I'm sorry to be Debbie Downer here, but given this is Tridel, this is the best this will ever look. So enjoy while you can...
Nope!

Here's why:

The towers are dull as dishwater.
That's an opinion but sure, I'll indulge. I see more 'sleek' than 'dull' but to each their own.
The terra cotta vertical section on the south podium is the highlight, and this thing would look much better if that carried up the tower in one form or another, as noted by @DavidCapizzano
Not going to happen. Nice idea, but not from these folks. Also, not going to be easy to get that kind of thing past a City who ardently subscribe to the "towers have three distinct, component, parts: bottom, middle, top" nonsense. It's literally written into the Tall Building Guidelines.
Also, the retail/grade-level isn't right.
Not sure I see this.
Plus, the relationship to the new park is terrible.

I want patios facing the park!
The City doesn't make this easy - in fact they try bitterly to prevent this from happening.
One more snip, this design will block a lot of western sun from the new 100M worth of land park...
Not really concerned about this, TBH.
****

Side note:

This reads as 2 distinct towers to me, yet has no separation distance. The render definitely shows as last some 'facing' windows on the south tower. Are there none on the north component? How's that working?
What do you mean by 'facing'? Can you elaborate?
 
From the Planning Rationale Report..............

First an answer to my 'tower separation' question.,

"While the building has been shaped to read as two vertical volumes with stepped heights, the building functions as a single tower providing a continuous flow in its interior for building users"

Also

1624658476968.png


More issues.......proposal is designed for a connection to the suggested Green P lot under the Park...

1624658654102.png


1624658719594.png
 
It another rectangular box we don't need ! Would of been nice to see the red orange precast columns climb to the top of building. This would be nice and different for a change.
 
Oh yeah, this is the "Entertainment District" alright.

The only thing entertaining about it these days is how many dull and lazy**** designs we get. There's literally going to be nothing entertaining left to do in the area asides from watching a movie (well after RioCan finishes dismantling Scotiabank Theatre), catching some plays (well after Mirvish finishes his dream tower), and watching the opera.

The city did a good job in ensuring almost all nightlife has been sucked out dry from the area in exchange for the dullest and laziest condo builds, they should give themselves a round of applause.
 
I think the smart move here would be a land swap with the city. It would make way more sense for the towers to face Richmond on the north half of the block and have the park on the south half.
With the development coming to the Fire Station to the south and these new towers, the park here would be boxed in on all sides. Connecting the park to John St -- a "cultural corridor" -- would create a way better public realm.
You could close Nelson to car traffic to create a really amazing public space here.
(And if we were willing to demolish the Ballroom building despite heritage status and move the whole development back to the middle of the block you'd get an even better outcome!)

Screen Shot 2021-06-30 at 11.47.48 AM.png
 


Event Information: 241 Richmond St W and 133 John St. Community Consultation Meeting

Date and time:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 7:00 pm
Eastern Daylight Time (Toronto, GMT-04:00)
Change time zone
Panelist(s) Info:jkimont@toronto.ca
Duration:1 hour 30 minutes
Description:
City Planning is holding a Community Consultation meeting together with the Councillor's office and the applicant to consider an application to amend the Zoning By-law to allow the redevelopment of the site with a 41-storey mixed-use building with a total height of 137.5 metres. The application proposes commercial uses within the ground floor and 470 residential units above. The existing heritage building at 241 Richmond St W is proposed to be retained and the heritage building at 133 John St is proposed to be demolished.
 
No new info shown yet necessarily, but this project is now listed among Tridel's website as a future development:


133 John Street & 241 Richmond St W

Toronto, ON

About our Proposal

The subject site is municipally known as 133 John Street and 241 Richmond Street West. It is currently occupied by two two-storey buildings.

Tridel is proposing to redevelop the subject lands with a 41 and 36-storey mixed-use tower with 470 residential units. The development will include a four-level underground parking garage accessible from a laneway on Nelson Street providing 96 parking spaces, and 493 long and short-term bicycle parking spots. A semi-enclosed pedestrian walkway will provide access across the site and to a future public park slated immediately east of the tower.


johnrich.jpg
 
I mean, clean and simple, sure, but I’m getting quite tired of the sterility of most of aA’s recent podiums. And same goes for the frosted glass balcony guards, for that matter.

