[CityPainter]

The more I walk around this building, the more pissed off I get.

Out of all of the clunkers built in the city in the past decade, this is the most ill-conceived project i've seen from head to toe. Ground level treatment is abysmally horrible, the landscaping/streetscape is atrocious, and the upper levels speak for itself with how bad it is. I cant speak to the interior, but frankly i'd never want to step foot in this crap anyways.

This building serves as a prime example of what NOT do build in this city, ever again.

The garage entrance is terrible, too. Walking up Princess Street, on either side, is now much more dangerous than before because the exit is positioned across from Nicholson Lane and you never know when a car will gun it straight through instead of turning as it exits. The cars ripping in and out of the garage seem to be more aggressive than most, too.

The "pedestrian access'" through the middle of the block has also turned out to be a joke. The Pemberton website still says: "The landmark open space of the St. Lawrence neighbourhood is continued into the site between the bars to allow full pedestrian access across the property." Meanwhile what we've gotten is a dark, low, windy tunnel primarily used by delivery and garbage trucks, which are always parked, reversing, or doing three-point-turns that make walking through there unpleasant and unsafe. The few bollards they added along the edges to corral pedestrians do not help.

Overall what irritates me about this building is the way that *every single thing* that people were worried about during the planning stages has come to fruition, yet nobody will be held to account and no lessons will be learned. This is how you turn YIMBYs into NIMBYs.

 

[dob467]

I hear you that pedestrian access walkthrough is definitely lacking. Though I am liking the courtyard space that fronts the Esplanade. Be interesting to see how it's used in warmer months.

 

[Tuscani01]

Overall what irritates me about this building is the way that *every single thing* that people were worried about during the planning stages has come to fruition, yet nobody will be held to account and no lessons will be learned. This is how you turn YIMBYs into NIMBYs.

This building is a result of the NIMBYs, so not sure that applies here.

 

[CityPainter]

This building is a result of the NIMBYs, so not sure that applies here.

I was speaking specifically about myself. I support more density and I think our neighbourhood is the perfect place for it, especially with the Ontario Line coming. But I'm also a supporter of good urban infrastructure and livability, so it frustrates me when the density comes without reasonable measures to ensure those living in or near it will have a good quality of life.

 

[Tyrang]

I was speaking specifically about myself. I support more density and I think our neighbourhood is the perfect place for it, especially with the Ontario Line coming. But I'm also a supporter of good urban infrastructure and livability, so it frustrates me when the density comes without reasonable measures to ensure those living in or near it will have a good quality of life.

*Cough* Liberty Village *Cough*

 

[xmyth_]

This building is a result of the NIMBYs, so not sure that applies here.

Wait, what did folks nimby that kept this from being urban utopia?

 

[DSCToronto]

This building is a result of the NIMBYs, so not sure that applies here.

This ghastly building was really not caused by NIMBYS and, in fact, the neighbourhood tried very hard to make it better but developer greed won out. As noted above several times, the real problem was that a very old (1990s) OMB decision gave the developer the right to erect a building of ca 12 floors right up to the property line on all 4 sides. The resulting compromise provided much better sidewalks and the courtyard and walk-through but at the cost of towers. There are several lessons (not learned) and one is that planning decisions should have a finite life - 'use it or lose it'. That said, even if the OMB decision had not existed, I fear this would still be a poor fit into the neighbourhood as some developers will always be greedy and some architects will do what they are told and not fight for something better!

 

[AlexBozikovic]

This ghastly building was really not caused by NIMBYS and, in fact, the neighbourhood tried very hard to make it better but developer greed won out. As noted above several times, the real problem was that a very old (1990s) OMB decision gave the developer the right to erect a building of ca 12 floors right up to the property line on all 4 sides. The resulting compromise provided much better sidewalks and the courtyard and walk-through but at the cost of towers.

The city insisted on keeping heights under 20 storeys, in its doomed effort to avoid tall buildings in the middle of downtown Toronto (???)

