DavidCapizzano said:
I’ve always figured this site was kind of under built and would eventually see some kind of redevelopment.

View attachment 294128
Click to expand...

This is certainly quite forgettable:

1610680726803.png


Nothing particularly remarkable about this either:

1610680875372.png


Neither listed nor designated.

Between the 2 properties you have about 30,000ft 2; and about 0.3ha/ or 0.75 acres

There's something workable there.

Without building a mega-tall.......

I would see this as commercial on its bottom 5 floors over the whole site, then a single residential tower above

Something mimicked the King's Landing set backs at the south end.....but just ended up way taller.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Ugh, Isn't it an Armoury still being used for our military??
Click to expand...
Yes. Home to three reserve regiments: Royal Regiment of Canada (infantry), Queen's York Rangers (armoured reconnaissance), and 32 Brigade Signals Regiment (communications, etc.). Also home to the 32 Brigade Battle School where a lot of soldiers do their first introductory training in the armoury on weekends before travelling across the country for intensive training.

If reused for something else, it would leave only Moss Park Armoury as the downtown Toronto foothold for the Army. A lot of regiments have gone north up to Denison Armoury at Downsview which is much larger, newer, etc.

Frankly I would rather see Moss Park come down or be re-used than Fort York. Its location could have a larger impact on people's lives as Moss Park is an area in desperate need of attention and services. And although I have some sympathies for the design of Moss Park, it's certainly no Fort York.

Of course the old Toronto Armouries at University & Armoury were demolished in the 1960s to make way for the Toronto Courthouse (361 University Ave.) if I'm not mistaken
 
^ Agree. I'm sure most developers have a picture of this site on their desks 😋.

Ideally a great master-plan that puts open-space/sport and other public realm design at the top of the agenda... then hires 4 different architects (from 100 submissions ;-) to build stuff that responds to agenda item 1. I've already designed the fountain.

Untitled-design62.jpg

Link

Fountain - perimeter would larger to accommodate a winter skate circle (and ducks in other seasons 🦆).

Moss-fountain.jpg
 
Okay, enough. We are so far off topic here… all further armoury posts will be deleted.

42
 
Why isn't Planning pushing for just one taller tower between the two Waterclub Towers to increase tower separation and sunlight to the lower levels of 200 QQW?
 
hbf92 said:
Why isn't Planning pushing for just one taller tower between the two Waterclub Towers to increase tower separation and sunlight to the lower levels of 200 QQW?
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at the docs but I imagine there might be flight path issues.
 
Well, if they are proposing 71 and 41 stories, then the one tower would need to be over 100 stories to make up the density. That's likely not feasible and the city would never approve that.

Technically the 2 towers meet the required tower setbacks and 25m separation distance, so the site can handle 2 towers (plus a POPS!)
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
From the Jan WT DRP:


AoD
Click to expand...

From the above:

This is a render we've seen before, but it is a bit more close-up:

1612013562887.png


This is a diagram of the landscape plan:

1612013829178.png


Overall, it's a decent landscape plan; if the building footprints stay what they are, I don't see room for enhancement, but it's a bit of shame, if the west tower is setback another 2m or so, then all of Harbour here could be lined with trees

This shows you the building foot prints for the podium levels, as well as the separation distances:

1612014096838.png


Same as above, but for the towers:

1612014140482.png


There's some very strategic drawing of separations distances here:

1612014230263.png



Of note, some of the discussion was to be devoted to 'Under the Gardiner' improvements. They gave examples in the slide deck, but none that were clearly plans for what to do, just things that could be done.

But it appears a significant investment to beautify/animate the Gardiner in this section will be made.
 
Last edited:
The bike path needs a substantial physical barrier at the west end where it's right up against Harbour. A fall to the right would put a cyclist under the tires of a truck before they even knew what was happening. The recent designs for the Lake Shore East public realm are an example of how to do this right.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top