city of toronto design review panel · the panel complimented the design team on their...

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 8 – July 18, 2019 1

CITY OF TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES: MEETING 8 – July 18, 2019 The Design Review Panel met on Thursday July 18, 2019, in Committee Room 2, Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, Toronto, at 11:30am.

Members of the Design Review Panel

Members Present

Gordon Stratford (Chair): Principal – G C Stratford – Architect Michael Leckman (Vice Chair): Principal – Diamond Schmitt Architects † Carl Blanchaer: Principal – WZMH Architects ^ Dima Cook: Director – EVOQ Architecture George Dark: Design Partner – Urban Strategies Ralph Giannone: Principal – Giannone Petricone Associates ** Jim Gough: Department Manager, Transportation Planning – WSP Meg Graham: Principal – superkül ¥ Jessica Hutcheon: Principal – Janet Rosenberg & Studio ## Viktors Jaunkalns: Partner – Maclennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects

Joe Lobko: Partner – DTAH Jim Melvin: Principal – PMA Landscape Architects Ltd. ## Adam Nicklin: Principal – PUBLIC WORK

Juhee Oh: Director, Sustainability & Energy – WSP Heather Rolleston: Principal, Design Director – Quadrangle Architects # David Sisam: Principal – Montgomery Sisam Architects * Sibylle von Knobloch: Principal – NAK Design Group

*Conf l ict for First Item **Absent for F irst Item #Conf l ict Third Item ##Absent First and Second Items ¥Absent for Fourth Item †Chair of the meeting ^Member of both design review panels Members of the University of Toronto Design Review Committee – Present for First Item Bruce Kuwabara: Partner, KPMB Paul Bedford: Urban Mentor and former Chief Planner, City of Toronto Gilbert Delgado: Chief of University Planning, Design & Construction Scott Mabury: Professor and Vice-President of University Operations

Design Review Panel Coordinator Meredith Vaga: Urban Design, City Planning Division

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The Panel confirmed minutes of their previous meeting which was held on June 20, 2019 by email.

MEETING 8 INDEX i. 78-90 Queen's Park (1st Review) ii. Inclusionary Zoning (1st Review) iii. 31R Parliament St (2nd Review) iv. 20-100 Cowdray Court (1st Review)

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


78-90 QUEEN'S PARK JOINT UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review APPLICATION Rezoning PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Paul Johnson, Community

Planning; Nasim Adab, Urban Design

DESIGN TEAM Diller Scofidio+Renfro,

architectsAlliance

VOTE Support – unanimous

Introduction City staff outlined the project history, existing and future context, and planning framework. Staff are seeking the Panel's advice on the following key issues:

1. Built Form Height, massing and articulation in relation to the context and applicable planning

framework.

2. Heritage Conservation Conservation of the on-site and adjacent heritage buildings and the appropriateness of the proposed articulation and materials.

3. Public Realm Enhancing and expanding the publicly accessible space and the pedestrian realm.

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the City for organizing a joint review between our DRP and the Design Review Committee of the University of Toronto, and to thank the proponent team for a compelling project on a site of significant cultural importance. The joint panel was appreciative of the design approach, the document package, and the transformative possibility of this project, while working around and retaining a significant heritage property.

Consideration for more development was suggested in the following areas:

Response to Context (including local character and heritage) Some panel members felt the new building was too isolated from Falconer Hall. Explore ways to better connect to and integrate with Falconer Hall.

Site Plan Design Explore a landscaped foreground with more open space, more plaza; Close attention to the next level of landscape detailing is crucial: surfaces, colour, tonality, texture of landscape elements should be considered in the context of the public realm context.

Pedestrian Realm Consider additional strategies to reducing the impact of the parking ramp.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Built Form (Massing, Height, Articulation, Heritage Conservation) Improve the massing and articulation of north facade, facing the ROM, to be less surface, more depth and articulation. Consider ways of addressing the impression of bulkiness of the mass overwhelming Falconer Hall, strongly felt by some panel members.

Landscape Strategy Close attention to the next level of detail is crucial: surfaces, colour, tonality, texture of landscape elements will validate the landscape strategy. Consider planting along Queen’s Park Crescent that is more robust than birch trees.

Sustainable Design A project of such importance should develop an aggressive sustainability strategy, in response to the ambitions - not only the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard. Proponents should develop a sustainability strategy commensurate with the civic importance of this project. A daylight study should be done, to ensure compliance with natural light requirements within the deep plan

Comments to the City A better understanding of the attendees and their roles in Joint Panel Sessions is required to fulfill the potential for such sessions and to appropriately determine protocols for comments, voting and potential conflicts of interest.

