[interchange42]

These two sites are on the Bloor Avenue - and that section has not had its avenue study done yet. Looking at the studies that have been done, I don't see anything higher than 10 storeys as a max. Does the collective expertise of UT think that densification to the degree of 16 storeys @ 2500 Bloor is reasonable/to be expected or do developers play "games"? - I wondered whether Tridel was just pushing high rises in the hope of "splitting the difference" with residents and getting a pair of tall mid-rises in the end. I was really impressed that Tridel had held all these community consultations, but then they kind of ignored all the comments of the various residents groups and proposed really big buildings that don't seem to have any connection with the buildings that are already in the area.
Tridel also want to realign one of the local residential streets to align it with S. Kingsway which produced furor. Maybe traffic control can be used to prevent too much traffic infiltration (new word I learned at the meeting )

I am just not sure what to think about the proposal. I know that I hate the look of the buildings, but that it just my uneducated personal opinion. Does anyone know whether the avenue mid-rise study would have any impact on planning decisions about high-rise condo blocks?

Even with the hand extended to the neighbourhood with the consultative process that Tridel has initiated here, developers often ask for more than they know they can get, so that they can look generous when their second, smaller proposal comes forward. I wouldn't be surprised if planning advises that this too much for this site, and that Tridel would come back with 10 and 13 storey proposals. As few as 6 storeys is not in the cards anymore - Tridel will be granted more than that for sure, Avenue study complete or no.

In terms of the look, well, they're a typical uninspired PoMo lite that pops up in areas of town where developers think that "classic elegance" or some shtick like that will sell.

42

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

Thanks

Cheers for the opinion. It will be interesting to sit on the sidelines and see how the process plays out. I just wish that if they want to design Lloyd-Wright style high-rises they would actually reference a Lloyd-Wright high rise instead of domestic single residences situated in rural settings.

Sad comment ahead warning - it was interesting to read some of the documents on the city planning site and I am seeing the buildings around me in a new light. They are solutions to problems that I didn't know existed. Some of the city's guidelines for Avenue buildings strike me as very prescriptive e.g. transparency at grade. This is a building surrounded by brick and stucco.

Ah well, time will tell.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Just take some solace in the (fact?) that these buildings will not get built this cycle, and when the next one comes around, expect a redesign (and, perhaps, a floor increase!).

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

Just take some solace in the (fact?) that these buildings will not get built this cycle, and when the next one comes around, expect a redesign (and, perhaps, a floor increase!).

You are probably correct about the delay, but I hope not. These empty car lots are crying out for development asap.
Increase on 16?

 

[adma]

Cheers for the opinion. It will be interesting to sit on the sidelines and see how the process plays out. I just wish that if they want to design Lloyd-Wright style high-rises they would actually reference a Lloyd-Wright high rise instead of domestic single residences situated in rural settings.

Sad comment ahead warning - it was interesting to read some of the documents on the city planning site and I am seeing the buildings around me in a new light. They are solutions to problems that I didn't know existed. Some of the city's guidelines for Avenue buildings strike me as very prescriptive e.g. transparency at grade. This is a building surrounded by brick and stucco.

Ah well, time will tell.

Though I'm not so sure that I like the stucco-up job they did on the strip plaza across the way lately--given that, I'll take the original's modernism and, uh, "transparency".

And when it comes to modernist as opposed to retro-kitsch proposals in the neighbourhood, don't forget the planned replacement for the Odeon Humber site (is that still on?)

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

Yup, apparently the Humber Odeon site is now zoned for 10(?) storeys - and probably going higher. [I'm new to all this but my understanding is... The site was owned by partners. One partner has bought the other out, and assembled all of the lots back to 2500 Bloor.]

Potentially we'll see all the lots from that hideous medical building on the corner of Jane, all the way down the hill to those 1920's(?) brick condos developed in the next few years - depending on the economy. The Humber Odeon developer will be watching to see what Tridel get zoned for as he will reapply to increase the height on his lot if he can. With three big adjacent lots being developed at the same time, it is a once in a couple of generations chance to do something really nice on that stretch - which why I wandered into the community meeting.

