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

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.

Oh yeah, I mean, this is certainly an intensely trash design. That's just how G+C rolls as a matter of course, so I figured that largely went without saying.
 
Having lived in Marlieville for a time (ugh, that horrible neighbourhood name makes me gag,) I can say with certainty that this is the design the neighbourhood deserves. It is unfortunate in all the ways the neighbourhood is unfortunate. This design is stuck somewhere between the 1970s brutalist apartment chic for the tower, and RioCan's depressing Lawrence Square for the base. Everything is as off with the design as with the neighbourhood. Plaza parkingas this neighbourhood was, 33 stories next to low rise single family housing mixed in with a bad food mecca. The one photo with the wayfinding help from Domino's is spot on as it exemplifies the haute cuisine section of the hood. (I kid obviously, Dominos is trash pizza as one would expect of a company which was started up by a completely bonkers right wing fundamentalist.)

Start small Marlieville, try midrises and get rid of all the plazas first.
 
Having lived in Marlieville for a time (ugh, that horrible neighbourhood name makes me gag,) I can say with certainty that this is the design the neighbourhood deserves. It is unfortunate in all the ways the neighbourhood is unfortunate. This design is stuck somewhere between the 1970s brutalist apartment chic for the tower, and RioCan's depressing Lawrence Square for the base. Everything is as off with the design as with the neighbourhood. Plaza parkingas this neighbourhood was, 33 stories next to low rise single family housing mixed in with a bad food mecca. The one photo with the wayfinding help from Domino's is spot on as it exemplifies the haute cuisine section of the hood. (I kid obviously, Dominos is trash pizza as one would expect of a company which was started up by a completely bonkers right wing fundamentalist.)

Start small Marlieville, try midrises and get rid of all the plazas first.
Dominos and Chick-fil-A are made for each other.
 
Having lived in Marlieville for a time (ugh, that horrible neighbourhood name makes me gag,) I can say with certainty that this is the design the neighbourhood deserves. It is unfortunate in all the ways the neighbourhood is unfortunate. This design is stuck somewhere between the 1970s brutalist apartment chic for the tower, and RioCan's depressing Lawrence Square for the base. Everything is as off with the design as with the neighbourhood. Plaza parkingas this neighbourhood was, 33 stories next to low rise single family housing mixed in with a bad food mecca. The one photo with the wayfinding help from Domino's is spot on as it exemplifies the haute cuisine section of the hood. (I kid obviously, Dominos is trash pizza as one would expect of a company which was started up by a completely bonkers right wing fundamentalist.)

Start small Marlieville, try midrises and get rid of all the plazas first.

There used to be an ok'ish local Italian Restaurant/Pizzeria that people in that hood liked, I dunno 25 years ago. Pretty sure its long since closed. My best friends' GF had an apartment in one of those plazas, I remember grabbing 'za there after a double-date. Decent, definitely a step up from Domino's, LOL

I can't remember the name for the life of me.

Edit: Found It! Camarras; It did close, in 2019:

 
Last edited:
There used to be an ok'ish local Italian Restaurant/Pizzeria that people in that hood liked, I dunno 25 years ago. Pretty sure its long since closed. My best friends' GF had an apartment in one of those plazas, I remember grabbing 'za there after a double-date. Decent, definitely a step up from Domino's, LOL

I can't remember the name for the life of me.

Edit: Found It! Camarras; It did close, in 2019:

I remember it well. And yes, it was one of the better spots, but over on Dufferin. We Marlievillians stuck close to home. ;-)

Chalkers was a horrible place, but a 2 min walk from my apartment. Good jazz, terrible food. I got sick many times, eventually learning to stick to their beer.
 
It is unlikely that just one tower will be built in the area. So it's important to get the height right, right from the start. Other developers point to existing development X, in justifying whatever they want. Myself, it seems like an avenue study is appropriate and figure out good heights if this area is to be redeveloped in a major way.. Of course, it's often the case that a developer will propose a height, knowing they will not get it, but they might get more than if they proposed ten stories less, for example. It's an area that should be intensified, just a question, of how will it look, when fully built out. And of course, the impact on the neighbourhood. If this is to be the central part of redevelopment, then neighbouring towers should step down.

My feeling is that this is a bit tall. The zoning for the street should probably allow 10-15 storeys no questions asked. Beyond that, see what benefits are accrued from extra height, minus the negatives.

Actually, I kind of think that there is a need to do or redo avenue studies just to cope with the changes from Queen's Park. If the city gets X less development fee dollars per project, then there should probably be another way to figure out how to pay for amenities, like kid space. Sure you could argue they were too high, but zero is not the answer either.
 


278 – 280 Viewmount Avenue - Virtual Community Consultation Meeting

Wednesday, December 6, 2023 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
(UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

The City of Toronto Planning Division has received an application to amend the Zoning By-law in order to permit a 33-storey high-rise mixed-use building with a total of 342 units and a total gross floor area of 22,360 square metres, which includes 296 square metres of retail space on the ground floor. The floor space index (FSI) is 15.5. The proposal would provide 85 vehicular parking spaces. The existing buildings would be demolished.

Join us at the Virtual Community Consultation Meeting to participate in discussions on the application and have your say.

For further information for 278 – 280 Viewmount Avenue, please refer to the website at: www.toronto.ca/280ViewmountAve, and review the materials before the meeting.
 
This one is the subject of an Appeals Report to the next meeting of NYCC, with staff seeking to oppose this at OLT:


Applicant appealed in Dec' 23

Planning mercilessly eviscerates this one in professional language.

1710866196748.png

1710866222766.png


1710866258519.png

1710866282158.png


On balance, I agree with Planning here.

You can do the 30-storey streetwall, and the streetscape plan is terrible.

I'm less concerned w/the transition to 'neighbourhoods' here in that I expect a good chunk of those will be redeveloped, and the City needs to get out in front on that.

That said, the virtual absence of transition was never going to fly.
 
80 studio units (23%) seems like a huge mistake for this area. This isn't a place that's going to attract young professionals willing to live in a studio.
 
Why are they talking about widening Marlee? That seems about the worst possible policy response. The area has good transit and biking connections and those should be strengthened, not increasing automobile capacity.
 
Why are they talking about widening Marlee? That seems about the worst possible policy response. The area has good transit and biking connections and those should be strengthened, not increasing automobile capacity.

The widening is not for adding traffic lanes, its widening the ROW to support cycle tracks, and wider sidewalks w/boulevards.
 

Back
Top