[cd concept]

You're welcome!

From the render it looks like the shortest tower is about equal in height to Monde, which is 150 metres tall. The 2 tallest towers appear to be about 200 metres, and the other 2 I made 180 and 170 metres. But, these are just massing models, and they will change as the real buildings are revealed at a later date...

Thanks for the info Koops those hieght numbers look about right! You know the more I looks at this exodic rustic earth tone rendering of this podium and parkettes. With the trees and plants in bedded into ground and balconies . Really creates that Fantasy island tropical vibe. Which should be the look of the modern future instead of this new metallic norm. After all were humans not gray alien species lol!!

 

[amh]

(aA is on this as well btw!)

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

The changes which most people fear; and don't always occur, but do too often, are rarely the fault of any Design Review Panel (now and again....but I digress).
They are also rarely the fault of planners..

They are usually the responsibility of developers, who choose to 'value-engineer' and remove more expensive elements and/or materials in favour of cheaper/less challenging ones.
The default, at-law, is that that is their prerogative. The City has a good deal of sway in terms of height, and massing, although even there, the process of appeal to OLT shows a relatively limited effect, much of the time.

There are some exceptions, in which government can hold a proponent to the render, to at least some degree:

1) If the developer is making a truly extraordinary ask, that they believe won't gain approval except by virtue of its interesting design, they can choose to enter a legally binding agreement with the City, typically secured through the S.37 agreement
which may bind the developer to certain materials or choices.

2) If the site involves protected heritage buildings, the City may have some ability to protect those and to dictate certain design features that directly abut said buildings

3) If the City or another government body is the owner of the land, and chooses to place a covenant on sale; and/or remains the owner and dictates certain conditions in exchange for lease of the lands.

*****

Number 3 is key here.

Waterfrontoronto is the primary owner of Quayside, along with the City of Toronto (1.5 acres) ; in the legal terms of the contract they sign w/the proponent here they can choose to insert language protecting key design elements.

That language will almost always include some flexibility, as there is a considerable distance between a concept render and an approved building, and working drawings to build same.

Frankly, it's challenging to craft wording just right at an early stage; but it can be done, if the will is there.

Does the Design Review Panel actually have any benefit or weight? It seems like whatever recommendations they make can be outright ignored if the developer chooses to do so (seems like 96% of the time).

Alas. Toronto is a city of cheapness. I doubt we will ever have great architecture at this point and the renderings for this project is just a dream. If developers could get away with it I’m sure they would build buildings as concrete boxes and prison bars; “open concept minimalism with lots of natural light and air flow.”

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

They are also rarely the fault of planners..

Though some of our design guidelines that the planning department has produced could be said to have tangible impacts on design (set-backs, etc.) that might have some impact on value-engineering decisions.

 

[allengeorge]

Though some of our design guidelines that the planning department has produced could be said to have tangible impacts on design (set-backs, etc.) that might have some impact on value-engineering decisions.

My understanding (and I’m not well-versed in the area) is that floor-plate maximums and separation distances have big impacts on unit layouts, tower height and construction cost.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Floorplate maximums have an influence - but the biggest influence on unit layouts is probably City Planning's requests for square tower floorplates instead of rectangles, which are far, far more unit-friendly.

The better architects and developers in the city who actually care about what units look like push for more rectangular floorplates, but the city always comments on them as they don't like the wider shadows they tend to create.

Stepping also creates terrible units on the lower floors as the units have to be far deeper which means internal bedrooms, narrower units, etc.

Separation distances reduce overall GFA, but aren't as large an influence on actual unit layouts.

The narrower a building is, the better a unit layout will be as they will be wider with more windows and generally more functional. Square floor plates minimize window space per sm of GFA, which means bad, dark units. If you look at cities like NYC, many of their towers are something like 17x40m, which creates excellent units with lots of windows. Meanwhile in Toronto most towers are 27x27, or if a developer pushes they may be able to get something like 22x34.

