[whatever]

The new renderings make it appear much more palatable (to me) than the previous rendering. It's got two similar sized buildings half a block west, and a much larger building half a block east (not to mention Ritz/RBC to the south). I hope they take this to the OMB instead of chopping the tower down to meet some arbitrary cut-off point.

(and granted, yes, it would have looked even better on the north east corner of the block, but that's not the lot that this developer owns)

 

[syn]

I agree with their decision, though it's hard to know what would be approved or not these days. After the towers for the Distillery were approved, nothing surprises me. Who knows what will ultimately happen.

 

[Ramako]

I wonder if this tower fits under the city's own asinine tapering policy. Funny how that graphic isn't included in any of the reports.

 

[Architecturefan]

I wonder if this tower fits under the city's own asinine tapering policy. Funny how that graphic isn't included in any of the reports.

It does fit, which is a good point.

The City's approach with respect it its tapering policy is that it applies for everywhere in King-Spadina except for these four blocks.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Community council rejects King St. tower
Height An Issue; OMB may decide future of condo development

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto/story.html?id=2664246

City councillors yesterday rejected an "astonishing" 45-storey condo tower by prominent Toronto architect Peter Clewes, airing concerns about height and how it would impact its neighbours.

The tower, proposed for a parking lot next to the Royal Alexandra Theatre, is a collaborative project between Mr. Clewes, developer Brad J. Lamb, who owns the land, Niche Developments and HarHay Construction Management.

Mr. Lamb and Mr. Clewes were on hand to hear the decision by Toronto East York Community Council. They have already taken the proposal to the Ontario Municipal Board, which has the power to approve it over the city's wishes.

Local councillor Adam Vaughan was among those who voted against the project, despite praising several aspects of the proposal. He said 224 King Street has an "astonishing" design, with many features that the city should encourage, namely a public square out front that gives the historic theatre a position of prominence.

"The trouble with setting the building back is that you automatically push the massing somewhere else, up. And the question is how far up," he said.

His concerns were not limited to height. Mr. Vaughan said as more real estate is transformed into high-density condos, the tax assessments for nearby historic warehouses have gone through the roof.

"Assessments in this area have jumped from $8 -to $23-million overnight ... effectively [giving an incentive for the] demolition of buildings which are sometimes heritage listed. It's literally bankrupting landowners in this area."

He said he will oppose the development for now, but wants staff to report on what additional protection could come if the area were designated a heritage conservation district.

Afterward, Mr. Vaughan said such a designation would protect heritage, while unleashing parking lots for higher density development, provided they "pay respect" to the character of the neighbourhood.

He added: "It still does not answer the tax policy."

He said if the city approves this condo tower, it is saying all properties on this strip have a right to 40 storeys "and they don't."

Jeffrey Davies, a lawyer representing the owners of buildings immediately to the east, said his clients opposed the project.

Mr. Lamb said the verdict was not surprising, but he is optimistic a building will eventually go up. He has argued that height is a "non-issue" because there are a stack of approved tall buildings in the vicinity.

"I don't see us changing the design dramatically, the point is the forecourt is important for the city," he said, adding that the Mirvish family, which owns the Royal Alex, has supplied the developers with a letter of support.

"In the event we can't make some compromise with the city, we will fight them at the OMB."

Eileen Costello, a lawyer representing the developers, argued that the tower would not set a precedent because it is not a heritage property, and the heritage properties to the east would be restricted by the same legislation that protects them.

"It's very easy to react viscerally to the number of stories to this building without looking at this project as a whole," she said.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

So rising property values are a bad thing Mr. Vaughan??? I don't understand that comment. In fact we want to convert these buildings into mixed use and increased property taxes might be an incentive for that. Furthermore if taxes are too high it might drive out the clubs/discos in the area.

 

[Tewder]

I'm not sure I understand this fetish hereabouts that every building must blend in to context. What the heck is wrong with a building daringly and boldly standing out from it instead?! All the more so given the many arguments that have already been stated admirably by US and 3D in terms of the wider context in question, the set-back from King Street that is crucial here, the addition of a lovely and needed public space, the precedents all over our city of similarly scaled juxtopositions, and the painfully obvious fact that no heritage here is actually being compromised. On the contrary, a future piece of heritage would be added in the form of what is arguably just about the most striking design in highrise this city has seen in decades.

This design allows Theatre Park to bow to many different contexts, all the while taking centre stage itself - from certain angles and perspectives at least - for its own moment in the spotlight. This is enlightened design and urban planning no matter what the tired old conformists will tell you. Bravo to Clewes!

 

[tgam]

Architecture and urban design don't get much better in this city than the current proposal. If Councillor Vaughan is so concerned about heritage, then he should push for better municipal conservation laws--including measures that reward property owners for maintaining their buildings and protect them from the tax man. As it is, I walk down queen street west every day and marvel at the decay. If this were Amsterdam or San Francisco, every cornice and mullion would be perfectly restored and gleaming with fresh paint, not covered with bird crap or aluminum flashing.