Panel Commentary The Panel complimented the design team on the evolution of their proposal on this "challenging […] and critical lynchpin site". Many members found the proposal to be inspiring and the Panel felt it had the potential to transform the area, while respecting the significant heritage context and existing institutional and cultural sites.

The Panel advised further consideration of the massing and articulation and looked forward to seeing the proposal develop.

Response to Context (including local character and heritage)

Cultural District & Placemaking Several Panel members noted that the project was located in a very important cultural district and part of the city. These members felt the proposal was establishing place making for the area. Some members felt it created a dialogue between the University, the ROM and other cultural buildings.

Gateway Building Many members felt the project had the potential to form a great gateway to both the University and for this major avenue within the city. Some members suggested the project could create a "new face" of the University that engages with the city in a more substantial way.

Public Realm Gesture One member noted the proposal reminded them of the Terrence Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, another "edge building" on the University campus due to its public realm solution via the creation of a welcoming gesture through the base of the building.

Design Response & Vertical Campus The Panel felt that the lower, more horizontal building fit much better with its surrounding context than a tower solution. Several members noted appreciation for the development of this scheme.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Many members commented that in the future there would likely be many more "vertical campuses". These members felt this proposal could be precedent-setting, particularly due to the "clever" organization and "powerful, meaningful" circulation systems.

Connectivity Various members appreciated the proposed public walkway between the proposed building and Flavelle House into the campus through Philosophers Walk. However, many members felt there needed to be more integration between Falconer Hall and the proposed building.

While some members recognized the importance of having Falconer Hall "appear in the round", the Panel advised that a stronger connection on the west face should be developed between the two buildings.

Site Plan Design

Public Realm Forecourt The Panel advised opening up the ground plane. Many members suggested developing the proposed forecourt as a landscaped, open plaza. Some members suggested considering the public realm space at the scale of the entire block.

Many members thought the forecourt should build on the landscaping and public realm improvements along Queen's Park Crescent recently completed by the ROM, which a few members called "a great piece of design".

Servicing & Loading A few members complimented the design of the shared servicing with the ROM. Looking at the access from Queen's Park Crescent, a member noted that the location of the driveway off Queen's Park Crescent for loading and drop off was unavoidable.

While some members felt the loading was handled appropriately, the Panel suggested additional considerations should be pursued to reduce the impact of the parking ramp.

Enhance Transit Stop Many Panel members thought there was a "huge opportunity" to transform the Museum Subway Station entrances. Some members pointed out that for people arriving by transit, these entrances are the front doors for the area. A few members suggested looking at the metro entrances in Paris and Montreal.

Built Form (Massing, Height, Articulation and Heritage Conservation)

Design Parti The Panel complimented the design team on their "successful and delightful" design parti. Several members appreciated the topographic erosion as a metaphor, particularly in the engagement of the interior spaces and vertical circulation. These members felt the design was affording a connection back to the public realm.

The Panel supported the substantive incorporation and engagement of the heritage fabric with the new development through the overarching parti. Some members appreciated the thinking of multiple readings within a singular form.

Proposed Height The Panel had a range of reactions regarding the proposed height, but noted it was fitting within the University's existing and proposed secondary plans as well as within the range of the scale of the ROM. Some members thought the proposal did a good job of resolving what it needed to do on the site within the context.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Built Form Massing & Scale The Panel had some reservations about the scale of the building, although they acknowledged it had been reduced from earlier iterations. Many members were specifically concerned about the north façade and overwhelming Falconer Hall. Some members suggested a physical model would have helped the Panel understand the proposed massing and scale.

One member commented that they missed aspects of the previous iteration as shown on pg. 5 of the briefing package. They felt the earlier scheme better managed the two different scales on the north vs south façade.

Relationship to Falconer Hall Various members thought setting back the proposed building from Falconer Hall was an improvement. Moving forward, the Panel advised further addressing the bulkiness of the proposed massing on Falconer Hall.

Several members suggested further refining the relationship between Falconer Hall and the lower levels of the proposal through materiality, articulation and colouration. One member wondered whether the ivy could come down to the lower levels.

Another member suggested eliminating the two eastern most columns on the south plaza, noting that in the current proposal if someone was standing in front of Flavelle House the columns will be blocking Falconer Hall.