 

[Northern Light]

Does the Design Review Panel actually have any benefit or weight?

I think it does; but ya know, the Waterfront Design Review Panel has looked at so many plans/projects over the years it's hard to gather a comprehensive sense in one's mind of their impacts.

I think @AlvinofDiaspar has followed their work more diligently than most of us, I would be interested to hear his take and that of @AlexBozikovic .

It seems like whatever recommendations they make can be outright ignored

In most cases, they can be, the panel's role is generally advisory...

if the developer chooses to do so (seems like 96% of the time).

I definitely would not go that far.

Alas. Toronto is a city of cheapness.

Sometimes. Too often. Not always.

I doubt we will ever have great architecture at this point and the renderings for this project is just a dream.

I think we're all pretty pleased with how CIBC Square has turned out thus far; and there are a few other jewels, so it's not reasonable to say we will never have 'great architecture' when we we already do. What's fair to say is that we should have both more 'great architecture' than we do, and less truly mediocre stuff.

If developers could get away with it I’m sure they would build buildings as concrete boxes and prison bars; “open concept minimalism with lots of natural light and air flow.”

Well, we already have a maximum security ski resort, here:

B-Line Condos | 22.2m | 6s | Royalpark Homes | Romanov Romanov

Didn't this site used to be a gas station? That's correct, it was left dormant for more than 15 years after the station's demolition before activity ramped up here.

urbantoronto.ca

But I think this one takes the cake for having the prison vibe:

115 Dupont | 22.33m | 5s | Zinc Developments | Cumulus

This is on the route from worth-a-trip-into-the-back-lane-to-see-this to glad-it's-hidden-behind-other-buildings. 42 And now we've crossed into buildings-as-a-form-of-punshment territory. Truly bizarre. How much more tortuously ugly can it get… and why is it just getting worse?! Remember...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think it does; but ya know, the Waterfront Design Review Panel has looked at so many plans/projects over the years it's hard to gather a comprehensive sense in one's mind of their impacts.

I think @AlvinofDiaspar has followed their work more diligently than most of us, I would be interested to hear his take and that of @AlexBozikovic .

I think the WTDRP does have a positive impact, but I think fundamentally it is the commitment (or lackthereof) by the proponent that determines whether something is good (or not).

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Floorplate maximums have an influence - but the biggest influence on unit layouts is probably City Planning's requests for square tower floorplates instead of rectangles, which are far, far more unit-friendly.

The better architects and developers in the city who actually care about what units look like push for more rectangular floorplates, but the city always comments on them as they don't like the wider shadows they tend to create.

Stepping also creates terrible units on the lower floors as the units have to be far deeper which means internal bedrooms, narrower units, etc.

Separation distances reduce overall GFA, but aren't as large an influence on actual unit layouts.

The narrower a building is, the better a unit layout will be as they will be wider with more windows and generally more functional. Square floor plates minimize window space per sm of GFA, which means bad, dark units. If you look at cities like NYC, many of their towers are something like 17x40m, which creates excellent units with lots of windows. Meanwhile in Toronto most towers are 27x27, or if a developer pushes they may be able to get something like 22x34.

Here's a question for you; and any one else who wants in..............

I'm sympathetic to the shadow argument; but equally concerned about lack of windows/bad unit layout.

Thoughts

1) What if we permitted the more rectangular building form when the building is located such that shadows aren't the same issue? That may sound odd, so bare with me. In general, you don't get shadows of significance on the south side of buildings here, the issue primarily is the sun from the south casting a shadow, and in lesser measure the east/west.

Obviously, there's always the potential then for a shadow on the north side of a building, limiting sun.

But what if we started by acknowledging that say a building on the south side of the 401 would cast its primary shadow on the highway, effecting zero public realm, parks and few trees?

We could look for other similar circumstances where shadowing is less of an issue as a starting point for more permissive regulation.

2) How might we allow buildings that are a bit more slab-like in configuration, but still preserve sunlight to their north, in particular? Could we make the form work by looking at different design choices?

