Toronto 280 Viewmount | 113m | 33s | Altree | Graziani + Corazza

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
30,566
Reaction score
85,142
Location
Toronto/EY
New application into the AIC for this site in vicinity of Glencairn Station at the corner of Viewmount and Marlee.

Site as is:

1673706358852.png


The App:

1673706402234.png



Just one render accompanies this one:

1673706121061.png


1673706481124.png


1673706520359.png


Comments: The City will almost certainly either ask the applicant to patiently wait until its current planning study for the Glencairn MTSA is complete or this one will head to OLT as-of-right. The City is already fighting another application in the immediate area on those and other grounds.

Based on standing precedent the height and density are excessive. In truth, even with an MTSA here, in an area that is predominantly SFH, with the previous City vision involving a gentle shift to midrise on Marlee, I have
a hard time seeing this go through at Marlee and a side street at the current ask. But we shall see.

The planning study will almost certainly result in greater heights and densities in this area, and I can't pre-judge that outcome, but I think it would be a bit shorter than this proponent would like.

Podium also reads as too tall; and personally, to me, a bit too busy.
 
Last edited:
This is less than 300 metres from a subway station, it has ground floor retail and the building that it would replace only has the Pizza Nova in there currently. Sure, while in the immediate vicinity there are mostly single family homes, it's only 300 metres from an apartment neighbourhood with many buildings over 20 stories tall. I also like that there are only 85 car parking spaces compared to more than 350 bicycle spaces.

Even if the design isn't perfect there are a lot of good aspects to a development like this in the area.
 
This is a really interesting design. I'm on the fence about how I feel about the overall project though...

It's near a (underused) subway station, but it's really tall for that spot, but it's an area that would benefit and can support development like this, but it would be major disruption and shadow in a really quiet neighbourhood, but there's also a large complex not far to the south. So much to unpack still. I think this would set a precedent for future development in this area, which in itself is both good and bad.

As of right now, for me, I think the pros and cons are pretty balanced, even though I'm very much an advocate for development and intensification
 
This is a really interesting design. I'm on the fence about how I feel about the overall project though...

It's near a (underused) subway station, but it's really tall for that spot, but it's an area that would benefit and can support development like this, but it would be major disruption and shadow in a really quiet neighbourhood, but there's also a large complex not far to the south. So much to unpack still. I think this would set a precedent for future development in this area, which in itself is both good and bad.

As of right now, for me, I think the pros and cons are pretty balanced, even though I'm very much an advocate for development and intensification

I so wanted to hit 'like' for such a balanced, thoughtful post overall...........but I can't get over calling the design 'interesting' I mean, I suppose it is, in the way that a car wreck might be..........but that seems a tad morbid, LOL
 
I so wanted to hit 'like' for such a balanced, thoughtful post overall...........but I can't get over calling the design 'interesting' I mean, I suppose it is, in the way that a car wreck might be..........but that seems a tad morbid, LOL
I think it's different, it's kinda jiggly for lack of a better term lol. I don't mean interesting in the sense that it's going to catch everyone's eye, but it's better than what seems to be the standard "let's just focus on cramming as much people into as little area as possible" designs. Not going to name any names (time and space)
 
I think it's different, it's kinda jiggly for lack of a better term lol. I don't mean interesting in the sense that it's going to catch everyone's eye, but it's better than what seems to be the standard "let's just focus on cramming as much people into as little area as possible" designs. Not going to name any names (time and space)

Damning with faint praise if I ever did hear it. LOL
 
I agree there should be more intense development around the subway station. A squat 30 storeys (fugly) with high lot coverage is excessive. What does this proposal contribute to the community? All it does it make use of existing community infrastructure which certainly won't be designed for this density. Some ground level retail space qualifies for mixed use. 300 square metres of non residential out of 22300 is not a community builder. A nearby subway station is convenience to a communal mode of longer distance travel. If convenient escape is the basis for quality of life than our standards for intensifying communities are far too low.
 
I mean, 300 sq m of commercial space is about the same as the status quo. At the moment, of the three units in the building, two are vacant.

The proposal contributes close to 1000 new community members who can shop and eat at the local stores and restaurants, contributing to the economic vitality of the area, which needs a boost. That seems to me to be far better than status quo, in which stores in these old commercial buildings are closing each each month.

Seems to me like this is building the community.
 
What does this proposal contribute to the community?
Desperately needed new housing, and equally desperately needed new revenues.

All it does it make use of existing community infrastructure which certainly won't be designed for this density.

The hard infrastructure aspect is dealt with as a technical matter through the rezoning process (and is rarely ever actually a problem), and the soft infrastructure aspect is a public policy problem for the municipal government to solve (which the revenues associated with this development will contribute to helping).

A squat 30 storeys (fugly) with high lot coverage is excessive

Genuine question (which I ask because I have literally never heard a good answer to it): What is the practical difference between, say, a 20-storey tower and a 30-storey tower? Once a building is more than about 6 storeys tall, it has more or less exactly the same effect at the ground whether it's 20 or 30 or 40 storeys. People often talk about shadow impacts, but again, that's a technical question that is easily asked and answered as a matter of course through the rezoning process.

I get that lots of people don't like tall buildings, but what frustrates me to no end is people guising their dislike with arguments they purport to be technical or objective in nature. If you don't like towers, just say that, but don't expect anything substantive to be done in response to it.
 
Genuine question (which I ask because I have literally never heard a good answer to it): What is the practical difference between, say, a 20-storey tower and a 30-storey tower? Once a building is more than about 6 storeys tall, it has more or less exactly the same effect at the ground whether it's 20 or 30 or 40 storeys. People often talk about shadow impacts, but again, that's a technical question that is easily asked and answered as a matter of course through the rezoning process.

I get that lots of people don't like tall buildings, but what frustrates me to no end is people guising their dislike with arguments they purport to be technical or objective in nature. If you don't like towers, just say that, but don't expect anything substantive to be done in response to it.

I can't speak for @maestro ; but speaking for myself, I don't think there is a huge difference (key shadowing and wind considerations aside) between 20s, 30s and 40s.

However, I do feel that a majority of people don't like the tower form right up against the podium, as seen above, such that it almost feels like a 30s streetwall.

I think creating human-scale at street level solves alot of problems. What 'human-scale' is will vary by neighbourhood and street type, but generally between 3-5 floors for a podium, if they are lower ceilings, if there is a full-height commercial-type ceiling on the lower levels 3-4s max.

As soon as you're able to set the tower about 5M back from the podium edge it completely disappears when you're on the same side of the street which is key to the 'feel' of human scale.

Ideally the tower isn't in your face on the other side of any narrower street either. Though it will be visible on the other side of any wider street, but won't be hogging one's attention if you're not looking up.

I certainly don't oppose tall buildings, but I think we have ample evidence that most people, when walking along the street, want those lower podium/streetwall heights and that should generally be the starting point for most tower design.

* I do think I should add here, relative size to surroundings (or again, the appearance of same at street level) really matters in sense of scale. I note that, because we've also seen the proverbial 'mc mansion' go up next to a WWII-era bungalow, and it does look overbearing and ridiculous, and that's because its 3.5x the height of its neighbour, on a side street of bungalows. Clearly, that same height would go largely unnoticed in an arterial road shopping district.

The above should not limit podiums to 1s or even 2s in intensifying neighbourhoods, but there does need to be some sense of what will remain after a period of densification and to show some illusory deference to that context.
 

Back
Top