DaninToronto
Active Member
Bring on the OMB!
Toronto Residences at the RCMI Condos | 134.72m | 42s | Tribute | Zeidler
- Thread starter V of E
- Start date
jaborandi
Active Member
Judging by the south elevation, the new structure would extend out over the top of the present historical building. Not a very satisfying solution at all.
Pretty artless looking incorporation of the older building... but these are just line drawn elevations...
It will be interesting to see where this goes next, whether for a redesign, or off to the OMB. (I would expect a redesign as I don't see a particularly strong case to this plan at the OMB.)
42
It will be interesting to see where this goes next, whether for a redesign, or off to the OMB. (I would expect a redesign as I don't see a particularly strong case to this plan at the OMB.)
42
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
This refusal report is a disgrace!
I am a driver and currently own a car, but I would totally ditch that in favour of an affordable condo at such a prime location, with on-site carshare, and virtually located on top of the subway.
From an ecological perspective this makes great sense. Let's not forget that for years apartments in Toronto were built without parking or indoor amenity space, and many of those gorgeous old Victoria, Edwardian and Art Deco walk-ups are among the most prized apartments in the City.
They are also often surprisingly affordable, no pool, no playground, no sauna, no gym, no parking.....lower rent (or in the case of a condo, purchase price)
We often here talk of the need for affordable housing and then insist developers build all sorts of frivolous crap into their buildings that add anywhere from $100-250 per month in rent or add $20,000-$50,000 to the purchase price.
That's hypocritical!
I'm living downtown, I walk everywhere, I don't need a gym!
Let the market decide. If the Tribute can't sell through the development, have no fear, it will be canceled and an alternate proposal with parking will show up in its place.
***
This is Vaughan's ward isn't it? What's he have to say about it?
I agree, let the market decide. This could be an interesting test for the city and perhaps set a precedent for some future developments. I do think that there should be spots for Autoshare (or similar arrangement) and guest parking along with an easily accessible bicycle room. As for the design, it's hard to say.
Northern Light
Superstar
Thanks DT
Thanks DT, appreciate the concurring opinion!
To Interchange: I honestly would tell you that the exterior facade/design etc. is not really to my liking, and if the City had legal grounds to refuse an application on this basis (and had vetoed STAR of DOWNTOWN and TLS accordling, LOL, then cited that cause in refusing this app. we might well have something to discuss)
However, the grounds for refusal are clearly stated in the report as lack of indoor amenity and parking.
And I consider that wholly unacceptable. If the market will bear zero parking that's an ecological ideal! If the market will bear no amenities, then we can achieve more affordable options for housing, both rental and ownership.
To enforce that a design must, irrespective of market conditions, be both ecologically inferior and higher priced, seems completely at odds with sound public policy.
And on that basis, the report is disgraceful!
Thanks DT, appreciate the concurring opinion!
To Interchange: I honestly would tell you that the exterior facade/design etc. is not really to my liking, and if the City had legal grounds to refuse an application on this basis (and had vetoed STAR of DOWNTOWN and TLS accordling, LOL, then cited that cause in refusing this app. we might well have something to discuss)
However, the grounds for refusal are clearly stated in the report as lack of indoor amenity and parking.
And I consider that wholly unacceptable. If the market will bear zero parking that's an ecological ideal! If the market will bear no amenities, then we can achieve more affordable options for housing, both rental and ownership.
To enforce that a design must, irrespective of market conditions, be both ecologically inferior and higher priced, seems completely at odds with sound public policy.
And on that basis, the report is disgraceful!
When I say that the proposal will likely go to a redesign, I am not talking about merely an adjustment to the exterior to better incorporate the base, as I am fully aware that the city cannot without building approvals on that basis. I am not sure why you thought my last post implied that.
I do not believe the current plan would have a strong case at the OMB because of the parking and amenity deficiencies. You may feel that the requirements the city has in regards to both of those are 'disgraceful', but there are solid planning principles behind them, principles which the city should have an easy time defending at the OMB were it to head there right away. The developers likely know that. Expect another reworking of this plan as the next step.
42
I do not believe the current plan would have a strong case at the OMB because of the parking and amenity deficiencies. You may feel that the requirements the city has in regards to both of those are 'disgraceful', but there are solid planning principles behind them, principles which the city should have an easy time defending at the OMB were it to head there right away. The developers likely know that. Expect another reworking of this plan as the next step.
42
Tuscani01
Senior Member
They are well aware of that. The city already thinks they are nuts for still insisting there be no parking. The parking and amenities issues aren't the only ones that would be used against the developer at the OMB. The proposed density also far exceeds the permitted density for the site.