I'm thinking cut-outs for a portion of the building that let some sun through? Perhaps a smaller rectangular foot print that allowed for two towers as opposed to one, and getting creative to avoid blank walls or separation distance issues. (stairs, glassed on a close-facing side?); elevator core, glassed-in or treated as an architectural feature on one side? )

I'm just looking for ways we might find to ensure a nice public realm, with healthy tree growth and lush parks, school yards that have sunlight, while also embracing good unit sizes/layouts with decent amounts of windows.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't want to take this too far off tangent, and maybe we can move this part of the discussion elsewhere.

But one final bit on the DRP for now.

In scanning the net for evidence of its effect, I found Dan Eylon's Master's Degree Thesis on the WDRP.

As I'm working, (and posting here), I haven't had a chance to read it all yet; but it looks interesting.

https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/9230/Eylon_Dan.pdf;jsessionid=021B504CD82B897847917A3A39B1F28B?sequence=3

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

I think it does; but ya know, the Waterfront Design Review Panel has looked at so many plans/projects over the years its hard to gather a comprehensive sense in one's mind of their impacts.

I think @AlvinofDiaspar has followed their work more diligently than most of us, I would be interested to hear his take and that of @AlexBozikovic .



In most cases, they can be, the panel's role is generally advisory...



I definitely would not go that far.



Sometimes. Too often. Not always.



I think we're all pretty pleased with how CIBC Square has turned out thus far; and there are a few other jewels, so its not reasonable to say we will never have 'great architecture' when we we already do. What's fair to say is that we should have both more 'great architecture' than we do, and less truly mediocre stuff.



Well, we already have a maximum security ski resort, here:

B-Line Condos | 22.2m | 6s | Royalpark Homes | Romanov Romanov

Didn't this site used to be a gas station? That's correct, it was left dormant for more than 15 years after the station's demolition before activity ramped up here.

urbantoronto.ca

But I think this one takes the cake for having the prison vibe:

115 Dupont | 22.33m | 5s | Zinc Developments | Cumulus

This is on the route from worth-a-trip-into-the-back-lane-to-see-this to glad-it's-hidden-behind-other-buildings. 42 And now we've crossed into buildings-as-a-form-of-punshment territory. Truly bizarre. How much more tortuously ugly can it get… and why is it just getting worse?! Remember...

urbantoronto.ca

I should’ve probably clarified it regarding the Design Review Panel. I thought it was under the City of Toronto Design Review Panel.

Until it was mentioned that Waterfront has its own Panel? Maybe there should be a separate thread for Design Review Panel (City)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I should’ve probably clarified it regarding the Design Review Panel. I thought it was under the City of Toronto Design Review Panel.

Until it was mentioned that Waterfront has its own Panel?

Nope, WT DRP is separate and has a distinct boundary:

https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm/connect/waterfront/c1d61fe5-f58d-4a8b-b068-8b34fdfc59d6/WT+DRP+HANDBOOK+%28JULY+2021%29+FINAL+PUBLIC.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Personally I think everything south of the railway corridor (and inclusive of the Toronto Islands) in the central waterfront should be under their purview.

AoD

 

[innsertnamehere]

Here's a question for you; and any one else who wants in..............

I'm sympathetic to the shadow argument; but equally concerned about lack of windows/bad unit layout.

Thoughts

1) What if we permitted the more rectangular building form when the building is located such that shadows aren't the same issue? That may sound odd, so bare with me. In general, you don't get shadows of significance on the south side of buildings here, the issue primarily is the sun from the south casting a shadow, and in lesser measure the east/west.

Obviously, there's always the potential then for a shadow on the north side of a building, limiting sun.

But what if we started by acknowledging that say a building on the south side of the 401 would cast its primary shadow on the highway, effecting zero public realm, parks and few trees?

We could look for other similar circumstances where shadowing is less of an issue as a starting point for more permissive regulation.

