Toronto 477 Mount Pleasant Road | 47.3m | 12s | The Muzzo Group | Rafael + Bigauskas

[Northern Light]

A new application into the AIC to swap out the existing low rise office building here for a 12-storey midrise residential designed by @ProjectEnd 's favourite architect.

As is (From the Planning Report)

The App:

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

From the above:

West Elevation:

Site Plan:

Ground Floor Plan:

Parking Ratio: 177 spaces to 367 units gives 0.48.

Elevator Ratio: 3 elevators to 367 units gives 1 elevator per 132.33 units.

@Paclo

Broadly the height is supportable here, if slightly aggressive for a midrise next to a school yard and yellowbelt. But it's poorly massed. Too many transitions in height, there need only be one setback on the Mt. Pleasant frontage, but it should be a bit deeper.

The parking ratio seems high for the location and unit sizes.

The unit sizes are extremely small for an area that seems unlikely to sport a high student population.

I think lifting average unit size would work out better here for the financials and building quality.

The appearance of the building, at this stage leaves much to be desired.

 

[Paclo]

Additional perspective & development context

 

[ProjectEnd]

shoot me

 

[Mariner35]

Doesn't look like there's space for it in the new building but that Goodlife in the current building will be missed. Fills a nice little gap between the ones on Eglinton and the ones on St.Clair. Toronto Prep has a decent number of students too. Wonder where they'll go.

 

[AlbertC]

As expected, a steaming pile of turd from Rafael + Garbageskas!

 

[GenerationLee]

I'll be sad to see the existing building lost in all honesty. While it's not exactly top tier for modernist design, it's an attractive design at least in my eyes.
This new building is a forgettable mess, and while I agree this are needs intensification, I think this new building should really help contribute to the area architecturally, at least in a similar degree to the existing building.
I'm happy with the height proposed, though I know this will be a fight with the SFH neighbourhood nearby.

 

[Midtown Hank]

I'll be sad to see the existing building lost in all honesty. While it's not exactly top tier for modernist design, it's an attractive design at least in my eyes.

Interesting take. I was thinking the exact opposite. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

As for the proposal, I think it's very reasonable from a density/use standpoint.

 

[GenerationLee]

I agree regarding density, but I'm sure there will be disgruntled neighbours. (which is really a moot point to mention)

 

[Johnny Au]

This building formerly housed the Geneva Centre for Autism before it moved to various buildings on Merton Street.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

The biggest and most beautiful building in the vicinity gets demolished and replaced with trash. Toronto planning at work.

 

[Midtown Hank]

The biggest and most beautiful building in the vicinity gets demolished and replaced with trash. Toronto planning at work.

Replacing a mostly vacant commercial brutalist soviet style building with mid rise residential building is sound planning in my book. Would like to hear your take on why this doesn't make planning sense.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Replacing a mostly vacant commercial brutalist soviet style building with mid rise residential building is sound planning in my book. Would like to hear your take on why this doesn't make planning sense.

A large, handsome, substantial, concrete building (with significant embedded carbon), could be demo-ed for a shitty midrise by a maladroit firm while politicians and Planning jump in front of a bus to save this anonymous bilge around the corner. It's not "sound planning", it sucks.

 

[Northern Light]

A large, handsome, substantial, concrete building (with significant embedded carbon) could be demo-ed.....

That happens all the time in this City. But as you have regularly noted the City cannot compel developers to buy only the sites w/parking lots or crappy buildings on them.

Additionally, how would we protect this building (assuming that were desired), other than with a heritage designation, which would likely only save the facade anyway?

Put another way, what is that City Planning could do differently regarding this specific building?

... for a shitty midrise by a maladroit firm

It would not be a secret that I have a very low opinion of several architectural firms in this city, who generally produce work I consider no better than sub-par, and sometimes considerably worse. In a different world, I would love to revoke the right of some of the principles to practice architecture, and maybe go back and remove tenure from the professors that passed their work............but I digress....

What tool does City Planning have available to them to require only good architecture firms be allowed to work on new projects?

while politicians and Planning jump in front of a bus to save this anonymous bilge around the corner. It's not "sound planning", it sucks.

View attachment 606935

PE, what proposal for 279 Davisville is being obstructed?

I agree the dwellings here are unremarkable, but it's difficult to make an informed comment beyond that, at this juncture.

*****

To the extent something worthwhile could replace the above, I'm not sure how that's directly linked to the proposal that is the subject of this thread?

 

[ProjectEnd]

That happens all the time in this City. But as you have regularly noted the City cannot compel developers to buy only the sites w/parking lots or crappy buildings on them.

Additionally, how would we protect this building (assuming that were desired), other than with a heritage designation, which would likely only save the facade anyway?

Put another way, what is that City Planning could do differently regarding this specific building?

Nothing.

It would not be a secret that I have a very low opinion of several architectural firms in this city, who generally produce work I consider no better than sub-par, and sometimes considerably worse. In a different world, I would love to revoke the right of some of the principles to practice architecture, and maybe go back and remove tenure from the professors that passed their work............but I digress....

What tool does City Planning have available to them to require only good architecture firms be allowed to work on new projects?

None.

PE, what proposal for 279 Davisville is being obstructed?

I agree the dwellings here are unremarkable, but it's difficult to make an informed comment beyond that, at this juncture.

*****

To the extent something worthwhile could replace the above, I'm not sure how that's directly linked to the proposal that is the subject of this thread?

Developers take the easiest route. If use and density permissions for both sites were the same, the upfront and demo costs on the houses would be far less than the office building. I'm taking that site every day of the week.

 

[Northern Light]

Nothing.

None.

Then I think it's important not to leave the impression that City Planning is somehow responsible for a less than ideal proposal.

That responsibility really rests w/the proponent.

Developers take the easiest route. If use and density permissions for both sites were the same, the upfront and demo costs on the houses would be far less than the office building. I'm taking that site every day of the week.

Sure.......

But the interior part of Davisville, east of Mt. Pleasant is a side street with chicanes and speed humps, it really isn't appropriate for a 12-storey midrise. The local road couldn't support the traffic, before we get into any other considerations. Not to mention, 279 Davisville would be directly across from and south of a school yard which is shadow-protected.

I realize you're trying to draw a larger issue out........but with the recent reforms, the interior sites here (yellowbelt) could be rebuilt as 4-storey with greater density, and that may yet come to pass; but it isn't a substitute for a 12-storey midrise opportunity.

I don't believe in abolishing zoning entirely, and there really isn't a scenario in which zoning continues to exist, where interior yellow belt on side streets is going to be zoned as if it were on a major transit corridor.

***

I think we can argue for some changes in planning law to better protect good buildings (though that's fraught with challenges), and to make redevelopment on desirable sites a bit easier (we've gone a long way in this direction, but there is some additional room remaining).

I just don't see any of that changing much here.

This proposal is on the proponent.