If this had been two tall point towers with the same density, every aspect of the urban design would’ve been vastly better.

 

[Northern Light]

The city insisted on keeping heights under 20 storeys, in its doomed effort to avoid tall buildings in the middle of downtown Toronto (???)

St. Lawrence was not considered the middle of downtown at the time this decision was made; downtown's eastern boundary was Jarvis.

That besides, the St. Lawrence neighbourhood was intended to have a coherent design ethos of midrise buildings, no towers were contemplated.

The City's take was correct, the OMB's take unethical and bad planning and the developers I have no words for that are publishable on this forum.

If this had been two tall point towers with the same density, every aspect of the urban design would’ve been vastly better.

Not inherently true at all. When you hire architectural hacks........and give them a mandate to maximize profit and density at the expense of neighborhood character and quality of life......you get gutter architecture.

You can mass the buildings all sorts of different ways and bring, in general heights up/down, but in the above context, you will always get a bad result.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's a comedy of errors which got us here, ultimately. It started when Pemberton wayyy overpaid for this site. They paid $70 million back in, what, 2011? That was probably a record sum paid for a development site at the time in the city. And for a site, which at a full city block was substantial, was in an area which largely did not support tower development at the time. Cityzen had just finished fighting a long, hard battle at the OMB for 158 Front down the street for a relatively meagre 26 storeys.

Pemberton ultimately filed to the city with this... behemoth:

It had something like 15 metre tower separations from what I recall and had that absolutely ridiculous mega podium giving serious Kowloon Walled City vibes.

This is ultimately what the city was working with at the time. The right solution would have been to drop the podium and shift the site to two point towers, probably in the mid-40's in height. But that was untenable at the time for the City as it was 20+ storeys taller than anything else in the area, an area not envisioned for high rise development at the time.

The reality is that Pemberton shouldn't have been so aggressive on their ask.. but they paid $70 million for the site and needed to recoup the density. So you get.. this mess.

 

[Northern Light]

The reality is that Pemberton shouldn't have been so aggressive on their ask.. but they paid $70 million for the site and needed to recoup the density. So you get.. this mess.

Good info........... I only disagree on the solution.

The solution was Pemberton filing for bankruptcy for their idiotic mistake. A mistake that helped hyper inflate land values and cause others to have to pay more and helped drive the housing crisis.

A loss that put them out of business, left their lenders in the lurch would have been exceedingly helpful in cooling the market.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Good info........... I only disagree on the solution.

The solution was Pemberton filing for bankruptcy for their idiotic mistake. A mistake that helped hyper inflate land values and cause others to have to pay more and helped drive the housing crisis.

A loss that put them out of business, left their lenders in the lurch would have been exceedingly helpful in cooling the market.

Indeed, perhaps. But Pemberton isn't going to go down in flames without a fight.. and that meant a protracted OMB battle that the City ultimately probably would have lost. There were many iterations here before the final design was landed on - many of them better than the final design, IMO.

This is probably the best Pemberton came forward with:

Two towers, a relatively reasonable size podium.

City Planning refused it though, so Pemberton came back with this..

Which is getting closer to the final design. This too was rejected by the city based on the following issues:

