Toronto CampusOne Student Residence (was University Place) | 79.85m | 25s | Knightstone | Diamond Schmitt

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Looks like their concern is well-founded.

AoD
Click to expand...

The concern that it will encourage other similar density in the area? Sure some have that concern, whether it's a rational concern is a whole other issue.

It's ridiculous that on College, east of Spadina there is a doomsday tone in these objections. There should be a street wall of 20-30 stories down the whole stretch up to University, past which shoot for the sky (however, I'm not advocating the removal of any of the intact, historical low-rise along this stretch). I frequent this area often, mostly to eat on Baldwin but also because I have some friends who live just south of this proposal.

I didn't believe a word of those objections. Cars? There is a ROW streetcar within spitting distance and a subway a block away. I doubt the effects of the few students that do have cars will be noticeable. Shadowing? There is none, this is north of all the low-rise, single family homes. Slum/boarding house? Hardly, if you've ever walked through any of the other UofT student residences (especially graduate level) you'd see that couldn't be further from the truth. I assume (but have never actually been) the same of Ryerson residences, although I can't see this filling with too many Ryerson students. Besides, some of those houses are in such poor conditions themselves that they could pass for slums. I have a suspicion that at least a portion of the opposition is from some of the many landlords in the area that see this as competition.

This is classic NIBMYism. And has anyone seen the lot they propose to put this thing? It's an absolute eyesore and kills the street near a busy intersection.
 
Xray:

There should be a street wall of 20-30 stories down the whole stretch up to University, past which shoot for the sky (however, I'm not advocating the removal of any of the intact, historical low-rise along this stretch).
Click to expand...

Why is 20-30s along the whole stretch a desirable end goal for that stretch? And how can one limit redevelopment proposals to lots with no heritage buildings, exactly - given 243 College? The issue here isn't necessarily whether that lot should be redeveloped - but what built form constitute good development for this lot - and presumably serve as the precedent for the area.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I don't have the time to look it up and confirm but I'd be willing to bet that College street has been designated an Avenue targeted for intensification. Someone can attempt to prove me wrong though.

Re: heritage buildings. Well listing buildings is the most obvious tactic. But also, the university owns most of the best kept building along tihs stretch and UofT is very protective of it's architecture/heritage rich buildings. A walk around campus now or any time in the last two years will prove this as there is plenty of scaffolding for restoration work. Recent examples include Alumni Hall, University College, and the Lassonde Mining Building (which is actually on College).

I'm not saying we should tear down everything that's there now and build a 20-30s street wall but I see this as great additional density along a stretch that could certainly use it. And built form? This is some above average architecture that we could use more of.
 
Xray:

Yes it is designated an Avenue in the OP - but see, the OP is very specific about what intensification in the Avenue context meant - see OP section 2.2.3

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/official_plan/pdf_chapter1-5/chapters1_5_dec2010.pdf

Nowhere does it suggests that a tower that is out of scale with its' surroundings is an end goal of intensification via Avenues.

Re: heritage buildings. Well listing buildings is the most obvious tactic.
Click to expand...

And not exactly the most effective method, as we found out time and again.

But also, the university owns most of the best kept building along tihs stretch and UofT is very protective of it's architecture/heritage rich buildings. A walk around campus now or any time in the last two years will prove this as there is plenty of scaffolding for restoration work. Recent examples include Alumni Hall, University College, and the Lassonde Mining Building (which is actually on College).
Click to expand...

The fear is less what U of T will do (though some in the neighbourhood will beg to differ, but that's another matter entirely given U of T lands is governed by the Secondary Plan) but what private landowners will do on the south side.

I'm not saying we should tear down everything that's there now and build a 20-30s street wall but I see this as great additional density along a stretch that could certainly use it. And built form? This is some above average architecture that we could use more of.
Click to expand...

I think we can all agree some form of intensification isn't a bad thing along that stretch, but I think the current proposals do not constitute good planning - and one must not equate that to good architecture.

AoD
 
Last edited:
So I just got around to reading that section and the last sentence really stood out to me:
Avenues that are characterized by one of two storey commercial buildings, vacant and underutilized lands and large areas of surface parking will be the priorities for future Avenue Studies.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out, this is certainly underutilized land. To argue otherwise would be foolish.

Also this:
The growth and development of the Avenues should be supported by high quality transit services, including priority measures for buses and streetcars, combined with urban design and traffic engineering practices...
Click to expand...

Again, ROW streetcar on Spadina, bike lanes on College and subway down University. A better location for intensity would be where exactly? And as shown in the render (purposely no doubt) that there already exists a somewhat similar sized building across the street (only 13 stories, but as an office building it wouldn't be drastically shorter than a 24 storey residence).

So I'm still curious why this is considered bad planning? Because there are some three stories single-family homes directly to the south? First, it's ridiculous to suggest that this building would ruin the neighbourhood. I haven't heard a single logical objection to explain that. Further, I'd say that neighbourhood itself could use some larger built forms. It is essentially a small suburb in our core that is already boxed in by much higher density to the east and south. I'm not saying there should be 24 storey buildings on those smaller residential streets (that's much different from putting that built form on an arterial road, as this proposal is), but surely it's underutilized land with so many high-volume transit lines near by.

I'll agree that I don't like the proposal next door, but that's solely based on the fact that it would replace a very handsome building that currently occupies the site. I have no issue with the 30 storeys part and certainly have no problem with this proposal at 24.
 
I agree completely. This demonization of height in a hitherto low- or mid-rise area doesn't make any sense. Why should a building conform to its context no matter what? There are many contexts that need to be updated with greater height, like this one.
 
That whole Collage to Dundas area is rather dumpy anyway. Most of the houses are in bad shape and of little value. It's not the best density for a central core of a big city. I think this whole neighbourhood would be much better with mid-rises. There certainly isn't much there worth protecting, besides a few attractive historic buildings.
 
Don't touch Baldwin street ! Some of the houses are in pretty good shape as well.

Overall I agree, the area bounded by:

University to the east, Spadina to the West, College to the North and Dundas to the south would be much better midrise.

Having said that, while the houses aren't the nicest there are some really nice tree lined streets in this area !

Was just at the Kengiston market area as well, we're so lucky to have that. Anyone notice the stretch closer to College on Augusta Ave is pretty higher end (in terms of the stores), has it always been like that ? A random thought I know.
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
There should be a street wall of 20-30 stories down the whole stretch up to University, past which shoot for the sky
Click to expand...

Hopefully this is the start of it..

245-247 COLLEGE ST
OPA / Rezoning 13 146991 STE 20 OZ Ward 20
- Tor & E.York Apr 9, 2013 --- --- --- ---
Official Plan Ammendment application to permit construction of new 24-storey academic residence, with podium containing retail and academic services. Original application was for a 42-storey academic residence
 
Other than the outstanding issue of fit in terms of scale - the design does look pretty good, though the vehicular entrance off College shocks.

AoD
 
It went from being very architectural and contemporary (see Database rendering) to another mostly-glazed building with walls of windows and spandrel. Also the massing is strange and jarring, IMO. Colour me disappointed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top