 

[HDLtd]

It's hard to judge density based on height, FSI is a much better tool - and I suspect the FSI (floor space index - gross floor area/site area) for this proposal is far above M5V or festival tower simply due to the small size of the property. Does anyone know what the FSI is for this proposal?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

20.17 according to the staff report.

 

[fouronesix]

I really have mixed feelings toward this design. While I have argued in previous posts that this building is out of context with regard to its immediate neighbours, largely due to the lack of a significant setback between podium and tower, the new renderings do show that the height of the tower within this precient is certainly not unprecedented, and in this wider context the tower is perhaps more suitable. Furthermore the cladding and mechanical penthouse treatment appear to be stunning. Nonetheless, I would still prefer to see a more significant podium portion, perhaps built to the property line. I beleive that such a design change would further 'foreshorten' the tower as one views it from King street. Additionally, rather than placing a small park in front of the tower, proceeds from s.37 money could be used to improve the large public space in front of metro hall. While some may argue that most of the foot traffic is on the north side of King and therefore the metro hall park is underused, people crossing the street to use a park is not unprecedented; in fact urbanshocker noted how patrons of the st. lawerence centre and the hummingbird/sony centre use berczy park before and after shows.

To return to a post a couple of pages back, to counter an argument that seems to be gaining some traction, the examples that urban schocker used to illustrate examples of short/tall contrast are in all cases except one disanalagous to the present sistuation. US listed the Canada Life building contrasted with campbell house, the national club with trump, the TD centre banking podium with the TD towers, and the towers in the distillery. In the first three cases, the short buildings are the exception to the built form rule, i.e. a single short structure surrounded by tall structures, quite the opposite situation to the one presented on King Street. Furthermore, the existence of these short structures is novel in each case, whether the short structure was moved to its present location, occupied by an extremely financially well-endowed organization, or consciously incorporated into the design of a wider unitary project. The final example offered in fact supports my point re: podium with little setback from property line, tower stepped-back from podium.

And a point about heritage structures and rising property values. While the particularities of heritage designation are certainly not my forte, I think Adam Vaughn's concerns over rising land values creating economic conditions for redevelopment of heritage properties are valid. As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent the owner of a heritage property from willfully neglecting a property to the point that it becomes structurally unsound and in need of demolition. Two examples of this type of neglect that come to mind are the row of Georgian townhouses on Shuter at Jarvis that did indeed face demolition and are now subject to a development application, and the current home of 51 division, which were it not for the intervention of a city department, surely would have faced demolition after siting abandoned for decades. Additionally, if property taxes become too high due to increasing land values, the ability of the property owner to maintain the profitability of the property will diminish as there is certainly a fixed ceiling on rents that can be charged for what I would assume is office space lower than AAA. One avenue that could be persued to allieviate this situation is instituting some form of tax break for heritage structures or heritage districts.

 

[tkip]

Proposal....

I tend to think either the building's height is going to get reduced or the OMB will approve this plan.

The tower looks good. And yeah, too many buildings and storefronts just look dirty and run down looking. Retail owners and property owners need to take better care of buildings and this is just not happening.

Another example of the blight that our city has become over the years. Everything is decying and looking embarassing.

 

[UrbanAffair]

I like this proposal quite a bit. I love the ribbons on the side, and the roof element fits right in and is a really nice mask for (what I assume is) the mechanical box on top. I don't normally like the glass box, but this one plays nicely with the variation on a theme for Mr. Clewes.

I know the park in front is considered an important piece of the design, but it seems quite redundant to me to put a small park across the street from another much larger park.

Instead of this small park, I would add a podium that would contain a space for theatre/music performances. With Roy Thomson across the street and the Royal Alex next door, this could be an opportunity for great small venue, something a bit more intimate in size than either of these two spaces.

I very much like your idea for a small perforamance space. It would be great in the summer, not sure how it would work in the winter though...

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I very much like your idea for a small perforamance space. It would be great in the summer, not sure how it would work in the winter though...

I suggested this a few pages back, a smaller live venue in the "Theatre District" with condos and amenities above seems to make sense to me.

 

[grey]

It would have been interesting to see renderings of the field of vision that pedestrians will enjoy when they're on King Street itself close to the tower - with the Royal Alex and the other buildings of that height stretching away on both sides contrasted with the visually foreshortened tower set back from King. The differences in the foreshortening effect is already quite dramatic in the two new renderings anyway, with the more southerly perspective ( from Metro Square ) making the tower appear taller and slimmer. A rendering of the perspective from street level on King would show how much shorter it will appear.

I think this is absolutely the key here.

Privileged few people will actually have the rendered view of the street from the surrounding office towers. The vast majority of people experiencing this building will do so at street level, where the Royal Alex and the rest of the block won't be overwhelmed at all due to the setback.