[Northern Light]

That's what I see as well. I am still confounded looking at the renders. The existing office appears to be 4 of the large bays (you can see this on the amenity level) vs 2 large bays of additional office. That would be a 1/3 increase, minus the single missing floor. There is still a discrepancy of about 5 stories (of the original building floorplate) that are seemingly unaccounted for.

The floor plate of the existing building is ~639m2

The floor plate of the enlarged building is ~917m2

A gross enlargement of 43%.

Clearly some of the space is not being devoted to office.

The obvious bit is that there has to be a new/enlarged elevator core for all the new residential.

I'm not sure how how much of the space that accounts for, but it won't be immaterial. The additional elevators take up room (obviously) on every floor.

I imagine some material amount of space is also required for lots of additional plumbing stacks.

Typically in an office footprint of this site, you have them run to washrooms on every floor and a few break room/kitchettes.

There will be far more bathrooms and kitchens up top now, and far more plumbing runs accordingly.

But I'm not sure if that accounts for all of the difference (after adjusting for removing the one floor)

 

[AlbertC]

Current day view of the Padulo Building with application sign up:

 

[AlbertC]

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.

toronto.webex.com

Event Information: 1-13 St Clair Avenue West - Virtual Community Consultation Meeting

Date and time:	Wednesday, May 4, 2022 6:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time (Toronto, GMT-04:00) Change time zone
Duration:	2 hours
Description:	The City has received an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a 49-storey mixed-use building with 340 dwelling units, and incorporating the existing 12-storey office building.

 

[AlbertC]

Hamilton condo towers on Slate’s busy development slate

Slate Asset Management will launch sales this fall for its first multiresidential development in Hamilton, known as Corktown. Slate purchased the downtown site, which covers a full city block and is surrounded by four different streets in the Corktown neighbourhood,

renx.ca

Slate is going through the entitlement process to get rezoning for a project at 1 St. Clair Avenue W. The existing 12-storey office building with retail at grade will be maintained, revitalized and incorporated into a 49-storey development with 340 residential units above if all goes as planned.

Donnelly said it hasn’t been decided whether the residential component will be comprised of condo or purpose-built rental units.

 

[Kenojuak]

Hmmm,

I'm not too sure about the virtue of turning this into a park:

View attachment 373232

I am. Tear it down. Good outcome.

 

[Northern Light]

I am. Tear it down. Good outcome.

For the record, that comment wasn't about the architecture of the building in question, it's about the lack of a functional footprint for a park, the utility of breaking up the street wall to create a pretty useless, non-programmable space.

We keep driving up maintenance costs for parks when we don't maintain what we have properly.

I'm obviously very pro-park; but let's spend that money wisely to deliver new/expanded parks with environmental/recreational utility.

 

[3Dementia]

Parks
Have only been to David A. Balfour Park once, but after more than 3 decades living downtown... I had no idea that such a huge swath of green, St. Michael's cemetery(?), was hiding just south of St. Clair.

I realize reimagining urban "resting" places would be a potentially explosive/divisive topic... so I'll leave that to @Undead.

Google Earth screenshot

 

[Kenojuak]

For the record, that comment wasn't about the architecture of the building in question, it's about the lack of a functional footprint for a park, the utility of breaking up the street wall to create a pretty useless, non-programmable space.

We keep driving up maintenance costs for parks when we don't maintain what we have properly.

I'm obviously very pro-park; but let's spend that money wisely to deliver new/expanded parks with environmental/recreational utility.

We cannot let abysmal maintenance in the current department be a barrier to expanding the park network.

In Toronto and all over the world, small pocket parks serve as wonderful rest stops and community focal points. The key is to do them right — an achievable goal — not to avoid them because they are hard.

I completely, unreservedly disagree with anyone who says that a gap in a street wall for a park or plaza or other public space is an urban design problem. More public space is never a problem. Especially in tight, dense urban environments like Yonge & St. Clair already is and will continue to be.

 

[Undead]

NIMGY (not in my graveyard).

 

[Northern Light]

We cannot let abysmal maintenance in the current department be a barrier to expanding the park network.

I'm content to agree w/this.......... though I'd cross my fingers a bit........

In Toronto and all over the world, small pocket parks serve as wonderful rest stops and community focal points. The key is to do them right — an achievable goal — not to avoid them because they are hard.

I'd agree, except I would maintain that this specific site doesn't meet the criteria typically associated with such a park.

Here are things you would look for:

a) Does the space itself showcase adjacent buildings of architectural interest; in a manner appropriate to said buildings and the space?

b) Does the site offer above average to spectacular views?

c) Will the site itself be an above average to spectacular view in a material way (terminal view point of a street for instance; or directly opposite a major train station entrance etc.)

d) Does the site provide connectivity between 2 or more sites in a useful manner? (ie. is it a through route, also, you don't want designs, especially of narrow spaces where people can be or will feel trapped)

e) Will the site get good sunlight?

*****

Looking at those criteria and applying them to this site:

a) The building to the immediate south is unexceptional and will also be a blank, windowless wall, the building to the north is our development site so there is potential there, in theory. However, a quick look at the layout diagrams will show that there is no proposed retail on that side of the building, instead, we'd see an office lobby, followed by back-of-house space (likely blank wall).

b) This is the view from this 'park' as at today:

The view in the remaining direction will be the backside of the Badminton Club.......nothing worthwhile there either.

c) The site will be low visibility in every direction, with views from a service lane, a window-less wall, an office lobby, and a brief, narrow section of Yonge St. sidewalk.

d) Connectivity, while the City suggests there will be some connectivity value in the future, that is clearly not the case today, there is nothing to suggest any reason people would want to walk west from this site.

e) The site will get sub-par sunlight

I completely, unreservedly disagree with anyone who says that a gap in a street wall for a park or plaza or other public space is an urban design problem. More public space is never a problem. Especially in tight, dense urban environments like Yonge & St. Clair already is and will continue to be.

