4.9K 
What began as a seemingly simple pair of towers turned into a rather confusing conundrum for the Toronto Design Review Panel on March 12 as a benign two-tower development proposed for Etobicoke Centre revealed itself to have a somewhat complicated back story. The development at 15-19 Cordova Avenue, just southwest of the intersection of Dundas Street and Islington Avenue in Etobicoke, would see two towers of 20 and 27 storeys constructed on the site of surface parking lots of exiting tower-in-the-park style apartment buildings. The new towers are both designed by Kirkor Architects, and would contain a combined total of 613 residential units.
The history of the site dates back to 2012, when an OMB ruling rezoned the property to allow two buildings of 20 storeys (60m height) and 25 storeys (75m height), both with 4-storey bases, containing a combined total of 769 residential units. The zoning also allowed a floor plate size that varied from 800m2 to 1000m2 and provided 25% open space on the property. Though those towers were never built, those zoning laws are still in effect today.
With the current application, the buildings would remain largely within the established zoning envelope, but are slimmer and slightly taller than their predecessors. The 20-storey tower would maintain the same number of floors but would rise to a total height of 68.85m — an increase of 8.85m outside the zoning envelope — while the 27-storey tower would add two additional storeys above the approved 25 floors to a total height of 87.9m, an increase of 12.9m. A small townhouse component at the base of the towers has been removed from the previous approvals. Since the deviation from the in-place zoning is small, the applicants have submitted for Site Plan Application and will likely apply for Minor Variances through the Committee of Adjustment — rather than submitting a full rezoning application — to allow the slight adjustments to the tower forms. At this time, however, City Planning has not yet determined whether a minor variance or full rezoning application is required.
To complicate things, the applicants also plan to sever the property in two, separating the towers under different ownership. The development application was submitted as a partnership, likely between Tridel and Hollyburn Properties, who own and operate the two rental towers just east of the site. The 20-storey north tower will contain 258 condominium units and will likely be retained by Tridel, while the 27-storey south tower will contain 355 rental apartment units and will likely be retained by Hollyburn.
While they will eventually have different owners, the buildings share a similar architectural language with Kirkor's intent to maintain some resemblance between the two, but to have each stand out in their own right. They have opted for a faceted metal cladding that would bring texture to the facades, while highlighting certain components of the building to stand out, particularly with the gold-framed main entrances. The idea is that from far away, the buildings appear more ordinary, but as one approaches them, the texture and play of light on the three-dimensional facade reveals itself and the buildings gain a richness to their appearance when viewed up close. As well, on the south tower, staggered balconies create diagonal patterns across the facade, distinguishing it from its northern partner.
Given that it is a Site Plan Application, the DRP's comments were restricted to the landscape design, site plan, and architectural expression of the buildings. There was, however, some debate on whether comments on the massing and form of the towers should be considered since there is the possibility of a rezoning application. Some Panelists weighed in on this, while others were a bit more hesitant given the ambiguity of the project's current status.
One Panelist jokingly stated, "Life gave you lemons", referring to the existing zoning envelope. They described the original zoning as "not very elegant", but they appreciated "the effort to make lemonade out of it". All Panel members agreed with the sentiment, but their opinion of the project diverged from there.
The landscape design proved to be a contentious issue. Since they will eventually become two properties, a retaining wall and fence slices the open space between the buildings in two and effectively divides the public realm. Most Panelists supported the placement of an open square at the corner of Cordova and Central Park where the townhouse block was once proposed, however, that too was revealed later to be divided by a gated fence.
Panel members stated that it was "incredibly unfortunate that it's gated off and fenced" and that it is "not great public realm". They strongly urged the design team to transform the corner open space into a unified POPS and to lose the division between properties, instead providing shared access for all residents. As one Panelist phrased it: "It would be really nice to explore the POPS idea at the corner...What you're giving us now is an air shaft". Another Panel member simply said that the POPS is "just the right thing to do".
With regards to the architectural expression, the Panelists liked the concept of the details and texture of the facades changing when viewed from different distances. However, they felt like there were "a lot of different languages going on" that clashed more than they related to one another, questioning the cohesiveness between the gold entrances, the balcony patterns, and the textured facades. They felt that the design would benefit from further refinement or simplification.
The Panel also commented that overall, with all issues considered, the proposal felt like a "funny collision of buildings that are resultant and not really looking at a space-making or place-making exercise". They described it as "a weird isolated compound" that did little to enhance the urban environment. They urged a redesign of the public realm and a refinement of the architectural expression as ways to mitigate this.
The Panel also described the streetscape design as being too suburban, and provided criticisms over the lack of an overall sustainability plan, with the project aiming only for Toronto Green Standard Tier 1.
The final vote proved to be divisive among the Panel. They acknowledged that many of their reservations about the project stemmed from the poorly-designed in-place zoning envelope, which was not being touched since it is a Site Plan Application. They did, however, feel like more could be done to mitigate these issues. Some Panelists were conflicted as they did not want to vote non-support over issues that were out of the applicant's control.
A lengthy debate over the vote resulted in a majority of Panelists voting in support of the project, but with significant conditions attached. They supported the project only on the condition that a POPS be included in the open space at the corner of the property, and that there is a reconsideration of the architectural language. Only one Panel member voted non-support.
We will keep you updated as 15-19 Cordova continues to evolve, but in the meantime, you can tell us what you think by checking out the associated Forum thread, or by leaving a comment in the space provided on this page.
* * *
UrbanToronto has a new way you can track projects through the planning process on a daily basis. Sign up for a free trial of our New Development Insider here.
