ADRM
Senior Member
One of the very worst architecture firms in the city. Bottom 3 for sure.
- Thread starter Ex-Montreal Girl
- Start date
One of the very worst architecture firms in the city. Bottom 3 for sure.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
You mean aside from G+C being one of the four horse-firms of the Toronto architectural apocalypse?
WislaHD
Superstar
Let me take a guess. G+C, Turner Fleischer, Kirkor, and IBI?
With an honourable mention going towards Dialog if they continue their expanding their Toronto portfolio.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Dialog was my fourth wild card. IBI have proven with their CentreCourt work (among others) that they're perfectly capable. Given that the key design principal at Dialog is a 14-year Kirkor alum, it's no surprise their garbage is as bad as it is...
Lachlan Holmes
Active Member
I think ADRM and ProjectEnd summed it up pretty succinctly. Their track record does not instill confidence. Also, compare the renderings to the elevations - the elevations always tell a truer story. Frankly, a pretty big misrepresentation of either curtainwall or high quality window wall in the renders, versus the elevations which show cheap, messy window wall with mid-height mullions to boot. And we have not even yet seen what the spandrel situation will be like...
Northern Light
Superstar
I don't know why I didn't get around to reading the revised plans sooner..........
****
But looking at the cover letter and the revised plans................
I see the new plan still doesn't respect the very basic rule of setting the building back 10M from stable top of bank.
This is not a big ask; it's an essential ask based on minimizing erosion risk and safety risk to people and property............
From the cover letter:
The proposed building footprint generally falls outside the 10 m setback line from the LTSTOS, though in the northern portion of this area a reduction of the setback to a minimum of 6 m is requested, whereas in the southern portion of this area an increase to the setback beyond 10 m is made possible.
Sigh!
No.
The proper ask, as it would be north of the City is 30M from stable top of bank.
10M is heavy compromise dealing w/the realities of existing and prospective development in the City.
It is not a negotiation position; it's a minimum.
The orange area below is the encroachment:
****
But looking at the cover letter and the revised plans................
I see the new plan still doesn't respect the very basic rule of setting the building back 10M from stable top of bank.
This is not a big ask; it's an essential ask based on minimizing erosion risk and safety risk to people and property............
From the cover letter:
The proposed building footprint generally falls outside the 10 m setback line from the LTSTOS, though in the northern portion of this area a reduction of the setback to a minimum of 6 m is requested, whereas in the southern portion of this area an increase to the setback beyond 10 m is made possible.
Sigh!
No.
The proper ask, as it would be north of the City is 30M from stable top of bank.
10M is heavy compromise dealing w/the realities of existing and prospective development in the City.
It is not a negotiation position; it's a minimum.
The orange area below is the encroachment:
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Upcoming meeting:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Agreed. IBI has risen above the other 4.
g+c is on another level of the other 3 though I would argue.. Kirkor has some half-competent work, if nothing great. Dialog has half decent stuff elsewhere at least - and I would give them the benefit of the doubt given how new they are to the market. TF produces lots of schlock but it’s mostly in their detailing - their initial designs are competent. G+C produces terrible designs and details them terribly.
Northern Light
Superstar
The Todmorden Wildflower Preserve who oversee the stewardship efforts in the valley below this proposal share my concerns.
They are likewise concerned about the negative precedent of allowing any encroachment into the 10M, stable-top-of-bank zone.
But they also reminded me, as with the previous proposal, that there is an impact on ground water here.
There is a seep roughly in line w/the lowest level of underground parking which would be impacted; that seep is almost certainly a source of water for the diverse, high quality wetlands at the base of the hill.
This proposal would divert that water into the City sewer system.
The solution here, is one less level of underground parking so as not to interrupt the natural flow of ground water here; along w/respecting the buffer zone at the top of the slope, as noted.
They are likewise concerned about the negative precedent of allowing any encroachment into the 10M, stable-top-of-bank zone.
But they also reminded me, as with the previous proposal, that there is an impact on ground water here.
There is a seep roughly in line w/the lowest level of underground parking which would be impacted; that seep is almost certainly a source of water for the diverse, high quality wetlands at the base of the hill.
This proposal would divert that water into the City sewer system.
The solution here, is one less level of underground parking so as not to interrupt the natural flow of ground water here; along w/respecting the buffer zone at the top of the slope, as noted.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Preliminary report is up on this one.
Heading to the next TEYCC meeting on Feb 24th.
First, said report:
Then, from the report, a comparison w/the previous proposal:
The report doesn't work for me............
As a starting point, it doesn't flag the environmental issues that I noted; but stranger than that.........it seems to flag the idea of a new entrance to the valley at this location..
Given that the slope is relatively steep here, has seeps, and erosion issues.............I have a tough time picturing how a trail access would work. I assume they would look at a switchback design, but that would run into challenges.
