Toronto 1728 Bloor West | 67.6m | 19s | Fairway | Gabriel Fain Architects

ben.thebean1 said:
I was thinking more like tearing the entire thing down and doing it Ontario Line style. I know you can't just rip a station out and rebuild it, but it could be done in stages with night work so trains could still pass through
Click to expand...

I don't think that's justifiable. The render I sent you is from Brown and Storey (awesome folks) who envisioned removing a large chunk of the south wall (EB Platform) in favour of picture windows of High Park.

That's still a good 5-15M project.

Demolition and reconstruction would cost 80M+ and be quite disruptive.
 
Alex L said:
I am sure there will be an issue of height with the neighbours and the amount of shade this project will create. Let's not kid ourselves. Expect the final built to be 14-16, I think. More in line with the condo a couple of doors away and maybe a floor or two more. I would be surprised if it is approved as is.

Frankly I think the proposal is designed intentionally this high so they can actually get something close to it, rather than proposing exactly the height they want. Something like 16 or less. Just about everything in this ward is proposed this way. X height proposed = X-2 or X-4 height built. And I think the developers expect this. If they proposed 14, then they would get 12. Unless you propose 10 or less, it will not sail through the process. It's a dense neighbourhood already.

For a precedent, look at the ridiculous Giraffe project near Dundas. It finally died due to opposition. The replacement for that site is much smaller. And much better IMO.

The spot for a tall tower (>20 floors) would be the plaza and the gas station. This spot should be a step down from that. And expect a push to build a tower on the south-east corner. I am sure there are developers sniffing around already.
Click to expand...
Amount of shade??? Do you use the same argument when trees get too tall? Tower floor plates can't really get any smaller. If this developer has figured out how to make these layouts work efficiently, I'd say let them build it as tall as they can. One of the better spots in the city for new Canadian's to live beside transit and a massive park...
 
Alex L said:
I am sure there will be an issue of height with the neighbours and the amount of shade this project will create. Let's not kid ourselves. Expect the final built to be 14-16, I think. More in line with the condo a couple of doors away and maybe a floor or two more. I would be surprised if it is approved as is.

Frankly I think the proposal is designed intentionally this high so they can actually get something close to it, rather than proposing exactly the height they want. Something like 16 or less. Just about everything in this ward is proposed this way. X height proposed = X-2 or X-4 height built. And I think the developers expect this. If they proposed 14, then they would get 12. Unless you propose 10 or less, it will not sail through the process. It's a dense neighbourhood already.

For a precedent, look at the ridiculous Giraffe project near Dundas. It finally died due to opposition. The replacement for that site is much smaller. And much better IMO.

The spot for a tall tower (>20 floors) would be the plaza and the gas station. This spot should be a step down from that. And expect a push to build a tower on the south-east corner. I am sure there are developers sniffing around already.
Click to expand...
The previous applications in the area were all submitted before the MTSAs were established. Now that planning regs have changed with that, there's a much better chance of this being approved at this height and density.

42
 
As a "neighbour", I don't see this project as intrusive at all and support the height. To the north, the subway station is a buffer and to the south Bloor Street is a buffer. Nineteen floors won't intrude on anyone, other than, obviously, the occupants of Vilnius Manor next door.
 
Last edited:
Attended the virtual Community Meeting last night and was not surprised at the outcome. Most objections related to the height (surprise, surprise) but none of them, including the Councillor, could say why they objected to it. As the developer said, when you stand or walk by at street level, you are not going to be aware of the height of this building at all. There were some complimentary remarks about the colour palate proposed and the efforts made to integrate the building. In all, most comments were vague with only one that was supportive. Many referred to the Bloor-Dundas Avenue Study of 2009 (surely it's time to forget about that!) and said they would support an 8-12 floor building.

Other than the developer, nobody mentioned how the street level will be vastly improved by almost any development here. Right now, there is constant traffic chaos with people entering and leaving the Tim Hortons there. The local traffic situation would be much improved by this. The developer traffic consultant presented some numbers to support this.

