Considering architecture will be used as a selling point for the development - discussing it on UT and getting exposure is not a bad thing at all.

AoD
 
Irishmonk said:
^Monorail! Monorail!... Oh, wait, I guess that joke is a little passe now.... Or is it?
Click to expand...

"I hear those things are awfully loud." It glides as softly as a cloud.

"Is there a chance the track could bend?" Not on your life my Hindu friend!

"What about us brain dead slobs?" You'll be elected Mayor, Rob!
 
The thought that a Ford would be involved with any kind of planning, is deeply disturbing to me. These guys need to keep their focus on things they know about, whatever that might be but we sure as hell know it's not transit or city planning. I think LRT would be completely appropriate along Queens Quay.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Personally I think he is the wrong person to nail with regards to the streetcars comment (which of course he is entitled to, but one can easily challenge the assertion he made). The question is what alternatives are there - subways? Don't think so; elevated rail of any kind? That sounds fancy until you try to include them in your renderings - that's not to mention the added cost AND what it could potentially do to the QQ revitalization project. Some kind of rail-based system on the rail-corridor? Perhaps, but again, cost and system connectivity issues again, not to mention the use of it being an area fraught with jurisdictional messes.

Three cheers to him for a) agreeing to be interviewed; b) be candid with his remarks and c) thinking outside the box though!

AoD
Click to expand...

What's the deal with subways on this piece of land anyways?

It will be not only be rather dense, but also have quite a few attractions (parks, shops, and depending on what WT meant by "compromise" with the Ford's, maybe more). The land is also mostly vacant as it stands right now; would it not be easier to build a subway via cut and cover and then let the (all but assured) development take root around it? Could it function as a 'branch' of a future downtown relief line, similar to the southern end of Chicago's Green Line? Or is a subway just not possible due to the proximately to the lake?
 
interesting article at Architectural Record, with the following quote.....

"We're very excited about what's coming," says Alfredo Romano, head of Castlepoint Realty, one of the developers of 3C Lakeshore, a 2.4 million-square-foot district that Foster + Partners is master-planning for a former docklands. Romano says the 13-acre, mixed-use site will feature "signature towers" by Foster, along with buildings by the local firms Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg and architectsAlliance.

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2011/11/Toronto-on-the-Rise.asp
 
Very nice bit of info yyzer - and great to see Foster isn't just the "Master Planner". OT - got to love the comments in the Arch Record article.

AoD
 
We should see a sneak peak today:)

WATERFRONT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL
MEETING #54
AGENDA
Wednesday, December 14th, 2011
Waterfront Toronto, Main Boardroom

10:30 a.m. 2. LDL Development Proposal: Home Depot Lands
Concept Design
Nigel Dancey, Foster+Partners
Claude Cormier, Claude Cormier + Associés Inc
 
First details, from the Dec 14 WT DRP minutes:

2.0 LDL Development Proposal: 3C (Home Depot Lands)
ID#: 1045
Project Type: Building/Structures
Location: South of the Gardiner Expressway to the water’s edge, from the proposed Trinity Street extension to Cherry Street.
Proponent: 3C
Architect/Designer: Foster + Partners
Review Stage: Concept Design
Review Round: One
Presenter(s): Nigel Dancey, Foster + Partners and Claude Cormier, Claude Cormier + Associés Inc.

2.1 Introduction to the Issues
Christopher Glaisek, Vice President of Planning & Design at Waterfront Toronto, introduced the project, noting that it is the first time the project has come to the Design Review Panel. Mr. Glaisek informed the Panel that this project is a joint venture between three developers. Mr. Glaisek stated that the original zoning plans allow for two towers with a minimum distance between the two and that the developers are looking for additional height and other changes to the Lower Don Lands Plan.

2.2 Project Presentation
Nigel Dancey, Foster + Partners and Claude Cormier, Claude Cormier + Associés Inc . presented the project to the Panel. Mr. Dancey discussed the high zoning, solar studies and architecture. Mr. Cormier presented the public realm and landscaping of the area.

2.3 Panel Questions
The Chair then asked the Panel for questions of clarification only.
One Panel member asked who would pay for the connection under the railway. Peter Clewes, Architects Alliance, stated that they are currently in discussions with Dundee, a Distillery District developer, about sharing the cost, noting that they would not expect the railway to contribute financially.

Another Panel member asked if the main plaza was one or two spaces. Mr. Dancey stated that the plaza is meant to be read and programmed as one to tie the master plan together, like the example in Nimes, France that has been successful.

One Panel member asked where access to parking would be located. Mr. Clewes stated that there is a plan for one continuous underground parking structure with limited apertures on the street.

One Panel member asked for an explanation of the cantilevering over the street and sidewalk along the water’s edge. Mr. Clewes stated that they are working with the same scale that Hines is working with in Bayside and that the overhang is to allow some protection as well as framing the space.

Another Panel member asked how tall the largest building is. Mr. Clewes stated that it is 50 stories. One Panel member asked where the office use is located. Mr. Dancey stated that they are currently studying the quantity and the location.

One Panel member asked for a description of the changes to the public realm. Mr. Clewes stated that they revised the plan to maximize the public space, daylighting and wind condition.

Another Panel member asked if the proposed Whisky Beach would be funded by the team. Mr. Clewes stated that some of the public spaces rely on coordination with the adjacent property owners, and that the intent is to fund the public spaces through the development of the properties.

