[DSC]

so it is mostly about the size and not fitting in. i agree it is strange with the parking above ground but at least this is nicer than the ugly gas station. I think the design if it was like something like the well which integrates retail space more that would be better but not all buildings can be like that.

i think church/front is much nicer area. and sherbourne/front needs re-development, all it is known for is the dollerama, bmo, and no frills.

Need more population to fund cafes, restaurants, and get rid of these big box stores or stores with zero personality.

I think you are somewhat confused but you are correct that the problem with T & S is that it is very large for the site and really does not fit well with (and will loom over ) the neighbourhood. Of course, it is better to have a building there and not two single level buildings and one (the Purple House) of two floors all surrounded with surface parking BUT it could have been FAR better designed and if the developers were not so greedy it could have been - they have above ground parking because they were not prepared to pay to dig deeper and remove all the contaminated soil. (Covering it over was far cheaper!). It may be too much to expect another Well here but there really is no excuse for what is happening.

You note that Church and Front is a 'much nicer area" - which I agree with - but it is nicer because the buildings on that corner fit pretty well together and the newest one (Berczy) respects the area in which it was built. None of them dominate and none provide the level of shadow that T&S already does (and it's far from finished). The area of Front & Sherburne is improving/changing very fast. There is the almost completed 158 Front, which is turning out quite well, and better than I had feared. The Esso Station has closed and will be replaced by 33 Sherbourne which looks "OK" but I await the finished product and the block with the Dollerama/LCBO/CIBC and the No Frills parking lot on the next block will all go when the Phase 2 of the Globe and Mail is redeveloped, soon. I bet the Fire Station site will be next to go, though a Fire Station may be part of any new building as the area does need one.

Of course, more population makes it possible to have more cafes & restaurants but most of the stores that seem to be able to afford the rents in new buildings are small nail salons, dry cleaners and, more recently, cannabis shops! In many cases a re-development forces small stores and restaurants with 'personality" to close and there are many such examples around St Lawrence and elsewhere.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Why above-ground parking may be the best bet in the age of self-driving cars

Haider-Moranis Bulletin: Parking standards should be revised, or we may end up with surplus underground parking, which may be difficult to repurpose

financialpost.com

A case for above grade parking. Thoughts?

First, welcome to UrbanToronto!

For those who don't want to read the article, it basically says that "AVs are the future, which will reduce parking demand. Hence, lower parking minimums."

That's an interesting take, which I partially agree with.

I'm going to look at the points the article makes:

Advances in transportation technology are transforming the way we travel. App-based ride-hailing and car-sharing are just a few examples. In future, autonomous vehicles (AVs) will revolutionize the very contours of mobility. Not only will AVs be able to drive themselves, they will also be able to park themselves.

The, uh, experiment in West Rouge shows that AVs probably aren't coming yet. They're always 10 years away. Besides, the greatest arguments in favor of car ownership is that "you" own the car. Ride-hailing and car-sharing aren't going to be ubiquitous, for this reason.

It also suggests building above-grade parking in multi-residential buildings instead of underground parking. “Provision of above-grade parking is less expensive and at the same time allows for the repurposing of parking spaces if space becomes redundant in the future,” the report argued.

Repurposing parking spaces? In a city like Toronto, we'd just tear the whole thing down. Obviously, not every city is Toronto, but the simpler solution would be to reduce total parking minimums, and let developers decide on underground/above-ground parking spaces.

Parking structures must be designed to allow for alternative uses in the future. Higher ceilings, gentler sloping slabs and placement of elevator banks and staircases are some of the design considerations needed for the future transformation of parking spaces.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It's hard to imagine a parking garage as a future non-parking-garage, and retrofitting a more expensive garage will probably be more expensive than a teardown, but demolition is also less environmentally friendly.

I think the essential point of the article is wrong. Taking the "above-ground instead of underground" approach implies that cars are environmentally friendly, which EVs really aren't. It also doesn't really clarify the author's view on total parking minimums, which, I'm sure most developers would rather build unless there wasn't room (which there isn't). I'd rather get rid of parking minimums altogether (including above-ground ones) and encourage transit-friendly development instead.

 

[beautifulwar]

I think you are somewhat confused but you are correct that the problem with T & S is that it is very large for the site and really does not fit well with (and will loom over ) the neighbourhood. Of course, it is better to have a building there and not two single level buildings and one (the Purple House) of two floors all surrounded with surface parking BUT it could have been FAR better designed and if the developers were not so greedy it could have been - they have above ground parking because they were not prepared to pay to dig deeper and remove all the contaminated soil. (Covering it over was far cheaper!). It may be too much to expect another Well here but there really is no excuse for what is happening.

You note that Church and Front is a 'much nicer area" - which I agree with - but it is nicer because the buildings on that corner fit pretty well together and the newest one (Berczy) respects the area in which it was built. None of them dominate and none provide the level of shadow that T&S already does (and it's far from finished). The area of Front & Sherburne is improving/changing very fast. There is the almost completed 158 Front, which is turning out quite well, and better than I had feared. The Esso Station has closed and will be replaced by 33 Sherbourne which looks "OK" but I await the finished product and the block with the Dollerama/LCBO/CIBC and the No Frills parking lot on the next block will all go when the Phase 2 of the Globe and Mail is redeveloped, soon. I bet the Fire Station site will be next to go, though a Fire Station may be part of any new building as the area does need one.

