I really couldn't disagree with this feedback more. This is how we end up getting monotonous, boring buildings.
The combo of brick gradient, sunshades, and staggered balconies is too much? Gradient will be toned down by making it monotone. Sunshades will be toned down by removing them. Staggered balconies will be toned down by making wraparound balconies.
All of a sudden we'll be left with a boring building that looks like all the others.
I agree, these comments at the meeting are disappointing, even depressing. They are essentially saying: make the building cheaper and blander. They are also maximizing the density by going with the second massing option, so Toronto could end up with yet another boring, ugly, grey but huge building without any distinctive character. I don't see how such a building will be able to "extend the character of the Distillery District into the Canary District"...
An another note. Even after a decade, it's still not clear from even the latest plans how the Canary District could connect with the Portlands (Villiers Island) or even to the East Bayfront? The Canary District today is sort of an urban enclave, with the Don River and the Don Valley Parkway cutting it off from the East, a three-way highway system with overpasses (Richmond, Eastern, Adelaide) cutting it off from the North, and massive Go Transit railtracks plus the Gardiner cutting it off from the South. There is nothing that can be done about the East or the North, but is there a future vision on how the Canary could open more towards new neighbourhoods emerging in the South (Portlands - Villiers Island) and the Southwest (East Bayfront)? Beyond individual building designs, this issue will undoubtedly have the biggest impact on livability.