One NIMBY'ist, suggested there might be problems with underground rivers in the area but moments later suggested the equipment room be moved from the roof to the basement of the building :)

Some of the most impassioned objections came from residents of Vilnius Manor who complained bitterly how this building would impact them. However, any building of any height on the site in question will impact them. They are victims of poor planning and architecture from 40 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Alex L said:
I am sure there will be an issue of height with the neighbours and the amount of shade this project will create. Let's not kid ourselves. Expect the final built to be 14-16, I think. More in line with the condo a couple of doors away and maybe a floor or two more. I would be surprised if it is approved as is.

Frankly I think the proposal is designed intentionally this high so they can actually get something close to it, rather than proposing exactly the height they want. Something like 16 or less. Just about everything in this ward is proposed this way. X height proposed = X-2 or X-4 height built. And I think the developers expect this. If they proposed 14, then they would get 12. Unless you propose 10 or less, it will not sail through the process. It's a dense neighbourhood already.

For a precedent, look at the ridiculous Giraffe project near Dundas. It finally died due to opposition. The replacement for that site is much smaller. And much better IMO.

The spot for a tall tower (>20 floors) would be the plaza and the gas station. This spot should be a step down from that. And expect a push to build a tower on the south-east corner. I am sure there are developers sniffing around already.
Click to expand...
At the community meeting, the architect argued for the height and justified it on the grounds of the site topography: buildings to the east and west are on much higher ground than this site so the increased height would not be as obvious. The developer made the point that the height would not be obvious to anyone at street level and that the street width could handle a building of that height. Both arguments were not accepted by majority of attendees, of course.

What bothers me is that that instead of trying to work with the architect and developer, those opposing the proposal, including the councillor, are absolutely against it and that's it. Some cite a 14 year old Avenue Study as if it's a rule book. It was controversial then, and is hopelessly out of date today.

But, yes, I'd expect to see a 14 - 16 story revision with a small set back to appease Vilnius Manor residents, or, an immediate appeal to OLT.
 
Jimto said:
At the community meeting, the architect argued for the height and justified it on the grounds of the site topography: buildings to the east and west are on much higher ground than this site so the increased height would not be as obvious. The developer made the point that the height would not be obvious to anyone at street level and that the street width could handle a building of that height. Both arguments were not accepted by majority of attendees, of course.

What bothers me is that that instead of trying to work with the architect and developer, those opposing the proposal, including the councillor, are absolutely against it and that's it. Some cite a 14 year old Avenue Study as if it's a rule book. It was controversial then, and is hopelessly out of date today.

But, yes, I'd expect to see a 14 - 16 story revision with a small set back to appease Vilnius Manor residents, or, an immediate appeal to OLT.
Click to expand...
The architect and developer won't be living next to it. Keep that in mind as to judging the community's feelings.
 
Alex L said:
The architect and developer won't be living next to it. Keep that in mind as to judging the community's feelings.
Click to expand...
ProjectEnd said:
Why?
Click to expand...

PE asks a good question.

I don't mind that jibe about a developer/architect/planner etc. insofar as what one is saying is they are advocating for something they would not be ok with in their own neighbourhood etc.

But I don't see why that perspective, even if true, has any relevance to the community's actual position on the development itself.

****

I'm one of those people who is happy enough to entertain objections to any development from anyone, whether that objection maybe 'NIMBY'ish' or not.

By entertain, I mean, I'll listen, now 'make your case'.

It's too tall..........ok; why is that a problem?

If your answer is ' because it's too tall' I'm no longer listening.

If your objection is shadowing, I may be listening, because we have a study to look at, to see what will actually be shadowed, and for how long each day, and we can reasonably discuss what effect that may have on a park, a school yard, a sidewalk, a patio or a backyard. That's not a free pass to chop a building height in half, but its a fair ask to consider that impact.

Equally, I'm happy to entertain complaints about very high streetwalls, as the evidence is that most people don't care for them, and that on most roads, there is an adverse impact on pedestrian conditions, particularly above 4 floors.

But the object is to have a constructive objection, where a proponent, planner or architect can give that 'problem' real consideration and examine options which may mitigate the issue.

