Toronto The New Residences of Yorkville Plaza | 92.05m | 31s | Camrost-Felcorp | WZMH COMPLETE

Should the Queens Park view corridor be preserved?

  • Yes

    Votes: 168 43.3%
  • No

    Votes: 145 37.4%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 15 3.9%
  • Don't Care

    Votes: 60 15.5%

  • Total voters
    388
Sorry, Don't want to seem completely uninformed, but this is the Four Seasons that makes an L shape around that church, correct? Because they have another bulding a little firther up Avenue Rd. If it's the one looping around the church, then I'd hate to see it destroyed. if only for the way it manages to respact the church. I also like how on the taller floors, the part of the hallway where the elevators are is visible from the outside.
 
The report’s attachment recommends the developer knock its application to maximum heights of 136 metres. There was debate as to whether this translated into 40 or 44 storeys. The developer’s current application calls for towers of 178 and 166 metres each.

Come on they are building a 200 meter plus building around the corner and a future 250 meter building at 1 Bloor east.I always thought that this midtown location area was the perfect place for a bunch of 180-220 meter skyscrapers,then again i may be wrong when they are debating about downsizing 30-40 meters here and there on every proposed tower.If i was an area resident i would be more worried about the design and impact of these projects in this ritzy area than the actual height.

I agree with your point, but if Yorkville's really going to grow into another core skyline, it'll also need some more filler in the 400' range.
 
Sorry, Don't want to seem completely uninformed, but this is the Four Seasons that makes an L shape around that church, correct? Because they have another bulding a little firther up Avenue Rd. If it's the one looping around the church, then I'd hate to see it destroyed. if only for the way it manages to respact the church. I also like how on the taller floors, the part of the hallway where the elevators are is visible from the outside.

Wrong building; that's the Renaissance Plaza, the next one south. And because it's mostly condos (and supposedly the office floors are destined to be converted into even more condos), no way is that one being torn down.

However, the bay-windowed form of its upper storeys is, indeed, WZMH "contextually" quoting their neighbouring Four Seasons design...
 
http://www.towncrieronline.ca/main/...ewstory&storyid=7761&rootcatid=&rootsubcatid=

In the article, Diane Francis stands out:

"Diane Francis lives in a Cumberland Ave. condo attached to the hotel and told community council this project will destroy the neighbourhood.

“Our only option as a condo board is to fight this to the death,†said Francis, who is also editor-at-large of the National Post."

That Diane Francis lives there? Wow, she is really pro-business I thought. She's probably terrified that her property value will become worthless when a new luxury condo goes up next door!

I wouldn't be surprised if those against the development had a hate-on for Kingdom Hotels' owners....
 
Come on they are building a 200 meter plus building around the corner and a future 250 meter building at 1 Bloor east.I always thought that this midtown location area was the perfect place for a bunch of 180-220 meter skyscrapers,then again i may be wrong when they are debating about downsizing 30-40 meters here and there on every proposed tower.If i was an area resident i would be more worried about the design and impact of these projects in this ritzy area than the actual height.

The height guideline provided by the city is a good starting point for negotiation as it was derived from sightline studies and 3D imaging of potential tower enveloped in view corridors on University Avenue. Furthermore the 136m guideline has nothing to do with the NIMBY related concerns.

The height specifically references view impacts on Queen's Park from University Avenue. It has nothing to do with the heights of other approved land parcels such as 1BE and the new Four Seasons, nor should it – the heights referenced by the city have site specific conditions, planning contexts and view corridor impacts that are unrelated to other sites in the vicinity of this particular proposal.
 
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."
 
View pollution. Oh shut up. What a ridiculous thing to say. These people are so pathetic. They're buildings. Towers. In a city. Cities consist of lots of towers. Toronto isn't going to stay the same size forever. It's growing.
 
^I agree generally that 'view pollution' shouldn't be used as an argument, but in this case, I would like to preserve the Queen's Park view looking north.
 
Last edited:
thanks for the post Casaguy ... I suppose this article is referring to the existing Four Season Hotel site in the below thread ...

21 Avenue Rd. (current Four Seasons Hotel site) (Menkes, 48 + 44s, aA)

IMO ... I think the concept as proposed now is a bad design (Clewes copied it too many times already), and definitely the height is out of context when it affects the 'postcard' views of Queens Park
 
Yes, you are correct Solaris. I didn't read the thread title closely enough... Mods could you please move the above posts... thanks!
 
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.

Two slim towers rising from a three-level podium ... 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.


I'm all for responsible density, but this plan sounds ridiculous.

12 metres = 40 feet ... that's ridiculously close.
what's the point of having 2 point towers when the distance apart is about the width of a 2 bedroom unit ??!!??

If they want 2 towers, then cut them to half the proposed height to the 23s limit in the area; or only 1 tower of 40+s.
 
Just curious to see where people stand on this issue, I think a poll should be set up to see if people think a 40s highrise peeking over queen's park is appropriate.

Personally, I agree that the view looking north should be preserved. I think it would be sad to have 1 or 2 random buildings poking up from this direction.

I also think that these buildings will look out of place with the neighbourhood, since so many previous buildings on the edges of Bloor West (and East) have been capped under 23s.
 
I wish there was the same concern for the view corridor up Bay St to Old City Hall, which is now 'polluted' by RoCP and, to a lesser extent, by the Bell Canada building.
 
There is, but City hall was obviously asleep at the switch when that happened and - short of dynamite - there's nothing that can be done to remedy the situation. The widespread public concern about the ROM proposal a few years ago, and the redesigned second phase of 1 City Hall, and the concerns over this development suggest that "views" are increasingly being accepted as heritage-worthy.
 

Back
Top