[Redroom Studios]

ICE featured in today's condo section of the Star:

http://www.thestar.com/article/452041

thanks for that article... it helped me to understand how the canopy over the public space will look. Those are not holes like Swiss cheese, but rather geometric shapes and little hills formed by plantings on the green roof.

 

[ShonTron]

It's a little much to call it an article - advertorial would be closer to the truth. It has its moments, like how they all went to "Scandinavia" to be inspired, how they told Peter Clewes "that a piece of property like this comes along only once in a lifetime and you have to do something cutting edge" (cutting edge, like putting dots above the 'I' like Lowbröu Beer). I hate condo marketing garbage.

For the record, I think the towers are fine. The podium needs some meat, and there needs to be some clarification as to whether we will actually see some offices and if there will actually be some sort of public space or public elements.

 

[4grand]

Thanks for the links grey and adma, but In my opinion that style is truly vomit inducing.


Adma: Was your 'take a cyanide tablet' line in reference to taking one because I don't like that style, or because looking at that hospital design is LIKE taking a cyanide pill?

 

[Redroom Studios]

For the record, I think the towers are fine. The podium needs some meat, and there needs to be some clarification as to whether we will actually see some offices and if there will actually be some sort of public space or public elements.

are you sure you read the 'article'??? there is no podium - its a 25 - 30 ft high canopy above (get this) a public space !!!

 

[adma]

Adma: Was your 'take a cyanide tablet' line in reference to taking one because I don't like that style, or because looking at that hospital design is LIKE taking a cyanide pill?

The former; and thanks for shooting yourself in the 2008-style heritage-sensitivity foot, Cletus.

 

[oneillt]

they have a large billboard on the property now which displays the model, looks great, didn't think this would happen!

 

[unimaginative2]

are you sure you read the 'article'??? there is no podium - its a 25 - 30 ft high canopy above (get this) a public space !!!

The public space needs to be more than a condo entrance driveway/walkway. That doesn't necessarily mean a superfluous empty public square -- there are plenty of those down there already. What it could mean are serious public uses, beyond a newsstand or Rabba. The reason that public squares in Europe and other places are busy and successful is that they allow things like cafes to open and spill out onto them. Unfortunately, that would be met with cries of "Privatization of Public Space!" here, so every square has to be a patch of empty grass, perhaps occasionally adorned by a tree.

What's wrong with the developer wanting to build the condos first? With several huge office developments expected to be completed within the next 1-2 years, it doesn't take a genius to predict that demand for office space will immediately plummet. The city has no business forcing this developer into bankruptcy with harebrained demands like that. Condos are practically guaranteed cash cows by comparison. Which would YOU build first?

Yeah, but building a successful city is a lot more important than giving developes their guaranteed cash cows. Maintaining employment in the downtown core, immediately adjacent to Union Station, is an important part of that. This minuscule office component is the bare minimum that the city should be demanding in exchange for permitting condos in this key area.

Too many of the people don't remember/aren't aware of an era before our current condo boom. There was a time when Toronto didn't just rubber stamp every high-rise project that came along (maybe lopping a couple floors off the top to satisfy the NIMBYs). The reason that great architecture like the BCE galleria were built is because the city had a credible threat of refusing permission for development if they weren't included. Today, every developer knows when bargaining that the city has no hand. It approves everything.

 

[Tewder]

What's wrong with more public space? Not every square inch of street frontage makes for a good retail strip, so who on earth would prefer the street level be consumed by a huge one-storey gated amenities complex (and yes, that is practically the only option in condo zones) instead of public space?

Since when is this a 'condo zone'?

At least that thread isn't filled with nauseating 'it's Queen Street or the suburbs'-type comments

Indeed, your didactic diatribes on that issue are enough to warrant pepto.

I hate this suburban notion that everywhere needs "public space." I often wonder why people associated with the "public spacing committee" exist? I think it's because they grew up in the 'burbs and as a result, feel entitled to large open "public" spaces. I'm sick of this mentality! I want intimate public space--aka sidewalks filled with life!

Public spacing is important, no question, but I share your concern. Public spaces should be part of the larger picture of urban planning which is far better than leaving them to the discretion of individual condo developments or we risk ending up with a facile repetition of the urban equivalent of the 'tower in the park'.

I doubt there is much public space at MLS as the two towers are on a rather bulky podium. The public space referred to here is simply the otherwise empty space between the towers which is planned to be fully landscaped and covered by a 'swiss cheese' patterned roof. I think most people seemd to like the drawings seen a few pages back. What's wrong with public space anyway?

Absolutely nothing Redroom. I was under the impression that the public square at MLS was fairly significant as part of that development and didn't see why another 'public space' was needed so close by.

 

[MisterF]

4grand, don't listen to Adma. He doesn't seem capable of disagreeing with someone without insulting them. I tend to ignore his posts.

Too many of the people don't remember/aren't aware of an era before our current condo boom. There was a time when Toronto didn't just rubber stamp every high-rise project that came along (maybe lopping a couple floors off the top to satisfy the NIMBYs). The reason that great architecture like the BCE galleria were built is because the city had a credible threat of refusing permission for development if they weren't included. Today, every developer knows when bargaining that the city has no hand. It approves everything.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This project is far from approved, let alone rubber stamped. The planning department has some serious issues with the development. Anyone who thinks this is going to get rubber stamped needs to read the OPA/ZBA report that Alvin linked to in the first post of this thread.

