Church and Wellesley | 102.25m | 30s | ONE Properties | Graziani + Corazza

C-mac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
816
Reaction score
1,174
View attachment 327505

Tell me about about all the towers you see directly abutting Church Street in the above pic.

******

Frankly, there's a lot of lacklustre architecture in 'The Village'.............and I'm very open to seeing much of it go............

But not to be another monolith of blue glass, or a six-storey podium.

The area as it is..........for all its architectural flaws, has character and flavour directly attributable to its scale. (scale is not only height, by the way, but massing and overall footprint)

******

Also, when reading the legal decision..............of the OLT/LPAT, its important to note they are taking guidance from the Official Plan, and its component parts, while weighing them against Provincial Policy.

Approved plans have legal weight.

By and large, they are not absolutes..........

Generally, they shouldn't be............not because they're bad.........but because all things require a sense of balance.........and nuance........which legal plans can rarely fully capture.

At any rate........they are nonetheless, strong guides to Planning, to Council..........and to the OLT/LPAT as to what should be permissible.

Without question, the latter sometimes take liberty w/some plans..............but that's a different thread.

Here, they read, and considered them, and decided accordingly.


I'll say this onemore time. It's not just the towers that are already currenlty only 750m away...lol. It's the all the other proposals. The street is going to change regardless. You have a proposals at 241,(53 storeys) 717 (30 Storeys) 506 (15 Storeys) 625 (59 Storeys) and bunch of others, but yet 522 Church is a deal breaker...lol.

Yonge and Gerrard wasn't always skyscrapers either, but in 10 years it's going rival Yonge and Bloor with YSL and the hotels that are going up there.
Here's a question though: If UT'ers here where to magically seize this corner from it's current owners, and had the Cadillac Fairview funds to do so...what would you do with this corner? Would you just spruce it up and leave it as is? Or build a missing middle on top of it with heritage structures acting as retail? Turn into a public hang out that embraces The Village? Build a supertall in The Barn colours? I could go on...

...but I am just curious, if everyone had the say as to what goes here, what will it be?
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,329
Reaction score
59,341
Location
Toronto/EY
I'll say this onemore time. It's not just the towers that are already currenlty only 750m away...lol. It's the all the other proposals. The street is going to change regardless. You have a proposals at 241,(53 storeys) 717 (30 Storeys) 506 (15 Storeys) 625 (59 Storeys) and bunch of others, but yet 522 Church is a deal breaker...lol.

Yonge and Gerrard wasn't always skyscrapers either, but in 10 years it's going rival Yonge and Bloor with YSL and the hotels that are going up there.

Neither 241 nor 717 are remotely in the Village, they are very well outside it, and not covered by the same policies in the Official Plan.

No one perceives Church/Dundas as part of 'The Village', nor a main street retail area.

The comparison lacks utility.

As to 506, at 15 storeys, it's radically shorter than 39. The difference in height is ~160%!

The OLT clearly suggested a lower height would have meant probable approval for this proposal. They didn't spell out the correct number.

But I feel entirely certain that 15-storeys with the right treatment of Church would have had them there.

I'm going to add here that 506 is not a particularly attractive design, to be charitable.

But the City is somewhat limited in its ability to control for that.
 
Last edited:

C-mac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
816
Reaction score
1,174
Neither 241 nor 717 are remotely in the Village, they are very well outside it, and not covered by the same policies in the Official Plan.

No one perceives Church/Dundas as part of 'The Village', nor a main street retail area.

The comparison lacks utility.

As to 506, at 15 storeys, it's radically shorter than 39. The difference in height is ~160%!

The OLT clearly suggested a lower height would have meant probable approval for this proposal. They didn't spell out the correct number.

But I feel entirely certain that 15-storeys with the right treatment of Church would have had them there.

I'm going to add here that 506 is not a particularly attractive design, to be charitable.

But the City is somewhat limited in its ability to control for that.


How about 625 Church Street? lol that's 600m.

Basically what you’re saying is you don't think any high-rises should be allowed on Church between Isabella and Wellesley.

I guess I could live with that. Part of me still thinks it kind of ridiculous that you’re going to allow this main DT street to have all these skyscraper lining the street, stop it for two blocks, then allow it to continue again, especially with the shortage of space in the DT core that's pushing Real Estate through the roof.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,329
Reaction score
59,341
Location
Toronto/EY
How about 625 Church Street? lol that's 600m.

