Completely new submission here.

(ie new Planning Report)

Proposal here is now 10s. Still G+C

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

@Paclo

New Render:

1747232890385.png


New Stats:

1747232941970.png
 
Having had a look over this, I offer the following comments:

1) I don't have an issue with the height, but as it technically goes over the 6s guideline for Queen, pushback will be expected here.

2) The western side of the building is too close to Queen, in conjunction w/the overhang it leaves the sidewalk space unable to support tree planting. It needs a pushback of at least 1.5M

3) Glad to see the rental tenure contemplated here.

4) The Block Context plan makes some very curious assumptions, more about what will be staying low, than what will go high........but also the massing on a couple.........uhh.. I get it, don't think to hard, they're pretend proposals (mostly)....still.
 
Last edited:
It's too bad the building isn't more like the block context diagrams instead of whatever the hell this is.
 
While I'm happy to see the old bank building protected, and recognize the challenges of integrating the building to a new development, the proposal is way too busy.

Simplify the colour pallette and tone down the glass (spandrel?).
 
The height is not the issue, the building has gotten much uglier. Just give it a consistent 3-4 storey street wall, step back above and decent cladding materials. I don't know what the heck is supposed to be happening on the Queen Street facade but it looks like a complete mess. Tall brick piers that have nothing behind them connecting two glass and spandrel towers?
 
I like the design, including the varied and confident use of colour and the brick-pier podium facade that transitions to open space behind it. But if they're going to use spandrel panels on the towers, which aren't depicted in the rendering, it'll be a dog's breakfast.
 
Northern Light said:
Having had a look over this, I offer the following comments:

1) I don't have an issue with the height, but as it technically goes over the 6s guideline for Queen, pushback will be expected here.

2) The western side of the building is too close to Queen, in conjunction w/the overhang it leaves the sidewalk space unable to support tree planting. It needs a pushback of at least 1.5M

3) Glad to see the rental tenure contemplated here.

4) The Block Context plan makes some very curious assumptions, more about what will be staying low, than what will go high........but also the massing on a couple.........uhh.. I get it, don't think to hard, they're pretend proposals (mostly)....still.
Click to expand...
Regarding your second comment, would this intersection be a candidate for a redesign at any point in the future to make it more pedestrian-friendly? Especially if the density in the area is increasing?

My thought process is that this intersection is an absolute concrete beast to cross as a pedestrian - hugely incongruous to the surrounding beaches neighbourhood (it feels way more Oshawa than it feels Toronto). Slowing down car traffic and pedestrianizing would solve that problem while allowing this proposal to sit closer to Queen, further making the streetscape feel more intimate.

Indulge a city planning nerd a moment here:
1747423144746.png

(Please ignore that I forgot cyclists exist - guess I really could work for urban planning in Toronto 😅)
  • Removing street parking near the intersection would keep traffic flowing, as would grade-separating the streetcars.
  • Adding lawn under the tracks increases sound deadening and creates pedestrian refuges at the intersection, both cooling the area in the summer and making it safer to cross the street.
  • Moving the Kingston station to the loop allows us to remove streetcar tracks from a small portion of Kingston, creates a space for safe level boarding, and uses otherwise underutilized city property.
  • All other intersection functionality is preserved, aside from the ability to turn left onto Kingston while Eastbound on Queen. I rationalize this as fine, because there are plenty of streets traffic can divert to (Kishigo Ln or Emdaabiimok Ave) if they want to make that left.
  • Moving the streetcar's left turn to the loop alley could accelerate service on the line, since Kingston wouldn't share a platform with Queen and streetcars would only have to cross one traffic lane into the alleyway.
All this to say that the subject property would then not only have more space in front of it, but trees would already be creating a canopy in front of the building and could be taller, more mature species than the ones we typically plant on sidewalks. Also, the retail tenant in the heritage component of this building could have a substantial patio, further enhancing the streetscape.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top