I grew tired of aA designs 15 years ago. When aA first started producing those stripped down swaths of nothingness, a lot of people praised them. It was quite understandable as it was better than what was on offer back then. The shock is that they're still spitting out the same stuff 22 years later. Let's face it. Clean/simple can be wonderful and timeless but it usually gets sterile, monotonous, and insipid very quickly.

aA are the architecture equivalent of IKEA. 2-3 solid wood pieces can work but you don't want a whole house full of that stuff.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, given the building boom we've experienced, it's not crazy to expect more from a proposal in 2021 (almost 2022). Though the final product is acceptable, it is uninspired and basically looks like they took the Tea house condo buildings on Yonge and merged them into one.
 
Preliminary Report on this one to the Nov 24th meeting of TEYCC.

Report link here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-172922.pdf

Staff are not digging the idea of demolishing 133 John Street:

From said Report:

1636592152308.png


They are also taking a close look at shadow impacts on the proposed City park to the immediate east; and appear to desire some affordable housing too.
 
Preliminary Report on this one to the Nov 24th meeting of TEYCC.

Report link here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-172922.pdf

Staff are not digging the idea of demolishing 133 John Street:

From said Report:

View attachment 362186

They are also taking a close look at shadow impacts on the proposed City park to the immediate east; and appear to desire some affordable housing too.
I also wish Ballroom could stay. It’s the only public bowling alley in the core and—once construction on RioCan Hall starts—the last vestige of entertainment in the entertainment district.
 


241 Richmond Street West and 133 John Street - Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act

This item will be considered by Toronto Preservation Board on December 3, 2021.


Summary
This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 241 Richmond Street West and 133 John Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for their cultural heritage value.

The subject properties are located on the east side of John Street between Richmond Street West and Nelson Street. The southeast corner of Richmond and John contains the building at 241 Richmond Street West, a two-storey commercial building constructed in three phases (1936, 1940 and 1948) in the Art Moderne style by the leading Toronto architecture firm, Page & Steele. The Second Empire style house-form building at 133 John Street anchoring the same block at Nelson Street represents the only surviving building in a larger grouping of dwellings constructed on the east side of John Street in the 1870s.

The properties at 241 Richmond Street West and 133 John Street were listed on the City’s Heritage Register on December 5, 2017.

The subject properties are also identified as contributing heritage properties in the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District (HCD), which was adopted by City Council in October, 2017 and is currently under appeal.

Heritage Planning staff have undertaken research and evaluation and determined that the two subject properties meet Ontario Regulation 9/06, the criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act under all three categories of design, associative and contextual values. As such, the properties are significant built heritage resources.

Designation enables City Council to review proposed alterations for the properties, enforce heritage property standards and maintenance, and refuse demolition.

In June 2019, the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 (Bill 108) received Royal Assent. Schedule 11 of this Act included amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The Bill 108 Amendments to the OHA came into force on July 1, 2021, which included a shift in Part IV designations related to certain Planning Act applications. Section 29(1.2) of the OHA now restricts City Council's ability to give notice of its intention to designate a property under the OHA to within 90 days after the City Clerk gives notice of a complete application.

On June 25, 2021 the City received an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit the redevelopment of the site with a 41-storey mixed-use building with a total height of 137.5 metres. The application proposes commercial uses within the ground floor and 470 residential units above. The existing heritage building at 241 Richmond Street West is proposed to be retained and the heritage building at 133 John Street is proposed to be demolished. This application is to be reviewed concurrently with site plan application No. 21-171254 STE 10 SA

The development application currently under review was deemed complete following the new legislation coming into force. This Notice of Intention to Designate report must be considered by City Council before February 10, 2022.

A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required for all development applications that affect listed and designated properties and will be considered when determining how a heritage property is to be conserved. Designation also enables City Council to review proposed alterations or demolitions to the property and enforce heritage property standards and maintenance.​
 

Back
Top