Of course, more population makes it possible to have more cafes & restaurants but most of the stores that seem to be able to afford the rents in new buildings are small nail salons, dry cleaners and, more recently, cannabis shops! In many cases a re-development forces small stores and restaurants with 'personality" to close and there are many such examples around St Lawrence and elsewhere.

Thanks, I see the developer could have did the soil stuff but that was too costly. I dont see the point in a pool, with so many residents it is going to be a zoo.

33 sherbourne - 484 units

I think time and space - needs some anchor tenants like a Louis Vuitton or Chanel make st lawrence more of a fancy place. the area doesn't seem that nice but I was thinking 158 front,170 front, 33 sherbourne can add enough new people to make the area nicer.

I think all this urban planning needs to better integrate retail and residential. that is why I really like the well so much!

Right now not many good retail cause everyone is WFH. even the Starbucks in stlawrence closed down the one that used to be a bank. St Lawrence needs more population to get nicer shops and restaurants. if not enough amenities people will just want to stay in Yorkville or north york or the burbs.

 

[interchange42]

I'd rather get rid of parking minimums altogether (including above-ground ones) and encourage transit-friendly development instead.

Toronto City Council eliminated parking minimums in December, 2021.

42

 

[DirectionNorth]

Toronto City Council eliminated parking minimums in December, 2021.

42

I know, but I'm talking about it in general. The article isn't Toronto-focused, even though we are the centre of the universe.

 

[evandyk]

Right now not many good retail cause everyone is WFH. even the Starbucks in stlawrence closed down the one that used to be a bank. St Lawrence needs more population to get nicer shops and restaurants. if not enough amenities people will just want to stay in Yorkville or north york or the burbs.

There is a Starbucks literally one block from this development.

 

[Koops65]

I think some people are getting rather confused about the relative size of this development. Right now, it's the biggest thing in the area, I agree. But in the near future it will get somewhat overshadowed by a number of other developments nearby. It will remain the largest footprint, but many others wil be taller, and some are almost a full block too. It's huge size isn't so apparent when you look at the big picture:

Reverse angle:

 

[evandyk]

I try to be measured in my criticism of this development, and to be fair a lot of the blocks in St Lawrence are massive buildings at ground level. That's probably part of why St. Lawrence is a real failure at ever developing a nice walkable retail strip like Bloor, Danforth, Queen E or W or King W.

 

[Bjays92]

This building is so imposing (in not a good way) and is a massive hodge podge of ideas that do not mix.

I wish developers would realise redeveloping entire blocks on a single podium simply do not help the urban environment.

The well and mirvish village are how you do it. Density does not have to be sacrificed in order to create a compelling urban streetscape.

 

[beautifulwar]

This building is so imposing (in not a good way) and is a massive hodge podge of ideas that do not mix.

I wish developers would realise redeveloping entire blocks on a single podium simply do not help the urban environment.

The well and mirvish village are how you do it. Density does not have to be sacrificed in order to create a compelling urban streetscape.

what do you mean by a single podium? sorry for the basic question.

i thought there was 4 towers here?

 

[evandyk]

There are, but the podium is connected all through (with gaps on the east and west sides to allow a street through, but those gaps are only about 8 stories high. It's basically one big U with a courtyard accessible from Esplanade. I think the minimum height of the U section is about 11 or 12 stories, and 17 along Front St.

The four towers sit on the four corners of the U.

And the "U" is shaped more like this:

Than like this:

 

[DSC]

And the "U" is shaped more like this:

Than like this:

Yes, the 'hole in the U" (the POPS) will certainly be VERY dark and dreary!

 

[Northern Light]

what do you mean by a single podium? sorry for the basic question.

i thought there was 4 towers here?

For further clarity; the podium is the base on which towers sit. It refers to the lower levels of a building, which could, in theory be only 1 storey; though 2-4 floors is the most common range for podium or base height in Toronto
condos.

Somewhat rarer are buildings w/podium bases as high as 8 floors; this building is higher still.

A good illustration is "U" condos by Pemberton, I have selected a rendering from the database below:

The podium refers to the 3 storey section in beige tones; on top of which the 2 towers sit.

To compare, here is a render of Time and Space, also from the database:

You'll see in the above that the full base (meaning out to the edge of the lowest building is ~10 Floors before there is any set-back on the Front Street side.

Even then, there's another 6 or so floors before the towers actually break apart to be separate buildings.

So depending on one's choice of descriptor the podium here is between 10-16 storeys.

At any rate, its much larger than is typical for Toronto, and has the effect of being both visually overwhelming and also blocking a lot of sunlight.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

2022/03/10
Begrudgingly taking photos of this one...

View attachment 384836

View attachment 384837

Haha, your pics look nice. But this is obviously a controversial project. I think could be a positive contribution to the skyline.

 

[GenerationLee]

I wouldn't say this is a positive contribution to the skyline...except perhaps if you wanted to isolate the neighbourhood as its own skyline.
I'm not surprised with how this project is turning out, but it just makes me disappointed to see this behemoth rise. It reminds me of the project "Home" further east, although this is a more central project and even bulkier. I'm curious how well this will age by 2050, or how well it'll fit into the neighbourhood by then.