For the right park, at the right spot, I'd agree; but I don't think this is that.

****

If one wanted to keep tight to the Yonge/St. Clair intersection, I might argue for the N/E corner of Pleasant and Yonge.

1) It's a route to/from a subway entrance and the removed building could provide a greater visual cue to that.

2) More people would see it, more people would be seen in it (improved safety); adjacent public land ownership (Station) would provide contextual opportunities and enhanced eastern sun.

3) Adjacent to side street means far greater visibility to/from the park, better street interplay

****

But, to each their own.

 

[Kenojuak]

I'm content to agree w/this.......... though I'd cross my fingers a bit........



I'd agree, except I would maintain that this specific site doesn't meet the criteria typically associated with such a park.

Here are things you would look for:

a) Does the space itself showcase adjacent buildings of architectural interest; in a manner appropriate to said buildings and the space?

b) Does the site offer above average to spectacular views?

c) Will the site itself be an above average to spectacular view in a material way (terminal view point of a street for instance; or directly opposite a major train station entrance etc.)

d) Does the site provide connectivity between 2 or more sites in a useful manner? (ie. is it a through route, also, you don't want designs, especially of narrow spaces where people can be or will feel trapped)

e) Will the site get good sunlight?

*****

Looking at those criteria and applying them to this site:

a) The building to the immediate south is unexceptional and will also be a blank, windowless wall, the building to the north is our development site so there is potential there, in theory. However, a quick look at the layout diagrams will show that there is no proposed retail on that side of the building, instead, we'd see an office lobby, followed by back-of-house space (likely blank wall).

b) This is the view from this 'park' as at today:

View attachment 409948

The view in the remaining direction will be the backside of the Badminton Club.......nothing worthwhile there either.

c) The site will be low visibility in every direction, with views from a service lane, a window-less wall, an office lobby, and a brief, narrow section of Yonge St. sidewalk.

d) Connectivity, while the City suggests there will be some connectivity value in the future, that is clearly not the case today, there is nothing to suggest any reason people would want to walk west from this site.

e) The site will get sub-par sunlight



For the right park, at the right spot, I'd agree; but I don't think this is that.

****

If one wanted to keep tight to the Yonge/St. Clair intersection, I might argue for the N/E corner of Pleasant and Yonge.

1) It's a route to/from a subway entrance and the removed building could provide a greater visual cue to that.

2) More people would see it, more people would be seen in it (improved safety); adjacent public land ownership (Station) would provide contextual opportunities and enhanced eastern sun.

3) Adjacent to side street means far greater visibility to/from the park, better street interplay

****

But, to each their own.

That’s a huge analysis. Some fair questions. Mine is much simpler. Is there such a thing as a bad park? No. And with good design, any park can become a great park. That simple.

 

[Northern Light]

That’s a huge analysis. Some fair questions. Mine is much simpler. Is there such a thing as a bad park? No. And with good design, any park can become a great park. That simple.

Obviously, we will have to respectfully disagree on that, as an entire thread on Problematic Park Design exists; and some of the examples in it are pretty irredeemable in my judgement.

The original iteration of June Callwood Park would have been better off as a McDs; and I say that as someone with a loathsome take on the latter.

 

[alklay]

There are good urban parks that do not consist of showcasing buildings of architectural interest or offer above average to spectacular views (or be one, like a terminal view) or provide connectivity between 2 or more sites . One of my favorite urban parks, probably checks off none of those boxes. But Paley Park is a great success and a perfect "pocket park". We could certainly use a few more of those up and down Yonge Street.

 

[Northern Light]

There are good urban parks that do not consist of showcasing buildings of architectural interest or offer above average to spectacular views (or be one, like a terminal view) or provide connectivity between 2 or more sites . One of my favorite urban parks, probably checks off none of those boxes. But Paley Park is a great success and a perfect "pocket park". We could certainly use a few more of those up and down Yonge Street.
View attachment 410016

I would never suggest you can't find exceptions; there are always exceptions. Design guidelines should be treated as just that, not immutable rules whose boxes must be checked, but rather
an easy way of understanding what tends to work well; and that if you're doing something different you have to carefully think of how you'll make that space work in the absence of those criteria.

****

I agree Paley is a nice space, though......that water feature is quite expensive and not something we're likely to see at this space I wouldn't think.........

Also though.........how does it perform in winter?

I couldn't find any winter streetview shots, but this daytime shot in October does show an issue in the shoulder season w/very low light conditions:

I notice Paley comes with hours restrictions:

It also looks rather empty and forlorn w/the water feature turned off; and entirely devoid of people.

The above is from this:

****

Suffice to say, I'm open to a design that would work here, I simply think there are better spots to invest the $$

 

[Kenojuak]

Obviously, we will have to respectfully disagree on that, as an entire thread on Problematic Park Design exists; and some of the examples in it are pretty irredeemable in my judgement.

The original iteration of June Callwood Park would have been better off as a McDs; and I say that as someone with a loathsome take on the latter.

If you think parkland in downtown Toronto is better off as a McDonald’s… I can’t help u bro