You could expect a shorter tower with more floors of parking, but I wouldn't be surprised if Tribute just pulled out of the project altogether. The site is tiny, and very difficult to work with. Add the heritage building, and the TTC below and you have a big challenge.
Yes on everything, but no TTC below. This property is west of the University Subway.
42
42
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Tribute has still had to go through the TTC to get various permissions.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Councillors vote to demolish Royal Canadian Military Institute's University Avenue HQ
Posted: September 15, 2009, 9:10 PM by Rob Roberts
By Peter Kuitenbrouwer, National Post
City councillors voted today to overrule planning staff and approve demolition of the Royal Canadian Military Institute on University Avenue for a 42-storey condo building.
City staff noted the tower, which would have 210 one-bedroom and 105 bachelor units, is five times the size permitted by the zoning and has just nine parking spaces, which "is not considered appropriate."
Brian Lawrie, an honourary colonel and member of the institute, asked Toronto and East York Community Council members to save the building. He read them Councillor Adam Vaughan's remarks at a plaque-unveiling at the institute in 2007. "This low-rise building is a rare remnant of University Avenue's early days as a quiet boulevard dominated by trees, not highrises," Mr. Vaughan said at the time.
By today Mr. Vaughan had changed his tune. He told councillors, "If you took the stucco off the front of the building it would probably collapse in a pile of dust." And Mr. Vaughan praised the developer for planning a tower with no parking, as a discouragement to car use. Only Councillor Janet Davis voted against the project.
The building, which opened in 1908, bustled with members today. It contains thousands of artifacts, including guns collected from fleeing U.S. soldiers in the War of 1812, plus war hero Billy Bishop's medals and the seat from the Fokker triplane of Baron Manfred von Richthofen -- the Red Baron -- shot down by Canadian Captain Arthur Roy Brown in April, 1918.
Posted: September 15, 2009, 9:10 PM by Rob Roberts
By Peter Kuitenbrouwer, National Post
City councillors voted today to overrule planning staff and approve demolition of the Royal Canadian Military Institute on University Avenue for a 42-storey condo building.
City staff noted the tower, which would have 210 one-bedroom and 105 bachelor units, is five times the size permitted by the zoning and has just nine parking spaces, which "is not considered appropriate."
Brian Lawrie, an honourary colonel and member of the institute, asked Toronto and East York Community Council members to save the building. He read them Councillor Adam Vaughan's remarks at a plaque-unveiling at the institute in 2007. "This low-rise building is a rare remnant of University Avenue's early days as a quiet boulevard dominated by trees, not highrises," Mr. Vaughan said at the time.
By today Mr. Vaughan had changed his tune. He told councillors, "If you took the stucco off the front of the building it would probably collapse in a pile of dust." And Mr. Vaughan praised the developer for planning a tower with no parking, as a discouragement to car use. Only Councillor Janet Davis voted against the project.
The building, which opened in 1908, bustled with members today. It contains thousands of artifacts, including guns collected from fleeing U.S. soldiers in the War of 1812, plus war hero Billy Bishop's medals and the seat from the Fokker triplane of Baron Manfred von Richthofen -- the Red Baron -- shot down by Canadian Captain Arthur Roy Brown in April, 1918.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
So this passed? How can all councillors (seemingly) be for this project yet the COA (or whatever body is in charge of these things) still turned it down?
Architecturefan
Active Member
^^ when the local councilor wants it to pass regardless and has enough pull to get the rest of council on side. It happens from time to time, especially when Adam Vaughan is involved. The Gansevoort proposal on Richmond comes to mind as a similar example.
taal
Senior Member
Vaughn turned that project down yet likes this one?
Does this mean it's going ahead??
Please oh please don't demolish it until they have enough sales!
valkoholic
Active Member
My thoughts on the council approval:
1. The City has approved a major residential development without parking for the first time. Big news and a huge shift in culture.
2. Council has, in effect, passed a new policy "you don't need to provide parking if you have a decent excuse" over the objections of staff. This type of thing can crush moral amongst City staff.
3. Councillor Vaughan voted against the L tower because using residential development to help save a cultural icon is a disgrace. He went on a hilarious 10 minute rant at community council on this issue. Funny how things change.
4. GFL to Tribute selling units in a building without parking.
1. The City has approved a major residential development without parking for the first time. Big news and a huge shift in culture.
2. Council has, in effect, passed a new policy "you don't need to provide parking if you have a decent excuse" over the objections of staff. This type of thing can crush moral amongst City staff.
3. Councillor Vaughan voted against the L tower because using residential development to help save a cultural icon is a disgrace. He went on a hilarious 10 minute rant at community council on this issue. Funny how things change.
4. GFL to Tribute selling units in a building without parking.