a) the reduction of the height of the northern towers to below 30 storeys and 95 metres, excluding mechanical penthouse and the reduction of height of the southern towers to below 20 storeys and 65 metres, excluding mechanical penthouse;
b) the increase of tower setback from The Esplanade to a minimum of 24 metres;
c) the reconfiguration of massing to accommodate the 24 metre tower setback from The Esplanade;
d) the increase of tower separation distance to 25 metres in the north-south alignment through recession of balconies on the associated building faces;
e) the revision of the unit mix to provide a minimum of 15% 2 bedroom units and a minimum of 10% 3 bedroom units;
f) the provision of two Type B loading spaces, one of which can be shared with a Type G loading space;
g) the submission of a parking utilization study to determine whether there is capacity in four Toronto Parking Authority lots in the area to accommodate the residential visitor requirement for 101 visitor spaces;
h) the provision and maintenance of a dedicated on-site "pet friendly" exercise and relief area with bag station and garbage disposal as well as a pet washing and grooming station, which is accessible to all future residents of the proposed development;
i) the provision and maintenance of both an indoor and outdoor amenity space that is designed to cater to families with children which is accessible to all future residents of the proposed development;
j) the requirement for an updated Pedestrian Wind Study in order to assess pedestrian level wind conditions with the proposed development, and determine what built form and other mitigative solution may be required; and
k) the owner addressing the outstanding comments outlined in the memorandum dated August 9, 2015 from the Manager, Engineering and Construction Services, Toronto and East York District.

Notice the opposition to heights over 30 storeys and silly concerns about towers being too close to the esplanade.

Ultimately Pemberton addressed those concerns to reach a settlement by shifting it from four towers to two mega slabs, and you get what we have today..

I do think there is blame on Pemberton by creating a situation in negotiations where they couldn't settle for anything less than ridiculous - I also think there is blame on the City for opposing height here so adamantly that they accepted some serious concessions on built form that they shouldn't have otherwise to get the height down. In my opinion height was never a problem here - but given the context at the time the City would never have supported height, and on that basis they should have done an OMB hearing on the matter instead of settling for the ridiculous built form we got.

 

[DSCToronto]

The city insisted on keeping heights under 20 storeys, in its doomed effort to avoid tall buildings in the middle of downtown Toronto (???)

If this had been two tall point towers with the same density, every aspect of the urban design would’ve been vastly better.

You may be correct but you need to remember that initially the developer was planning to build this 'complex' in very distinct phases (and did not even own the old house at Lower Sherbourne and The Esplanade - The Purple House). Though it is possible that if Pemberton had realised they could, essentially, build the whole thing at once they MIGHT have done things differently - which would almost inevitably be better!

 

[Northern Light]

Indeed, perhaps. But Pemberton isn't going to go down in flames without a fight.. and that meant a protracted OMB battle that the City ultimately probably would have lost. There were many iterations here before the final design was landed on - many of them better than the final design, IMO.

This is probably the best Pemberton came forward with:

Two towers, a relatively reasonable size podium.

Still a terrible proposal. I mean it looks ugly and out of place.

Notice the opposition to heights over 30 storeys and silly concerns about towers being too close to the esplanade.

While I'm happy to concede the City could have been more flexible here, including on height along Front, I disagree w/the bolded above as I think a tower on the Esplanade here is inconsistent with the neighbourhood design ethos and scale.

I do think there is blame on Pemberton by creating a situation in negotiations where they couldn't settle for anything less than ridiculous - I also think there is blame on the City for opposing height here so adamantly that they accepted some serious concessions on built form that they shouldn't have otherwise to get the height down. In my opinion height was never a problem here - but given the context at the time the City would never have supported height, and on that basis they should have done an OMB hearing on the matter instead of settling for the ridiculous built form we got.

Agreed.

 

[Tyrang]

The city insisted on keeping heights under 20 storeys, in its doomed effort to avoid tall buildings in the middle of downtown Toronto (???)

If this had been two tall point towers with the same density, every aspect of the urban design would’ve been vastly better.

Very much disagreed. Often time a building's height being out of place is a reason for NIMBYs to rally against structure, but it is a legitimate reason here.

Old Town to David Crombie Park to Distillery is an what I considered a cultural walking journey. You want to keep a certain look and feel as much as possible. You don't want something too tall here, it will destroy its charm. For that reason, I hated the 49 floor proposal in Old Town.

Anyways, the design isn't a good fit, and you can do much better with the space you are given. Look at Mirvish Village, similar vibe, much better designed. T&S can probably sit somewhere in Midtown or Uptown and would feel much less invasive.

I am very much Pro-density, but this is not it.