Basically what you’re saying is you don't think any high-rises should be allowed on Church between Isabella and Wellesley.

I guess I could live with that. Part of me still thinks it kind of ridiculous that you’re going to allow this main DT street to have all these skyscraper lining the street, stop it for two blocks, then allow it to continue again, especially with the shortage of space in the DT core that's pushing Real Estate through the roof.

Actually, I'm not opposed to towers here, per se; for me it's simply what it 'feels like' at street level. But that does impose a height cap, or a floor plate cap, or both, depending on the depth of setbacks.

But I'm not so much explaining my view as 'The Official Plan' and the line of reasoning in the judgement that follows from it.
 
Last edited:

Koops65

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
1,941
Reaction score
6,311
Location
Quarks Bar
Here is a render of the area in question:

Toronto Model 06-13-21 Church & Wellesley.png
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,596
Reaction score
6,541
Hope what they propose this time isn't as a painful downgrade as the last one...
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,329
Reaction score
59,341
Location
Toronto/EY
*docs are up*

Architect is Graziani and Corazza

1637176720987.png


South Elevation below:
1637176797543.png


1637176840444.png

North Elevation Below:
1637176861079.png

1637176915745.png


1637176938916.png


From the Planning Rationale Report:

1637177046409.png


1637177093440.png


1637177117051.png


Commentary:

This one got smushed at the OLT/LPAT last time out, in large part because it was felt that the proposal didn't respect the 'character' of the Village.

So it appears the solution has been to push the tower form to the west , away from the actual corner.

Height has also dropped from 39s to 28s
 
Last edited:

YIMBY519

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
121
Reaction score
220
Glad to see this team licking their wounds, especially after their bait and switch on the architecture and telling the City they would go down in flames at LPAT.

I don't mind this update, but the space between the buildings will be hostile and gloomy.
 

egotrippin

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
2,509
Reaction score
1,186
It's not as bad as expected for G+C, but it (and most new condos for that matter) fails at street level. There's a distinct street level vitality in the Village but this is just another soulless glass wall, Toronto's streetscapes are fast becoming a windswept Anytown.
 

TossYourJacket

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
1,138
Reaction score
2,915
Location
Church-Wellesley
What absolute trash at street level. Blank curtainwall that will no doubt end up housing a single large chain store who are desperate to show they "love the gays". Ideally, they'd just sell the eastern portion of the site to someone who actually cares about building nice low-rise buildings, cus this is garbage.

I'm also sure the tower will be covered in grey spandrel by the time it's done, given this is G+C.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
32,160
Reaction score
26,148
Location
Toronto
What absolute trash at street level. Blank curtainwall that will no doubt end up housing a single large chain store who are desperate to show they "love the gays". Ideally, they'd just sell the eastern portion of the site to someone who actually cares about building nice low-rise buildings, cus this is garbage.

I'm also sure the tower will be covered in grey spandrel by the time it's done, given this is G+C.

Honestly have you ever seen ONE G+C project executed with glazing like this?

1637189136908.png

(ONE/G+C via AIC)

AoD
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,881
Reaction score
7,543
Location
Toronto
Honestly have you ever seen ONE G+C project executed with glazing like this?

View attachment 363658
(ONE/G+C via AIC)

AoD
There's that one project that they've done up on St.Clair West which looks very similar to this. I'll give you all a hint, it doesnt look too damn good:

Considering the fact that One Properties really couldnt care less about how their developments look (this is surprisingly one of their best looking proposals in their underwhelming portfolio of proposals), and that G+C is involved, make no mistake this will be a horror show.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,329
Reaction score
59,341
Location
Toronto/EY
What absolute trash at street level. Blank curtainwall that will no doubt end up housing a single large chain store who are desperate to show they "love the gays". Ideally, they'd just sell the eastern portion of the site to someone who actually cares about building nice low-rise buildings, cus this is garbage.

I'm also sure the tower will be covered in grey spandrel by the time it's done, given this is G+C.

I'm inclined to concur.

The tower is........or at least I might hope that, it could be largely forgotten..........

But the lowrise right on Church needs a sympathetic client and a skilled-architecture firm.

And/or........since they don't seem to be using the footprint............just keep and restore this:

1637192148158.png


It's unremarkable as older lowrise buildings go and would not be the most lamentable loss................

But it would surely be preferable to what's proposed above.

Then, for points north, simply tear down what's there, and building more of this exact thing, but new; and in a contrasting colour.

There, a low-cost design solution that works.
 

Top