Here's the report again.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

MisterF:

To be fair though, I think unimaginative have a point - even if the city do not approve this particular development proposal, the proponent can always drag it to the OMB where it stands a pretty good chance of being approved - and such pressures often lead to settlements that only serves to highlight the impotency of the city's planning process.

AoD

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Since when is this a 'condo zone'?

Any area where master-planned condos + amenities + landscaping + etc. (as opposed to small/individual infill condo sites) disproportionally dictate an area's appearance is a condo zone. And what a silly question that is from someone who wrote this comment not five seconds later about the impact of condo site plans on the urban realm:

Public spaces should be part of the larger picture of urban planning which is far better than leaving them to the discretion of individual condo developments or we risk ending up with a facile repetition of the urban equivalent of the 'tower in the park'.

At least Ice's parkette amenity seems to be fully open to the public and not placed behind a fence or on top of the podium like so many other condos.

Indeed, your didactic diatribes on that issue are enough to warrant pepto.

They also warranted a "Spot-frick'n-on"...

Tewder is suffering from indigestion, freshcutgrass is suffering from exhaustion...relax, people!

 

[unimaginative2]

MisterF:

To be fair though, I think unimaginative have a point - even if the city do not approve this particular development proposal, the proponent can always drag it to the OMB where it stands a pretty good chance of being approved - and such pressures often lead to settlements that only serves to highlight the impotency of the city's planning process.

AoD

But it's more than that. The OMB is able to approve all these controversial developments because the city has already appoved a whole heap of similar dubious projects in the past. The city has, yes, rubber stamped almost every project with virtually no serious concessions. Look at the downtown office towers. All of them were forced to provide major atria, heritage preservation, parks, etc. How often do you see that these days? RBC/Ritz is almost as big a project as BCE, but do you see the city requiring them to build something on the scale of the galleria?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

unimaginative:

To be fair, BCE galleria is actually the public art component of the project - which still applies to current developments. The comparison to Ritz/RBC is moot since the former didn't require any rezoning - the development is as-of-right, I believe. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the park is the actual benefit from that rezoning approval. A more apt comparison is probably the new BA - and in this case, the developer did have to provide heritage preservation (expensive, though arguable of somewhat dubious in merit) and other Section 37 benefits as a condition of approval.

In fact, one of the major complaints of the 80s era is how the city can rubber stamp developments that are not congruent to OP and other planning policies through Section 37 benefits. The city is putting forth a revision in the policy but I believe there is some ongoing legal debate. Not to mention, the economic climate of the late 80s is very different (and quite possibly unique) - the amount of leverage the city has in negotiating developments (particularly commercial ones) is very different from what they have now.

Also, don't forget that the Provincial Policy Statement was changed during the Harris era which tipped the scale in favour of developers and it wasn't updated until the 2006 changes in the Planning Act.

That said, I have said it, and will say so again - I am not a fan of this project as it stands now - I personally would prefer to see a mixed used development that is 2/3 office (not "commercial) and 1/3 residential given the quality of the site.

AoD

 

[unimaginative2]

unimaginative:

To be fair, BCE galleria is actually the public art component of the project - which still applies to current developments. The comparison to Ritz/RBC is moot since the former didn't require any rezoning - the development is as-of-right, I believe. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the park is the actual benefit from that rezoning approval. A more apt comparison is probably the new BA - and in this case, the developer did have to provide heritage preservation (expensive, though arguable of somewhat dubious in merit) and other Section 37 benefits as a condition of approval.

Actually, BA completed its Section 37 way back with Cloud Garden. But I get you point.

In fact, one of the major complaints of the 80s era is how the city can rubber stamp developments that are not congruent to OP and other planning policies through Section 37 benefits. The city is putting forth a revision in the policy but I believe there is some ongoing legal debate. Not to mention, the economic climate of the late 80s is very different (and quite possibly unique) - the amount of leverage the city has in negotiating developments (particularly commercial ones) is very different from what they have now.

I know that was the objection back in the 80s, but I'd sure rather get projects not in keeping with the official plan appoved after big design/amenity concessions than the situation we have now where virtually everything gets approved with minimal concessions.

The building boom we've had over the last decade, especially in high-rise residential, is absolutely unprecedented. Developers are making absolute fortunes. There is no reason why the city couldn't demand serious concessions in exchange for the $100 million+ paydays of the big condo projects.

You're right about Harris, though the city certainly still retained more powers than it used. And that's all a moot point now anyway.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

unimaginative:

Actually, BA completed its Section 37 way back with Cloud Garden. But I get you point.

Actually that was for the original (single tower) BA proposal. The scope of the current project (3 towers) required a rezoning and had its' own conditions for approval.

The building boom we've had over the last decade, especially in high-rise residential, is absolutely unprecedented. Developers are making absolute fortunes. There is no reason why the city couldn't demand serious concessions in exchange for the $100 million+ paydays of the big condo projects.

Except that's also a time when the developers could skirt this process by heading to the OMB and get approval without strings at all anyways.

AoD