Koops65 said:
The sign only says 228 metres... did they forget the mechanical?
Click to expand...
They don't count mechanical on those signs. Always heave to read the fine print for the real height
 
I live in the area and just got the community consultation notice. It's going to be Jan 23 @ City Hall Rm 4 from 6:30-8:30. I had no idea the site was rezoned. Kind of crazy a ~30 year old building is already being torn down. It did seem like the offices had been emptying out for the last few months. I'm kind of sad to see it go.

Can they add a green roof or solar panels? The RBC Centre across from it was certified LEED Gold, I feel like they owe more to the environment for demolishing a perfectly usable structure. I still sometimes grab lunch from the mom & pop sub shop (Lite Bite) but now it probably get replaced by a Tim Hortons instead. :(
 
So I combed through the documents on 145wellington.com and a green roof is included but probably only because it's required by a green roof by-law. I haven't been following real estate by-laws in awhile but I'm glad to see that's a thing.

I would probably ask if they could add some parking for service vehicles for the condo tower. They are building 66 spaces of which 61 are required (is that determined by a traffic study?) - in any case this area could do with less car traffic, University Ave is already a parking lot at rush hour.
 
000 said:
I live in the area and just got the community consultation notice. It's going to be Jan 23 @ City Hall Rm 4 from 6:30-8:30. I had no idea the site was rezoned. Kind of crazy a ~30 year old building is already being torn down. It did seem like the offices had been emptying out for the last few months. I'm kind of sad to see it go.

Can they add a green roof or solar panels? The RBC Centre across from it was certified LEED Gold, I feel like they owe more to the environment for demolishing a perfectly usable structure. I still sometimes grab lunch from the mom & pop sub shop (Lite Bite) but now it probably get replaced by a Tim Hortons instead. :(
Click to expand...
As a mid-rise building, 145 Wellington suited the development climate when it was completed only 33 years ago, but the conditions are so different now that it's practically obsolete. The embodied energy that the existing building represents is substantial, so yes, every way of reducing the carbon footprint of the new building should be employed in the redevelopment. When this hits the DRP, no doubt the sustainability expert on the panel will look to encourage more attention in that regard, they'll likely push for adherence to the incoming Toronto Green Standard Tier 3 or 4.

42
 
000 said:
The Globe & Mail put out a story with the same sentiment I have about teardowns

www.theglobeandmail.com

By wrecking tall buildings, are we contributing to the climate crisis?

There’s a growing movement to view existing buildings as resources of ‘embodied energy’ that need to be preserved
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree.

First, you aren't simply replacing a like-sized building with another like-sized building for aesthetic purposes only. You are increasing density in an area that can support it. At the very least, the argument for intensification likely counters the argument for not moving forward with projects like this. Your sentiment also assumes that if this building isn't torn down, you now save the planet from the carbon that would otherwise have been generated constructing the new build - but that is flawed. You still need the new build, it will just go elsewhere now, but the carbon expended in constructing it remains the same. You just have a less dense area in the part of the city that is best suited for it.

That said, I do agree with you in a scenario where intensification isn't taking place. But this is not that scenario.

Cheers.
 
Lyphe said:
Not sure I agree.

First, you aren't simply replacing a like-sized building with another like-sized building for aesthetic purposes only. You are increasing density in an area that can support it. At the very least, the argument for intensification likely counters the argument for not moving forward with projects like this. Your sentiment also assumes that if this building isn't torn down, you now save the planet from the carbon that would otherwise have been generated constructing the new build - but that is flawed. You still need the new build, it will just go elsewhere now, but the carbon expended in constructing it remains the same. You just have a less dense area in the part of the city that is best suited for it.

That said, I do agree with you in a scenario where intensification isn't taking place. But this is not that scenario.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
I think the Globe‘s point was that the only reason we’re tearing down 10-storey buildings is because our restrictive land-use policies are pushing developers towards tearing down mid rises and buildings energy-intensive concrete tall ones when we could be tearing down hundreds of km2 of one and two-storey houses and building four-storey wood-frame apartment blocks for a fraction of the economic and environmental cost. They further point out that if we could rebuild swathes of suburban detached housing, property prices would drop significantly, solving (at least in part) the housing affordability crisis.
 
I had a closer look at 145 Wellington and I'm impressed by the engineering documents, if the city can push them to use the highest energy efficiency standards and materials it could be a net zero carbon addition. However the high development cost will increase all other property values in the area and this doesn't help the bigger picture. The G&M article points out designated growth areas create artificial scarcity of developable land, therefore our current policy doesn't address the affordability crisis. Wood frame houses in Toronto are usually only razed to build monster homes. If builders were able to buy blocks of wood frame houses and construct wood frame mid rises instead, the environmental impact would be lower, development cost would be lower and our city might feel more liveable.
 