If the object is 'no because I don't like it' w/o any further substance......I don't know what one expects for a reply; or how anyone thinks that argument will fly at OLT.
 
Alex L said:
The architect and developer won't be living next to it. Keep that in mind as to judging the community's feelings.
Click to expand...
Other than the residents of Vilnius Manor and one house across the street from this site, there is nobody living next to it. And these people will be affected no matter what is built there.
 
Northern Light said:
PE asks a good question.

I don't mind that jibe about a developer/architect/planner etc. insofar as what one is saying is they are advocating for something they would not be ok with in their own neighbourhood etc.

But I don't see why that perspective, even if true, has any relevance to the community's actual position on the development itself.

****

I'm one of those people who is happy enough to entertain objections to any development from anyone, whether that objection maybe 'NIMBY'ish' or not.

By entertain, I mean, I'll listen, now 'make your case'.

Its too tall..........ok; why is that a problem?

If your answer is ' because its too tall' I'm no longer listening.

If your objection is shadowing, I may be listening, because we have a study to look at, to see what will actually be shadowed, and for how long each day, and we can reasonably discuss what effect that may have on a park, a school yard, a sidewalk, a patio or a backyard. That's not a free pass to chop a building height in half, but its a fair ask to consider that impact.

Equally, I'm happy to entertain complaints about very high streetwalls, as the evidence is that most people don't care for them, and that on most roads, there is an adverse impact on pedestrian conditions, particularly above 4 floors.

But the object is to have a constructive objection, where a proponent, planner or architect can give that 'problem' real consideration and examine options which may mitigate the issue.

If the object is 'no because I don't like it' w/o any further substance......I don't know what one expects for a reply; or how anyone thinks that argument will fly at OLT.
Click to expand...

Agreed. How can we hope to have reasonable conversations about development without some give and take based on constructive interaction and debate? Starting out with "I hate it, I don't like it, I don't want it" is a bad start. Also, IMO, starting out by referring to a 14 year old study is also a bad start.
 
Jimto said:
Agreed. How can we hope to have reasonable conversations about development without some give and take based on constructive interaction and debate? Starting out with "I hate it, I don't like it, I don't want it" is a bad start. Also, IMO, starting out by referring to a 14 year old study is also a bad start.
Click to expand...

I would essentially agree; though, I think, in fairness, if there is no more recent study available to cite; it's fair game to bring forth what it had to say.

However, one must also admit in so doing that circumstances are certainly different 14 years later. That doesn't make the original study entirely invalid; but it's certainly fair to suggest that it can't be taken as proverbial scripture.

Of course, on that latter point, one shouldn't take any study, irrespective of what it has to say, as somehow unassailable truth; even if it was done last week.

That it was done more recently simply means it ought to have had more current information available to it; but knowledge and wisdom are not interchangeable.

The former helps inform the latter; but if the latter is lacking, the former isn't worth much.
 
Northern Light said:
I would essentially agree; though, I think, in fairness, if there is no more recent study available to cite; it's fair game to bring forth what it had to say.

However, one must also admit in so doing that circumstances are certainly different 14 years later. That doesn't make the original study entirely invalid; but it's certainly fair to suggest that it can't be taken as proverbial scripture.

Of course, on that latter point, one shouldn't take any study, irrespective of what it has to say, as somehow unassailable truth; even if it was done last week.

That it was done more recently simply means it ought to have had more current information available to it; but knowledge and wisdom are not interchangeable.

The former helps inform the latter; but if the latter is lacking, the former isn't worth much.
Click to expand...
Given the changes that have happened in the City, and study area, in the last 14 years, I think nearly everything in this particular study is out of date (other that the geography of the area, of course). At the time the study was being done, I attended a number of the public meetings and the methodology was questioned even then. Before each meeting, there were interventions by people wanting to know how the community representatives were selected, why that wasn't an open process and why those group meetings were not open to the public. Those questions were never addressed to my knowledge. It is notable, however, that some of the members of that group are the most vociferous NIMBY'ists in the neighbourhood and have actively opposed nearly every project, large and small, since that time.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top