I don't normally like stucco either, but there are those mock-tudor revival apartments down the hill that make me smile - They are definitely kitsch in their way, but a good way Stucco and brick together can look sharp, although I am biased as our house is dark red brick, rough-cast stucco and brick trim - PIA to find someone to fix lime-based stucco though. Given the predominance of brick east and west of 2490/2500 I think I just like the idea of something with a bit more presence at street level than a glass wall. I wonder what Home Smith would do with a residential condo block

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Given my proximity to this site, I really enjoy this discussion. Thanks for joining, Annette meets Jane -- I, too, first encountered UT as a relative newcomer to planning issues, and now I can't stay away for more than a couple of days.

Might I suggest that you export some of the conversation to the Swansea/BWV thread in the "Neighbourhood" section? It can be found here: http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=5971.

As for my opinion of Tridel's proposal: without getting into the exterior detailing (which is disappointing but what-can-you-do?), I think the height is probably a negotiating tactic, and the developer is preparing to walk its proposal down floor by floor until it hits a magic number that will gain consensus (or at least bring on board one or more of the councillor, city planning or a neighbourhood group).

Based on my recent experience with these kinds of negotiations, I would guess that no matter what the developer and the city (and other stakeholders) settle on, at least one local resident will appeal the "compromise" (whether it is 12, 13 or 14 stories) to the OMB, and ultimately the OMB will side with the compromise. This will likely create a precedent for Bloor and we'll probably see a few other 2-storey lots in BWV start to test the de facto 4-storey maximum that currently prevails.

I'm a big fan of densification, and while I agree that 16 stories is a bit much for this site, at least the developer has graduated the height from the centre to the site boundaries so that it doesn't feel like a 16-storey streetwall. I would prefer to see a "true midrise" streetwall all along Bloor, but unfortunately that isn't the way development takes place.

Finally, I would note a couple of things in response to the following in your OP:

As such they are on a geographically prominent location anyway as this is some of the highest land in this area of the west end. The highest buildings in the area are opposite the site across Bloor and they are 6(?) stories high - everything else is 3 storeys.

1. The land to which the Tridel proposal applies is probably 40ft below the highest altitude in the immediate vicinty (i.e. on Riverside, due south of the subject property). The highest altitude on this stretch of Bloor is the corner of Bloor & Armadale, which is probably 30ft higher than the SP. The corner of Bloor/Jane is probably 20-25ft above the SP.

2. You are correct about the the building across the street from the SP ("The Brule") being 6-storeys (it is 5-storeys plus 1-storey mechanical PH). It is somewhat nestled into the hill to its south, so to its neighbours it is relatively unobstrusive.

3. The building against which I would measure the Tridel proposal's height is the unbuilt-but-approved 10-storey building slated for the Humber Odeon site (which, as others have already noted, is destined to increase in height now that the adjacent lots have been assembled). I'm not sure what height the Humber Odeon site was approved for (Urbandb says 31m but skyscraperpage says 37.6m to the top of the mechanical PH), but in any event you could easily see the argument for granting the SP an additional 5-10m above what was allowed for the Humber Odeon based on the SP's relatively lower grade altitude.

4. Also instructive is the 6-storey medical building on the south side of Bloor just west of Armadale. It is 5 commercial-height stories plus mechanical PH, and it carries its height almost all the way to the rear lot line. Immeditaely to the south of this building is a hill that is steeper and longer than the hill to the north of the SP. Of course, there are no shadow issues in this context (unlike the SP), but the mirrored-glass mass of this building isn't noticeable beyond the first street south of Bloor.

 

[adma]

Potentially we'll see all the lots from that hideous medical building on the corner of Jane, all the way down the hill to those 1920's(?) brick condos developed in the next few years - depending on the economy.

I can more likely see the medical building retrofitted/adaptively reused (with additions?) into a condo than demolished; and at least it provided a valuable corner public space when it was built.