Last edited:
I caught the tail end of the meeting but it seemed like a handful of area residents showed up. Some takeaways:
- The development calls for reducing one lane of vehicle traffic on the southeast corner of Wellington & Simcoe as this would accomodate increased sidewalk space for the high ratio of pedestrians to cars
- A resident requested the city planner if cycling direction on Simcoe could be changed to one way. I would agree as one way traffic is safer for pedestrains.
- H&R built the existing 145 Wellington in 1987 and they plan to keep ownership but that could change
- H&R is planning to keep all residential units in this building as rentals but that could change
- H&R is only aiming for the Tier 1 Green Standard unless the city pushes back for higher
- I suggested removing the balconies, The Ritz nor 33 University have balconies, besides providing more living space & making it easier to control the buildings climate, it would give a cleaner look & the property manager won't need to deal with falling glass or things being thrown off it
- I gave positive feedback on the website put together by Bousfields, I wish more development projects did transparent community engagement this way
 
Last edited:
000 said:
I caught the tail end of the meeting but it seemed like a handful of area residents showed up. Some takeaways:
- The development calls for reducing one lane of vehicle traffic on the southeast corner of Wellington & Simcoe as this would accomodate increased sidewalk space for the high ratio of pedestrians to cars
- A resident requested the city planner if cycling direction on Simcoe could be changed to one way. I would agree as one way traffic is safer for pedestrains.
- H&R built the existing 145 Wellington in 1987 and they plan to keep ownership but that could change
- H&R is planning to keep all residential units in this building as rentals but that could change
- H&R is only aiming for the Tier 1 Green Standard unless the city pushes back for higher
- I suggested removing the balconies, The Ritz nor 33 University have balconies, besides providing more living space & making it easier to control the buildings climate, it would give a cleaner look & the property manager won't need to deal with falling glass or things being thrown off it
- I gave positive feedback on the website put together by Bousfields, I wish more development projects did transparent community engagement this way
Click to expand...

A minor clarification - the lane on the south side of Wellington that would be converted to sidewalk is not a traffic lane - it has been blocked off for a while, as it faces the oncoming eastbound lane on the south side of Wellington on the other side of Simcoe Street.

While the resident referenced above did raise the issue about the two way bicycle traffic on Simcoe, that was quite minor compared to his concerns raised earlier (before 000's arrival) of the overall traffic situation at the Simcoe and Wellington intersection - all of which I fully agree with. With the present traffic patterns, an eastbound lane on Wellington, which is forced to turn south onto Simcoe, and a north bound lane on Simcoe, which is forced to turn west onto Wellington:
  • on the north / south light cycle on Simcoe there is an advance left turn light, and a shorter green for the westbound traffic on Wellington
  • with the amount of westbound traffic on Wellington wanting to turn left to go south bound on Simcoe; and
  • the amount of pedestrian traffic crossing Simcoe, in particular on the south side of the intersection
relatively few vehicles making the left turn from westbound Wellington onto Southbound Simcoe can clear the intersection on any given light cycle. The result is a chronic backup of the south lane on Wellington, coupled with frequent stoppages in the middle lane as vehicles try to cut into the south lane to turn left. This intersection seems, due to its configuration, to be more of a congestion point than any others in the area at any given time of day. In reality, the only proper solution is to revert to Simcoe being southbound only from Front Street north, and for Wellington to be Westbound only along the stretch from Simcoe to John Streets. Not only that, given that most of the traffic into the Ritz Carlton seems to be from Wellington westbound, it would eliminate the risk of accidents from westbound vehicles stopping in the traffic lane while they wait for both eastbound vehicles as well as pedestrians on the sidewalk in front of the Ritz to clear, before being able to pull into the Ritz Carlton driveway.

For a 65 story building, with all the Uber / Lyft / Taxi pick ups and drop offs, Amazon, UPS, FedEx, Purolator, Canada Post package deliveries, Foodora, Uber Eats, Skip the Dishes, and so on, deliveries of various kinds, there is provision for two short term parking spots, arranged perpendicular to the Emily Street laneway on the east side of the building. Other than that are pick up and delivery vehicles expected to park and wait in the traffic and bicycle lanes on Wellington or Simcoe?
 
www.theglobeandmail.com

By wrecking tall buildings, are we contributing to the climate crisis?

There’s a growing movement to view existing buildings as resources of ‘embodied energy’ that need to be preserved
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

918AEE90-2D4E-4A83-A54B-2D8576FD5CBF.jpeg
 
@AHK sorry I missed that you're right vehicle traffic flow at this intersection is a BIG concern. Cars are making turns in too many directions. I hope the city simplifies the lane configuration for less turns.


(click image for larger view)

The transportation study shows they intend to build 4 loading spaces off the laneway at the east side of the building: Two (type B and type G) loading docks for large delivery vehicles. And two (type C) regular size semi-canopy covered outdoor parking spaces. They used a configuration that's very similar to what exists now.
These 4 loading spaces are the minimum required and I think that's inadequate. On weekdays, the laneways in this area are always full from trades people. Every contractor I've worked with hates working here. If they are lucky there will find a spot at the surface lot beside Roy Thomson Hall or park illegally in the laneway while blocking traffic.

I think parking for everyone can be improved if they utilized a better underground parking strategy. It's common in downtown commercial buildings for the loading docks to be underground with 24/7 security. I have experience with this working at the Eaton Center and Brookfield Place. 145 Wellington could have the same setup. Just build double doors and add card readers at the stairwells to get to residential parking on the lower levels. Less entrances into the building should improve navigation and security. Of course they need to put proper signage along the laneway leading to these designated areas so deliveries and ride share pick up/ drop off will be easy.

zwcBu04.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top