.dwg said:
And once again, I tend not to agree with your ideas on "architecture" or your low standards. You should look at the hotels being built around the world and even around Toronto - look at architecture for hotels from around the world, particularly in important districts such as the Distillery, and then tell me this is a solid proposal. This proposal, other than the "manufactured stone" cladding, is architecturally on the level of a typical Toronto condo. It's absolutely undeserving of the heritage building beneath it and certainly not as good as what a hotel program should demand at this location.

As a designer, the sort of motif this project has is the sort of facade I'd employ for a standard condo for a standard developer. It's not well articulated or engaging. The proportions are wrong - they couldn't even make the top of the tower have an extra storey in the grid motif to finish off the tower, or articulate the rooftop bar in a nice way. The mechanical penthouse competes with the rooftop bar for forming the tower's roof. Even the glass reveal between the heritage building and the tower is lazy.

But I digress. Blech.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree. The site deserves more than a chain Gupta hotel. The company does own it and our ridiculous heritage standards allow towers to grow out of facadectomies. I've seen plenty of mid range chain hotels around the world. The standards are extremely low overall.
 
A zoom-in:


Toronto Model 01-08-20 60 Mill.png
 
I think people are being a bit reactionary.

You interface with the building at ground level, as a pedestrian. The tower is not great but it is not going to ruin the historical district.

The future is bright for the area as development to the south extends and completes the distillery district frontage, development on WDL Block 8 extends the design language of the distillery district east to the West Don Lands while adding new mixed uses to the area, and finally, development on the waterfront will create a beautifully streetscaped pedestrian corridor extending from Trinity Street to the water, and connecting to new pier along the Keating Channel.

When all is said and done, this area will be fantastically done.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
You know we have a problem when the best we can aspire to for a fairly unique historical district is that a development won't ruin it.

AoD
Click to expand...

Now lets say we have 10 developments like that... As a collective the district would be ruined. If we can't do better in the distillery, then I don't know what to tell you.
 
I'm new. Can someone help me understand this?

(1) In March 2017, Council approved the development of this site "generally in accordance with the plans and drawings by Saucier + Perotte .... [and] the development will consist of 40 metres including the mechanical penthouse".

(2) In July 2017, the OMB endorsed a settlement by which the owner accepted those conditions, stating that the settlement "represents an entirely defensible reconciliation of potentially competing objectives", was "the product of considerable effort and the maturation of ideas", "respects the relevant matters of Provincial interest", and "would represent the application of good planning principles".

(3) In 2018 or 2019, a sophisticated developer bought the property with notice of those conditions.

(4) In January 2020, the developer applied to waive those conditions and build to 115 metres -- triple the settled height and the same height proposed prior to 2017.

Does the legal principle of caveat emptor not apply? In what rational, credible economic and legal system can someone make an investment, decide he does not like the terms, and have a shot at prevailing on the officials who set those terms only three years earlier to remove them for his sole benefit?

All at significant expense to the taxpayer.
 
Last edited:
timothe.dubois said:
Does the legal principle of caveat emptor not apply? In what rational, credible economic and legal system can someone make an investment, decide he does not like the terms, and have a shot at prevailing on the officials who set those terms only three years earlier to remove them for his sole benefit?

All at significant expense to the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

This is a new owner, they have every right to bring a new development application, and the planning context has changed significantly since the prior application was filed.

Yes, this particular proposal is also a hot turd. It will be amusing to see this get put through the wringer by the city.
 
ADRM said:
Prelim report; Planning does not like it: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-145142.pdf
Click to expand...
Of course it's 'unfair' to keep on allowing new proposals to be made with new 'exceptions" but we can expect this one to go to LPAT. They will need to see whether the earlier OMB decision and its reasoning still stand.

A sort of 'reverse" of this case is the situation with the Dominion Public Building. There the new owners bought a building with a 1996 permission from the OMB, as a settlement of a larger case, to "to permit a tower massing envelope with a maximum height of 137 metres sited in the middle of the 1 Front Street West property, above the Dominion Public Building" (See: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-131677.pdf) Though the former owner (Federal Government) had done nothing with this it was still active - though the area has changed greatly in the last 25 years. In UK any settlements and permissions like this have a 'use it or lose it' clause and I think it's a standard 5-years. If developers can go to LPAT to reapply for a project, then the City should be able to cancel any permissions given but not used after x years.
 
DSC said:
If developers can go to LPAT to reapply for a project, then the City should be able to cancel any permissions given but not used after x years.
Click to expand...

I can see the appeal, but sounds unnecessarily punitive to me. Costs consequences at the LPAT seem like a fairer way to dissuade unmeritorious appeals.
 
bilked said:
I can see the appeal, but sounds unnecessarily punitive to me. Costs consequences at the LPAT seem like a fairer way to dissuade unmeritorious appeals.
Click to expand...
The problem is that proposals that made sense decades ago may no longer do so. IMO, if a project with 'special zoning' that was approved more than 5-7 years ago has not been started they should lose any special permissions and revert to the 'regular zoning'. Of course, an owner can reapply and maybe even use the earlier permission as a supporting argument but ...
 
From Matt Elliott's newsletter (which everyone should sign up for):
  • StrategyCorp’s Aiden Grove-White is lobbying on behalf of the Gupta Group of Hotels who are angling to build a hotel at 60 Mill Street in the Distillery District. Given all the weddings and Christmas markets and such, it’s surprising that Distillery doesn’t have a hotel already. Hilton Canada is listed as a beneficiary of the lobbying, so expect to see their name on the hotel door. Grove-White has been communicating with Ec Dev staff via email and phone.
 
timothe.dubois said:
Judging by the public photo of him and his partner on his Facebook profile, Aiden Grove-White is comfortable with massive height discrepancies. Maybe in a Freudian way that helps him get on board with a tower next to low-rises.
Click to expand...

Can you not make point without commentary on people's appearance? Not very classy.
To your second sentence: if we never built towers next to low-rises (mostly mid-rises in this case), we'd never move beyond having low-rise buildings; cities wouldn't densify and grow and become similarly more vibrant over time.

I am partial to the argument that cities should be a mix of low and tall, and that towers should be a punctuation to the city, not the rule. A mid-rise built form is generally more desirable, in my opinion. But the notion that you can't put a tower next to something low is inherently flawed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top