One Panel member asked for a comparison in terms of space for the main plaza. Mr. Clewes stated that Dundas Square would be the best comparison.
Another Panel member asked if the team had yet to meet with the City of Toronto. Mr. Clewes stated that they have met with the City of Toronto and have generally had positive feedback. Mr. Clewes also stated that the client is appealing the existing zoning at the Ontario Municipal Board.

One Panel member wanted to know what the status of the silo site was. Alfredo Romano, Castlepoint Investments, stated that they are looking to repurpose them as the foundation for another building, or potentially use them for storage such as heating and cooling.
Another Panel member asked if there are plans for district energy. Mr. Dancey confirmed that they are looking into this option.

2.4 Panel Comments
The Chair then opened the meeting to Panel comments.

One Panel member stated that they strongly support the project, including the underpass from the Distillery District. Another Panel member felt that the connection will be hugely important in the success of the project.

Many Panel members stated that they are in support of putting vehicular access at the water’s edge, noting that enabling vehicles to get to the buildings is hugely important. Another Panel member felt that vehicular use of the intermediate streets needs to be further developed.

One Panel member stated they support the main plaza having a street pass through it, noting that the plaza will be better because it has Queens Quay going through it. Another Panel member supported the plaza, noting that the graphic indicates that the square is one larger space but in reality it is two smaller squares.

Another Panel member felt that the plaza is the wrong move and that it is antithetical to the scheme. The Panel member felt that the project may not have the ability to support the plaza and the retail along the water in conjunction with all the many other “destinations” proposed in the plan.

One Panel member encouraged the proponents to engage West 8 and get their support and coordination for the design of the public realm. Another Panel member stated support of the overall public realm strategy.

One Panel member felt that the podiums on the north side of Queens Quay are not large enough, noting that they felt the tallest tower on the lowest plinths is a mistake. The Panel member felt that the podiums should not be less than 6 stories. Another Panel member felt that the density should be swapped from the largest tower back towards the podium levels of the other buildings. Another Panel member felt that the massing is problematic, noting that the distribution of mass and lower podiums need further work.

One Panel member felt that they should not develop a secondary network of streets at the upper level.

Another Panel member felt that the cultural building is better located on the north side of the street than the south side.

One Panel member felt that the terraced buildings look formulaic and that the forms should be more of the formal language of the rest of the site.

Another Panel member felt that the sand strip should be a harder promenade surface, noting that maintenance of the area could become a problem.

One Panel member did not feel as though the overhangs on the buildings at the water’s edge were working. Other Panel members agreed, noting that the typology should be studied in a comprehensive manner across the waterfront.

One Panel member felt that it is important that the neighbourhoods proposed actually become neighbourhoods.

One Panel member stated that transit needs to be a priority right now, and that the team needs to discuss these issues now, and not later.

One Panel member felt that the proponents should come up with a hierarchy of retail spaces, noting that they felt the proponents are overly optimistic right now.
The Panel member felt that the north half of the plaza is viable for retail, but the south side is a bit harder to deal with, noting that it is in shadow.

One Panel member encouraged the proponents to consider ground related residential, like brownstones in New York City, on some of the less major streets or the waterfront.

One Panel member stated that they can see the potential of the upper level connections.

Another Panel member felt that the “shear line” between the parcel to the west looks like a connection between the parcels has not happened yet, noting that the north-south streets act as dividers. The Panel member felt that Waterfront Toronto has a role in insuring that the conversation takes place.

One Panel member felt that the Panel needs to better understand the view from the Gardiner Expressway, where hundreds of thousands of people pass every day, noting that it is a very public side.

2.5 Summary of the Panel’s Key Issues
The Chair then summarized the recommendations of the Panel:
1) Strong support for both pedestrian and vehicular north-south connections
2) Strong support for the notion of a plaza, but needs further development/reconfiguration
3) Distribution of massing in relation to podiums need further development
4) Location of uses, connections above grade, cantilevering of buildings, sand versus hardscaping all need to be reconsidered
5) Transit needs to be addresses
6) Relationship to the property to the west and silos needs to be further developed

2.6 Proponents Response
Mr. Dancey and Mr. Cormier thanked the Panel for their feedback.

2.7 Vote of Support/Non-Support
No formal vote was taken. The Panel suggested that the team come back to the Panel before moving forward to the next stage. (p. 5-8)

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uploads/documents/wdrp_minutes_dec_20111_1.pdf

Exciting! Tallest building @50s, quite reasonable all in all.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
One Panel member asked where access to parking would be located. Mr. Clewes stated that there is a plan for one continuous underground parking structure with limited apertures on the street.
...
Many Panel members stated that they are in support of putting vehicular access at the water’s edge, noting that enabling vehicles to get to the buildings is hugely important. Another Panel member felt that vehicular use of the intermediate streets needs to be further developed.

AoD
Click to expand...

The project sounds quite interesting, except that "putting vehicular access at the water's edge" doesn't sound very enticing. I was reminded of this fact when I went for walk along the central waterfront on a mild day recently. All of Harbour Square's lakeside facade is about vehicular access and the narrow public promenade features views of its ugly driveways, parking garages, and even a surface parking lot. Hopefully, this project won't have any similarities if the goal is to build a beautiful waterfront. The water's edge should always be characterized by attractive public spaces with great architecture, not ugly garages and entrances.

Also, the plan should ensure that the public can engage with the heritage silos, preferably with public access. Anything that resembles a 'facadectomy' should be avoided. They can be used for functional components of the complex as suggested, but the public should be to interact with them. There are a number of possible uses that could allow people to enjoy the silos such as restaurants, pubs or even a public library. The top floor might be the easiest to convert, with spectacular views of the skyline possible.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top