I don't normally like stucco either, but there are those mock-tudor revival apartments down the hill that make me smile - They are definitely kitsch in their way, but a good way Stucco and brick together can look sharp, although I am biased as our house is dark red brick, rough-cast stucco and brick trim - PIA to find someone to fix lime-based stucco though. Given the predominance of brick east and west of 2490/2500 I think I just like the idea of something with a bit more presence at street level than a glass wall. I wonder what Home Smith would do with a residential condo block

Unfortunately, that "I wonder what Home Smith would do" spirit informed the chew-up-and-regurgitation of the Old Mill.

By and large, I'd rather advocate maintaining said mock-Tudor apartments (perhaps with respectful infill added) than the Old Millish solution of replacing them with something supposedly "likeminded". That said, when I knock "stucco", I'm more specifically referring to the applied industrial EIFS variety (which I think of as architectural Botox) that's been entombing endless old brick buildings and infecting our streetscapes lately. Though contrary the sentiment of some in UT, I agree that some elbow room can be allowed for well-mannered midrise retroness in these environs (a good model in principle might be the condo at the SE corner of Royal York and Bloor)--trouble is, too much of the midrise retroness that's popped up on Bloor westward *isn't* all that well-mannered, and the retro stylings are but a smokescreen for ensembles that are at least as narcissistic and hostile as any glass-walled condo out there, and with an added layer of arriviste vulgarity to boot. Take that thing across the street at Bloor + Riverside, for one, or the newer stuff by Old Mill station, or, topping them all, the one at the NE corner of Park Lawn Cemetery (though that one manages to be so ridiculous, it almost salvages itself through pure camp value). Just the kind of stuff that can lead one to embrace something more frankly "modern" like that Erickson-esque terraced concrete thing with the waterfalls downhill t/w the Humber bridge--which, come to think of it relative to your earlier comment, is a splendid argument on behalf of a Frank Lloyd Wright-spirit low-rise domestic aesthetic, at least, when properly handled...

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

1. The land to which the Tridel proposal applies is probably 40ft below the highest altitude in the immediate vicinty (i.e. on Riverside, due south of the subject property). The highest altitude on this stretch of Bloor is the corner of Bloor & Armadale, which is probably 30ft higher than the SP. The corner of Bloor/Jane is probably 20-25ft above the SP.

You're right of course, according to a mapmaker. However, that sweep up the slope from Old Mill and round the bend always feels like a grand entrance to busy BWV. A quite elegant entrance to the west-end, which starts at Jane/Bloor for me. My sense is that the Bloor/Jane intersection is the "top of the hill" rather than Armadale or the land to the south. It's obviously a psychological, rather than a geographical, phenomenon - or I'm losing the plot

3. The building against which I would measure the Tridel proposal's height is the unbuilt-but-approved 10-storey building slated for the Humber Odeon site (which, as others have already noted, is destined to increase in height now that the adjacent lots have been assembled). I'm not sure what height the Humber Odeon site was approved for (Urbandb says 31m but skyscraperpage says 37.6m to the top of the mechanical PH), but in any event you could easily see the argument for granting the SP an additional 5-10m above what was allowed for the Humber Odeon based on the SP's relatively lower grade altitude.

I am having as much problem imagining the unbuilt Humber Odeon site building as I was the unbuilt 2500 building I understand the theoretical argument for higher than the Odeon site - but more residents will have 2490/2500 to their direct south than the Odeon site I think, and whether another X number of properties should be impacted to maintain some consistency on the avenue is a tough pill for them to swallow. The Odeon developer will probably be coming back to get the zoning on their site increased once 2500 is zoned - Can see a height proliferation "war" until someone can actually raise the money to start bulding.

4. Also instructive is the 6-storey medical building on the south side of Bloor just west of Armadale. It is 5 commercial-height stories plus mechanical PH, and it carries its height almost all the way to the rear lot line. Immeditaely to the south of this building is a hill that is steeper and longer than the hill to the north of the SP. Of course, there are no shadow issues in this context (unlike the SP), but the mirrored-glass mass of this building isn't noticeable beyond the first street south of Bloor.