2) How might we allow buildings that are a bit more slab-like in configuration, but still preserve sunlight to their north, in particular? Could we make the form work by looking at different design choices?

I'm thinking cut-outs for a portion of the building that let some sun through? Perhaps a smaller rectangular foot print that allowed for two towers as opposed to one, and getting creative to avoid blank walls or separation distance issues. (stairs, glassed on a close-facing side?); elevator core, glassed-in or treated as an architectural feature on one side? )

I'm just looking for ways we might find to ensure a nice public realm, with healthy tree growth and lush parks, school yards that have sunlight, while also embracing good unit sizes/layouts with decent amounts of windows.

You can play games like angling the building (510 Yonge did this initially) to minimize shadows, as well as orient the building in a n-s direction, but generally, there isn't really a way around it per se. This runs into issues with the city not liking angled buildings, as well, with them preferring them oriented to match the angles of the adjacent street.

Honestly if it was up to me, I would make most residential buildings 20x37m, which creates generally good units without it being a massive slab. Shadow impacts between it and a 27x27m building, particularly if the building is oriented correctly, are relatively minimal.

This city's obsession with shadows is also way overblown, in general.

The issue with planning is that as unit layouts are not able to be regulated in the planning act, planning doesn't "care" about them, and the resulting impacts on unit layouts from planning policies is almost never considered.

Generally speaking the more rectangular the building is with the less setbacks it can have, the better the units are. There is a reason developers built massive slab rectangle apartments in the 1960's and 1970's - it's what got excellent units for people to live in and for developers to market for rent.

 

[ADRM]

The issue with planning is that as unit layouts are not able to be regulated in the planning act, planning doesn't "care" about them, and the resulting impacts on unit layouts from planning policies is almost never considered.

So much this -- it is incredibly frustrating, and it leads to bad outcomes. Planning wittingly prioritizes a subjective aesthetic viewpoint applied to the form of the building as viewed by someone standing outside the building over the livability of the building for those who will actually call it home. I think that's wrong and it is, as @insertnamehere has correctly characterized, an ardently held position.

That sense prioritization gives you units like this, which Planning is for some reason completely fine with:

It will be super interesting to see how Planning and Urban Design deal with the Adjaye building here -- it is pretty much anathema to their strange view of built form aesthetics. They have fought some notably pitched battles over much less slabby buildings.

 

[Northern Light]

So much this -- it is incredibly frustrating, and it leads to bad outcomes. Planning wittingly prioritizes a subjective aesthetic viewpoint applied to the form of the building as viewed by someone standing outside the building over the livability of the building for those who will actually call it home. I think that's wrong and it is, as @insertnamehere has correctly characterized, an ardently held position.

That sense prioritization gives you units like this, which Planning is for some reason completely fine with:

View attachment 380677

The characterization of the outcome is fair; but I don't think you're being fair about Planning 'not caring' or being 'fine with' bad unit layouts.

As Innsert noted, they have no legal/regulatory means to control for that. Even if they permitted different building massing, which might make better layouts easier to do, they still couldn't require
developers to use that opportunity accordingly.

The first step, logically, to me, would be to mandate (and permit) Planning to consider such things; then we can evaluate what they do w/that.

It is worth saying, Planning has negotiated for better unit layouts and sizes on rare occasion, generally where a developer has no hope of approval w/o Planning's endorsement and/or a large S.37 agreement could be required
and that provides a convenient vehicle for securing that as a benefit. But certainly that is exceptional.

It will be super interesting to see how Planning and Urban Design deal with the Adjaye building here -- it is pretty much anathema to their strange view of built form aesthetics. They have fought some notably pitched battles over much less slabby buildings.

I agree, that will be interesting to see; and I'd add, as we don't yet have the planning documents that show shadowing etc; it will be equally interesting to see if enough light is available for that 'community forest' to thrive.

I like the idea and the building; and I hope those two notions are compatible. I'll afford an optimistic view that that has been thought through already; though we'll have to wait for the details to see.