Toronto One Front | 170.86m | 49s | Larco | a—A

Dominion Public Building is one of the most beautiful buildings in the downtown, but I'm not opposed to any additions if it's respectful to the original building. I think these are mostly respectful, with a few nitpicks:

1. I've never liked the "smaller podium on top of the regular podium" design. Unfortunately this seems to have that between the two towers. I know why they did that, to be able to fit in more office space (and probably make the City happier), but it just looks a bit goofy aesthetically.

2. The towers are just kind of okay. aA has done better, but they've also done worse as of late, so I'm not complaining too much. I do like how thin they are - floorplates of 545 sqm and 700sqm are pretty darn small and should appear quite slender and unique once built, if built.

3. Disappointed to see such a stark reduction in residential units (over 50%), because of the location. Given the location right in the financial district, I'd imagine a large amount of the residents would work in the financial district and thus could commute not only without a car but also without adding having to squeeze any more people on to the subway.

One thing I definitely look forward to is having patio space on the new pedestrian alleyway between this building and the second phase of CIBC SQUARE - it should be a nice space once all is said and done.
 
hbf92 said:
Why can't we just have one taller tower to minimize the damage to the heritage building?
Click to expand...

Or none, LOL

Lets not omit that option.

Or sticking entirely to the parking lot at the rear and leaving the building itself alone.
 
Not sure I like it either...but that triangular building. That's a rarity these days. /boggles
 
A zoom-in:


Toronto Model 05-01-20 1 Front.png
 
urbanyimby said:
The pedestrian plaza for CIBC Square 2 will be located at the rear
Click to expand...

There's some train tracks that won't have anything on top! (yes, I know the park/pops further west, but east of the park)

* I appreciate the practicalities and economics might not work for that.

Just saying, I would be entirely pleased if they left the existing building alone.
 
hbf92 said:
Why can't we just have one taller tower to minimize the damage to the heritage building?
Click to expand...
Higher buildings would add more shadow to Berczy Park, and the City is not allowing new shadowing on Downtown parks.

42
 
hbf92 said:
Ahh makes sense, clear the City's priorities then - some shadowing vs. maintaining heritage.
Click to expand...
The City is trying to maintain heritage here too, as is the developer. Both parties still have to come to an agreement concerning just what that means exactly on this site.

Certainly the heritage frontages and the Long Room interior is to be kept.

Meanwhile, there are density rights on the property that the owner claims and which would very likely be upheld by the LPAT, so the City has to work with the developer to come up with something that gives the developer the density while preserving as much of the heritage as the City can wrangle. Meanwhile, there are all sorts of other guidelines that the developer must satisfy in determining where the new density can go, and some of those include maximum floor plate sizes (750 sq m), separation distance between towers (25 m min), and where the shadows can fall (no new shadowing on parks, as mentioned). There's much more than I've just described: planning these things is tricky as there are so many moving parts.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The City is trying to maintain heritage here too, as is the developer. Both parties still have to come to an agreement concerning just what that means exactly on this site.

Certainly the heritage frontages and the Long Room interior is to be kept.

Meanwhile, there are density rights on the property that the owner claims and which would very likely be upheld by the LPAT, so the City has to work with the developer to come up with something that gives the developer the density while preserving as much of the heritage as the City can wrangle. Meanwhile, there are all sorts of other guidelines that the developer must satisfy in determining where the new density can go, and some of those include maximum floor plate sizes (750 sq m), separation distance between towers (25 m min), and where the shadows can fall (no new shadowing on parks, as mentioned). There's much more than I've just described: planning these things is tricky as there are so many moving parts.

42
Click to expand...

Of course, I appreciate the complexities of the process and mediating between interests. I'm new here, but work in development, have a masters in planning and lurked the forums for years, so I'm pretty familiar with the process.

It's more just my frustration with the City's attitude towards heritage conservation, which is a joke. We have no regard for protecting the interiors of buildings, content with maintaining a facade or two. We have no framework for maintaining heritage buildings or restoring them in the City as a whole, other than piecemeal designations.

City Staff pick and choose between which planning guidelines apply in certain contexts. Planning is inherently subjective - which is a good thing - the decisions that have driven this to be where it's at are the result of the guiding principles from staff, who fixate on certain things but fail to see the bigger picture.
 
interchange42 said:
The City is trying to maintain heritage here too, as is the developer. Both parties still have to come to an agreement concerning just what that means exactly on this site.

Certainly the heritage frontages and the Long Room interior is to be kept.

Meanwhile, there are density rights on the property that the owner claims and which would very likely be upheld by the LPAT, so the City has to work with the developer to come up with something that gives the developer the density while preserving as much of the heritage as the City can wrangle. Meanwhile, there are all sorts of other guidelines that the developer must satisfy in determining where the new density can go, and some of those include maximum floor plate sizes (750 sq m), separation distance between towers (25 m min), and where the shadows can fall (no new shadowing on parks, as mentioned). There's much more than I've just described: planning these things is tricky as there are so many moving parts.

42
Click to expand...
One of the problems with planning in TO (or Ontario) is that if a building or land owner obtains permission to do "x", there is generally no time limit on when "x" must be done. This leads to situations where current planning must be done based on standards of the past. Many jurisdictions put strict time limits on 'permissions". That said, the situation with the Dominion Public Building is slightly different as their permissions date back to an OMB decision in the 1990s that arose through the settlement of permissions for another property (I think Brookfield Place???)
 
Ill be honest, I really dont like the look of these buildings. They could have done so much with the Dominion building to mesh it with a new development, but it just looks like they've plopped "Tower design #3" on top of a heritage building.

Id be glad for someone who is a fan of this design to enlighten me as to why its good, but at a first glance Im not a fan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top