I admit that I have never seen that building from the south - I'll have to take a walk that way. My memory, at least from Bloor, is that it is a visually heavy building. Fact-finding mission required

Thanks for the welcome! BTW

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

Unfortunately, that "I wonder what Home Smith would do" spirit informed the chew-up-and-regurgitation of the Old Mill.

By and large, I'd rather advocate maintaining said mock-Tudor apartments (perhaps with respectful infill added) than the Old Millish solution of replacing them with something supposedly "likeminded".

I agree with that sentiment too - but that isn't exactly what I meant. Obviously Home Smith would not produce those mock tudor apartments now. What would that human-scale, respect for the landscape aesthetic (rather than some ill conceived architectural feature pastiche) look like now?

That said, when I knock "stucco", I'm more specifically referring to the applied industrial EIFS variety (which I think of as architectural Botox) that's been entombing endless old brick buildings and infecting our streetscapes lately. Though contrary the sentiment of some in UT, I agree that some elbow room can be allowed for well-mannered midrise retroness in these environs (a good model in principle might be the condo at the SE corner of Royal York and Bloor)--trouble is, too much of the midrise retroness that's popped up on Bloor westward *isn't* all that well-mannered, and the retro stylings are but a smokescreen for ensembles that are at least as narcissistic and hostile as any glass-walled condo out there, and with an added layer of arriviste vulgarity to boot. Take that thing across the street at Bloor + Riverside, for one, or the newer stuff by Old Mill station, or, topping them all, the one at the NE corner of Park Lawn Cemetery (though that one manages to be so ridiculous, it almost salvages itself through pure camp value). Just the kind of stuff that can lead one to embrace something more frankly "modern" like that Erickson-esque terraced concrete thing with the waterfalls downhill t/w the Humber bridge--which, come to think of it relative to your earlier comment, is a splendid argument on behalf of a Frank Lloyd Wright-spirit low-rise domestic aesthetic, at least, when properly handled...

Ah - I think that we are of like-mind, although yours is fuller than mine. I need to do a field-trip and look properly at some of these examples. I am in the presence of vastly more perceptive and knowledgeable minds here - but it has been a really interesting discussion (thank you muchly!). Thanks for the friendly welcome, and I look forward to lurking and learning.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

By and large, I'd rather advocate maintaining said mock-Tudor apartments (perhaps with respectful infill added) than the Old Millish solution of replacing them with something supposedly "likeminded". That said, when I knock "stucco", I'm more specifically referring to the applied industrial EIFS variety (which I think of as architectural Botox) that's been entombing endless old brick buildings and infecting our streetscapes lately. Though contrary the sentiment of some in UT, I agree that some elbow room can be allowed for well-mannered midrise retroness in these environs (a good model in principle might be the condo at the SE corner of Royal York and Bloor)--trouble is, too much of the midrise retroness that's popped up on Bloor westward *isn't* all that well-mannered, and the retro stylings are but a smokescreen for ensembles that are at least as narcissistic and hostile as any glass-walled condo out there, and with an added layer of arriviste vulgarity to boot. Take that thing across the street at Bloor + Riverside, for one, or the newer stuff by Old Mill station, or, topping them all, the one at the NE corner of Park Lawn Cemetery (though that one manages to be so ridiculous, it almost salvages itself through pure camp value). Just the kind of stuff that can lead one to embrace something more frankly "modern" like that Erickson-esque terraced concrete thing with the waterfalls downhill t/w the Humber bridge--which, come to think of it relative to your earlier comment, is a splendid argument on behalf of a Frank Lloyd Wright-spirit low-rise domestic aesthetic, at least, when properly handled...

I fear it would take a few semesters of study for me to fully understand what you wrote, but I get the gist and agree with what I did understand.

You're right of course, according to a mapmaker. However, that sweep up the slope from Old Mill and round the bend always feels like a grand entrance to busy BWV. A quite elegant entrance to the west-end, which starts at Jane/Bloor for me. My sense is that the Bloor/Jane intersection is the "top of the hill" rather than Armadale or the land to the south. It's obviously a psychological, rather than a geographical, phenomenon - or I'm losing the plot

Yes, I was probably being overly technical. In context, I share your perception of Jane/Bloor being the pinnacle/entrance to BWV.

