spadina Urban Design Guidelines;

c. increasing the amenity space and parking spaces; and

d. improving vehicular access.​

42
 
Application:
Demolition Folder (DM)
Status:
Not Started
Location:
452 RICHMOND ST W
TORONTO ON M5V 1Y1
Ward 20: Trinity-Spadina
Application#:
17 239155 DEM 00 DM
Accepted Date:
Oct 5, 2017
Project:
Multiple Use/Non Residential
Work:
Demolition
Description:
Proposal to demolish existing 3-storey non-residential building.

Demo permits filed.
 
Approved at the OMB: http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl160081-Mar-21-2018.pdf

SUMMARY

[73] To summarize, upon the totality of the planning, transportation planning, and urban design evidence presented, and careful consideration of the submissions of all parties, the Board finds that the site-specific amendments to the City’s in-force and harmonized zoning by-laws, as presented to the Board in Exhibits 21 and 22, with the two amendments relating to the front balconies and the number of storeys, is consistent with the provincial policies, conforms to the Official Plan and other related high level planning policies in the City and represents good planning in the public interest. A quality, and creatively designed development, consistent with the applicable design guidelines and policies, will be added to the eastern edge of the West Precinct and fit harmoniously with the existing and planned context of the immediate and broader area. The Building will also serve to promote the provincial and municipal objectives relating to intensification and provide an alternative form of condominium housing within a transit supportive area in proximity to the Downtown.
Click to expand...
 
Finally. Now go get some damn permits.

This is now 17 floors, btw.

A lot of buyers are going to be getting some bad news - a whole floor is being eliminated, and all buyers with balconies on the north side have now lost them.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top