From today's Globe and Mail:
------------
How high is too high? Four Seasons may find out
TERRENCE BELFORD
February 27, 2009
How tall is too tall when it comes to new condominiums? Just how far can we push intensification by expanding upward instead of outward? If an 80-storey condo at Yonge Street and Bloor Street is dandy, then how about at Avenue Road and Bloor Street?
Those questions frame a three-sided wrestling match over the future of the existing Four Seasons Hotel at Avenue Road and Yorkville Avenue. Menkes Developments wants to tear down the 23-storey hotel and in its place build twin towers - one 44 storeys and the other 48 storeys.
Local residents, businesses and groups with an interest in architecture and historic preservation are vocal in their opposition. They raise objections ranging from the shadows the towers will throw on nearby streets, through the disruption construction and later occupation by residents will create, to how the towers will detract from the view of Queen's Park looking north along University Avenue.
In the middle, trying to find a solution, is city planner Louis Tinker.
"What we want to do is achieve the city's overall goals in areas such as intensification but not at the expense of all other factors such as quality of life and the potential impact on the neighbours," he says.
Developers facing opposition from various special interest groups is nothing new. Not in my backyard continues to be the rallying cry when it comes to many projects, especially those affecting long-established neighbourhoods. This one, however, seems to be almost in a class by itself.
The tale starts in 1969 when the Four Seasons was built. At the time, nothing in the area was supposed to rise above the seven-storey Hazelton Lanes immediately to the north. In fact, the official plan still calls for height restrictions of just 46 metres at Bloor Street and Avenue Road and 18 metres on Yorkville Avenue.
City council, however, granted an exemption to the hotel for reasons of economic development. Since then, a number of other high-rises have sprung up nearby but none higher than 23 storeys.
About four years ago, Kingdom Properties, which owned the existing hotel, put it on the auction block. Menkes had bid on it but lost out to a third party. When that buyer did not go ahead with its plans for the site, Menkes stepped in, bought the hotel and hired Peter Clewes of architectsAlliance to design a showstopper of a luxury hotel-condo project.
And that he did: Two slim towers rising from a three-level podium occupying a chunk of land that runs from Cumberland Street to Yorkville Avenue. Set just 12 metres apart, the towers would soar 178.5 metres at their tallest point and represent coverage of 16.85 times the surface of the site, about double the 8.7 times coverage the zoning currently calls for.
When the plans were unveiled, the criticism started. While there were good reasons to voice objections over things such as the shadow the towers would cast over nearby streets from just after 9 a.m. until just after 11.30 a.m. and whether towers of that height were appropriate in an area where the tallest neighbour barely reached half as high, the one that received the most attention was the impact the towers might have on the view of Queen's Park.
"It comes down to what kind of city we want to have," says Catherine Nasmith, an architect, president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario and editor of a fortnightly newsletter called Built Heritage News. Her concern is that those towers will stick up like a sore thumb over the east wing of Queen's Park and destroy the serenity and visual sense of balance: They would be a kind of view pollution to a historic vista.
"Look at Ottawa. Both views of Parliament Hill, from the Ontario and Quebec sides, are protected," she says. "We should do the same thing for Queen's Park. Just because we can build something does not mean we should."
The upshot is that after five deputations spoke at a Feb. 9 meeting of the Toronto and East York Community Council meeting - a subcommittee of city council, which rules on and makes recommendations about development in those former cities - Mr. Tinker tabled a report on the project. The councillors voted to let Mr. Tinker go back to Menkes and see if the project could be reshaped in ways to overcome what his report saw as deficiencies.
Mr. Tinker says Mr. Clewes has indeed worked on two alternatives for the site. Mr. Clewes says he is perfectly happy to work to overcome objections but the final word must come from his client, Menkes.
"The subcommittee passed the planning report but the attitude at the meeting was very negative to the whole project," he says. "Nobody really wanted to hear what we could do."
Mr. Tinker, however, reflects sunny good humour. "It's a challenge," he says. "Frankly, I am excited about working on this project. We will be helping decide how high is too high and how dense is too dense."
