PMT

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,951
Reaction score
8,541
City:
Toronto
464 QUEEN ST W
Ward 20 - Tor & E.York District

►View All Properties

Proposal for the development of a 4 storey office building with retail at grade. The proposed development seeks to redevelop a site that is currently occupied by a 1 storey commercial building with surface parking at the rear.

Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---


Applications:

Type Number Date Submitted Status
Site Plan Approval 17 177914 STE 20 SA Jun 12, 2017 Under Review
 
That KFC/Taco Bell has been appalling since day 1 for its generic fast-food architecture in an area with so many great brick heritage buildings. I'm glad to see it go.
 
upload_2017-6-17_8-36-11.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-6-17_8-36-11.png
    upload_2017-6-17_8-36-11.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 2,436
Kinda blah for Queen street. It’s one of the coolest streets and I feel needs something unique. If anything ever is to go on queen street... it needs to be unique or have a standout feature, Or something that makes you go “how’d they do that”? This current render is nice for suburbs but looks dull and uninviting for here.
 
I like it and can't think of a building on any part of this stretch of Queen that looks anything like it, making it quite unique indeed.

Also, it is replacing this (this is what we call a humungous improvement):

Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 4.40.07 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 4.40.07 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 4.40.07 PM.png
    978.9 KB · Views: 1,481
The big change here is that the building is 1'11.4" or 593 mm shorter to better fit in with the Heritage Conservation District guidelines. Over half of that is coming from making the ground floor shorter. I'm not a fan of low-ceilinged retail spaces on main streets; I'd rather they'd taken more height from the upper storeys as I believe the ground floor should be the grandest. It's a reasonable building otherwise, but there's nothing grand in the design.

42
 
The big change here is that the building is 1'11.4" or 593 mm shorter to better fit in with the Heritage Conservation District guidelines. Over half of that is coming from making the ground floor shorter. I'm not a fan of low-ceilinged retail spaces on main streets; I'd rather they'd taken more height from the upper storeys as I believe the ground floor should be the grandest. It's a reasonable building otherwise, but there's nothing grand in the design.

42

Unfortunately it's tough to lease out office space without certain clear-height requirements.

The City is pushing really, really, really hard on this site, to fit in with the HCD Guideliens - not every building ends up being a standout / "grand", sometimes they just need to fit in. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets even more diluted after the next round of comments from the city. The LCBO got away with what it did because they took it to the OMB - unfortunately the developer here needs a much quicker turnaround and doesn't have the luxury of time, so the City calls the shots.

Ground floor is 4200 clear, or 14' - not exactly a "low ceiling" :)
 
I have the feeling, as I have on more than a few occasions, that the city is prioritizing height here to the detriment of overall design. Is it really better for the city to demand that a builder reduce overall height by a couple of feet in exchange for low ground floor ceilings? Is that going to improve the vitality of the street in any measurable way? Is shaving 1' 11" off the height of a building really going to change its impact on the heritage of the street? Who benefits from that kind of slavish adherence to rules? I have so many questions! I mean, it's a four-storey building, FFS!
 
Last edited:

Top