The Odeon developer will probably be coming back to get the zoning on their site increased once 2500 is zoned - Can see a height proliferation "war" until someone can actually raise the money to start bulding.

This is the process by which height gradually increases in an area (of Toronto, at any rate) where the prevailing density is less than it "ought to be". The area around King/Portland (which some call "Freedville") is in the midst of determining what is the "new normal" for height. Local residents are drawing a red-line at about 35m and are telling developers that they will take to the OMB anyone who wants to exceed that number (there are some exceptions for set-back heights in mid-block, or trade-offs for heritage preservation, but generally the residents have held their line for the past several years). Interestingly, the residents' political pressure has caused the City to flip-flop on individual sites, first supporting a given height at CofA and then joining the OMB challenge to the same scheme.

I am having as much problem imagining the unbuilt Humber Odeon site building as I was the unbuilt 2500 building I understand the theoretical argument for higher than the Odeon site - but more residents will have 2490/2500 to their direct south than the Odeon site I think, and whether another X number of properties should be impacted to maintain some consistency on the avenue is a tough pill for them to swallow.

This really gets to the heart of the issue of "good planning" being subjective. Is it NIMBY-ist to argue against a 16-storey development along one of the main thoroughfares in the city? I live in the area, several blocks from the SP. I would prefer not to have a 16-storey building casting shadows over my property and providing a view of my backyard. But I could not in good conscience argue against the development, because I think it is necessary (i.e. "good planning") to increase density, especially along major thoroughfares with access to public transit.

I'm not saying you're being a NIMBY; I'm just saying that "good planning" doesn't seem to be an equation that all people can agree on. Perhaps, if the 2500 Bloor development were going to impact my property, I might discard my aforementioned notions of what I would/wouldn't be able to do "in good conscience".

I admit that I have never seen that building from the south - I'll have to take a walk that way. My memory, at least from Bloor, is that it is a visually heavy building. Fact-finding mission required

I find it remarkable how unobtrusive that building is. I barely ever notice it, and I am surprised when I catch a glimpse of it from the bottom of South Kingsway. Maybe it's the mirrored glass?

 

[adma]

I find it remarkable how unobtrusive that building is. I barely ever notice it, and I am surprised when I catch a glimpse of it from the bottom of South Kingsway. Maybe it's the mirrored glass?

The mirrored glass makes it a true 70s cliche (not necessarily a dig against it), but I suppose its unobtrusiveness also has something to do with its being "Crombie-era", when issues related to building envelopes and contextual awareness became planning mantras. Come to think of it, the medical building on the corner which AnnetteMeetsJane dislikes is also surprisingly thoughtful from a contextual standpoint--and then there are the red brick infill complexes at Bloor + Windermere, Bloor + Beresford, Bloor + Kennedy: maybe the fact that Bloor West pioneered the BIA movement helps explain all this 70s contextualism of one sort or another hereabouts...

 

[Towered]

Hmmm, re-aligning Riverview Gardens to meet South Kingsway might be a good idea to make it simpler for the future Jane LRT to be extended down to the Queensway as planned. There's already a very conveniently placed public parking lot located behind that block containing the Odeon, which could be used for the LRT when it swings westward from Jane station. Mind you, given the width of the South Kingsway the line would probably have to be tunneled so all of this becomes moot.

 

[urbandreamer]

Dear Developers:

STOP producing garbage!

Why not just knock off Rezen x10 on all the empty lots around Bloor and Jane?

thanks,

urbandreamer

 

[Roark8]

UrbanDreamer
Why is it every building you want to see is a re-hash of aA or Core.
Not every building in the City needs to be a square box, no matter
how you want to dress it up.
Perhaps, Tridel/the Architect will address some of the concerns
and produce a more elightened version for you - after all this is
only Re-zoning at the moment.