Given that there is no formal bike path down here, no lit path......
Here's the 'issues to be resolved' section:
Heading to the next TEYCC meeting on Feb 24th.
First, said report:
Then, from the report, a comparison w/the previous proposal:
The report doesn't work for me............
As a starting point, it doesn't flag the environmental issues that I noted; but stranger than that.........it seems to flag the idea of a new entrance to the valley at this location..
Given that the slope is relatively steep here, has seeps, and erosion issues.............I have a tough time picturing how a trail access would work. I assume they would look at a switchback design, but that would run into challenges.
Given that there is no formal bike path down here, no lit path......
Here's the 'issues to be resolved' section:
Attachments
reteequa
Active Member
Not sure if this is to be worried about or excited.
adHominem
Senior Member
Given the neighbourhood and the councillor, I'd expect a fair amount of NIMBYism.
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Light
Superstar
There was some.
I watching the meeting via Zoom.
Reminded me why I hate these.
Also reminded me why I'm not keen on Councillor Fletcher; she really had challenges reading, understanding and keeping up w/the questions.
Would have been better to have George from Planning controlling the Zoom and addressing questions, w/the Councillor doing her requisite intro/extro.
****
Legitimate, if mangled questions concerned fire access/waste access.
What locals clearly wanted to know was whether this was via the lane way to Chester Hill, or via Broadview. This was outlined in the presentation, but I get why some people missed it or didn't comprehend it.
One of the non-comprehenders was the Councillor.
****
There were complaints about the height, to be expected, with a lot of people asking why the BAPS didn't apply to this site (Broadview Avenue Planning Study).
Though I take no issue w/the height; the question of why BAPS doesn't apply here is a fair, if complicated one. BAPS is in force except for the 3 sites where it was appealed; this site being one of those.
In fairness, I do understand the height complaint for someone whose backyard will front this; but I don't think that's a compelling argument overall.
****
Environmental concerns, which to me are the only ones I really have here, were glossed right over..............I might be being a bit mean here, but I expect they went over someone's head.............
Ex-Montreal Girl
Active Member
ETA: In reply to adHominem
Oh please. They aren't putting up public housing but will be overpriced glass boxes and a few luxury towns.
It's not about NIMBYism. It's about a genuine concern for a landslide right onto the Bloor/Danforth on'off access road from the DVP. That plus the groundwater...
Also, the Don watershed has to be protected so Northern Light's concerns are valid.
That's without getting into other effects/impacts -- wind especially -- which are considerable. This is an extremely windy spot.
The setbacks are a joke. Fire trucks will have to use neighbouring back yards or grounds to have access.
And the most laughable part? While it's true that this is an extremely walkable, bike-able and easy-access-to-transit site, people will still have cars. The style and locale of the building will attract a downsizing demo from Riverdale, the Beach etc. The percentage of renters will be low. Boomers drive a lot: to get groceries, to their cottages, whatever. The city will not grant any overnight permits to anybody in the building. So good luck on those 90 parking spots for 220 units.
I attended this last night I have to say that Diamond gave me the distinct impression that he was confident that he would get approval at the LPAT/OMB or whatever it is now -- and, if he can't get that, he'll get a MZO . There has to be a reason why he bought this site after four or five other applicants (including Alterra, Revera) before him bailed -- all coincidentally right after the big drilling trucks were onsite to test the soil. That says a lot to us "NIMBY"-types.
Oh please. They aren't putting up public housing but will be overpriced glass boxes and a few luxury towns.
It's not about NIMBYism. It's about a genuine concern for a landslide right onto the Bloor/Danforth on'off access road from the DVP. That plus the groundwater...
Also, the Don watershed has to be protected so Northern Light's concerns are valid.
That's without getting into other effects/impacts -- wind especially -- which are considerable. This is an extremely windy spot.
The setbacks are a joke. Fire trucks will have to use neighbouring back yards or grounds to have access.
And the most laughable part? While it's true that this is an extremely walkable, bike-able and easy-access-to-transit site, people will still have cars. The style and locale of the building will attract a downsizing demo from Riverdale, the Beach etc. The percentage of renters will be low. Boomers drive a lot: to get groceries, to their cottages, whatever. The city will not grant any overnight permits to anybody in the building. So good luck on those 90 parking spots for 220 units.
I attended this last night I have to say that Diamond gave me the distinct impression that he was confident that he would get approval at the LPAT/OMB or whatever it is now -- and, if he can't get that, he'll get a MZO . There has to be a reason why he bought this site after four or five other applicants (including Alterra, Revera) before him bailed -- all coincidentally right after the big drilling trucks were onsite to test the soil. That says a lot to us "NIMBY"-types.
Ex-Montreal Girl
Active Member
We posted at the same time. I think the bit about fire truck access went past me.