Toronto Theory Condos | 101.49m | 30s | Parallax | Arcadis

Given the province plan changes land policies that call for greater density on transit lines, does Joe and the community expect to win this now??

It would be nice to see some sort of standard that developers must start with, that have a higher quality than what they produce to day. Soooo many poor design and built building around today that show have never seen the daylight in the first place.
 
The height is justified considering the proximity of transit, and its location on an Avenue. This is the new normal for downtown.

Development Gods, if you're listening, please, please, please fix the podium. Anything to give this building character. Just a little brick or colour. Please.
 
The height is definitely an issue. Look at how out of place the new student building/prison/bunker looks at College and Spadina. This building sits in basically the same kind of environment. It might be a couple blocks closer to Queen's Park station but 29 storeys is completely out of context for this area. 25 storeys (like University Place) would have been pushing things, 20 would have been acceptable and ideally the city would have limited heights to no more than the College Condominiums (which still sticks out like a sore thumb but represents at least some kind of stepping stone between a highrise and a smaller midrise). The fact this building looks to be ugly as sin is just another reason to reject it but the height alone is way too much.
 
A good quality design would justify the height, but this is not a good quality design. Developers should get better height allowances if their project is designed with quality. If increased height increases their profitability they have incentive to do quality work.
 
Our zoning process wouldn't work well with bonusing. There's no point for a developer to participate and we already fleece them like no one else. There are even greater issues. Who determines a "quality" design and should we ignore the density and shadowing height can impose?
 
Not quite sure what shadowing arguments are talking about in this case...basically it's just going to shadow UofT buildings and generally underused sidewalks and court-like setbacks on the north side of College (by underused I mean they are pretty much just pedestrian thoroughfares and not any sort of high-minded public spaces)...that are in shadow a lot anyways, especially all those interstitial courtyards, and walkways that crawl through UofT.

As for density, let's not forget all that's going on currently (meaning approved years ago) http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/01/chinatown-u-t-annex-growth-watch-2016, most of which exceeds the avenue prescription of 8 storeys. Yes, this is somewhat taller than most in the area, but this area is ripe for this kind of density.

Concerning the design, these schemes are obviously still early in the design process, but I like the direction, especially the screen-cladding on the west elevation. It's reminiscent of other projects in the area and somewhat more institutional than the previous submission. I agree the podium does need work, but that's usually the process in these submissions. I think the frit pattern on the upper podium storeys works and is quite contextual. (Think of the UofT projects at the top of McCaul) One criticism of the tower would be the continuous balconies on the north elevation, which are kind of overkill I think.

Oh, and I appreciate what Cressy is saying, as he has generally been a thoughtful proponent for his ward. I think he's more upset over his perceived circumvention rather than the design itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And now passed at July City Council too, to oppose at the OMB, but continue to negotiate with the proponent in advance of the hearing.

42
 
I hope it will be blocked. I dislike it.
I hope developers will invest in quality design.
Why do developers do not invest in design unlike other Canadians cities.
It just sad.
:(
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top