Materiality & Articulation of North Facade Many Panel members felt that the north portion of the design still felt a "bit opaque", "monolithic" and like a "bulwark". Some members noted that the cited Vagelos Building in New York City was less extensive as "there was less of it in one field" compared to the north façade of this project.

While various members felt there were hints of interesting future directions for the architectural articulation, many members suggested that more depth to the articulation and massing on the north façade was required.

A few members advised ensuring that the north end of the building reads as an institution as opposed to a "conventional corporate piece".

Setback from the ROM Many members appreciated the setback of the proposed building from the ROM. These members noted that the setback would make the south façade of the ROM very prominent. A few members felt the setback could set a benchmark and precedent for the way the area will develop.

Future Connection to the ROM Many Panel members hoped that the future connection to the ROM would happen. One member called it an "important feature of the project".

Scale of the Lobby Space A few members pointed out that the scale of the lobby space relative to the population of the building, particularly with regards to the east entrance and connection to the south lobby, needed further consideration as the proposal progresses.

Landscape Strategy

Plaza Landscaping

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Several Panel members advised carefully developing the landscaping strategy for the plaza and public realm. Looking at the treatment proposal shown on pg. 28 of the drawing package, some members wondered whether the plan could be "calmed down" and clarified as an open plaza.

A few members felt the plaza needed a "contributing civic feature" for the city.

Planting Along Queen's Park Crescent Some members suggested that "more robust planting" should be considered along Queen's Park Crescent in place of the proposed birch trees. These members felt that a more appropriate tree planting would offer shade and emphasize the institutional character of the street.

Proposed Ramping While they understood the complexity due to the grade changes, several Panel members thought the ramping needed further development and consideration.

Sustainable Design

Use Architectural Form to Advance Sustainable Measures Many Panel members strongly advised undertaking a daylight study, especially for the regularly occupied spaces and classrooms behind the transparent façade. These members pointed out that it would be unfortunate if the thermal gain or the gain became an issue for the occupants and noted that if the manual blinds were frequently lowered it would negate the architectural gesture.

Some members wondered whether the deep vertical fins on the classroom spaces could be further developed to provide glare control, depending on the façade. They advised pushing the architectural gesture to further support the transparency of the building envelope.

Energy Performance The Panel appreciated the inclusion of the energy report in the drawing package. Many members felt the sustainability strategy should reflect the civic prominence of the project. Looking specifically at energy performance, the Panel encouraged targeting 40% under Tier 2 of the Toronto Green Standard.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


INCLUSIONARY ZONING DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review APPLICATION City Study PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Christine Ono & Deanna Chorney,

Strategic Initiatives, Policy & Analysis

VOTE No vote

Introduction City staff outlined the project history, existing and future context, and planning framework. Staff are seeking the Panel's general feedback, commentary and advice on the proposed inclusionary zoning policy directions.

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the City team for a long awaited and important strategy to help address low cost housing shortages in the City of Toronto.

Response to Context (including local character and heritage) n/a

Site Plan Design n/a

Pedestrian Realm n/a

Built Form (Massing, Height, Articulation, Heritage Conservation) n/a

Landscape Strategy n/a

Sustainable Design n/a

Comments to the City The document would benefit from more clarity on the overarching principles.

Phasing is crucial for success. There should be incentives during the transition, clarity about what can be controlled, and a suite of incentives. Relief in some respect is required: some suggested examples of relief are approval time, amenity area.

Dark units (un-occupied condos) should be addressed to increase overall supply

Integration of income levels and ownership status is good, as demonstrated at St Lawrence Market housing.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


The strategy should match availability of new rental units with where the units are needed.

Some panel members thought the document was an atom bomb for the development industry and design professions, with too many moving parts.

The city should circulate the presentation shown during the meeting, in lieu of the one issued for review, as the meeting version was much better.

Panel Commentary The Panel thanked the study team for undertaking this project. Many members felt it was "long awaited" and noted that equity was a "huge imperative [and] topic". Some members were interested in learning more about any existing studies on the topic.

While the Panelists found the drawing package to be difficult to get into they noted appreciation for the clear presentation. The Panel was interested to see how the strategy progresses.

Clarify Overarching Principles The Panel recommended developing clear overarching principles to drive the document. Some members suggested creating a supplementary piece speaking to inclusionary culture to try to ensure the policies are implementable.

Several members felt the principles should reflect what should be mandatory as well as what aspects can be managed by policies. A few members commented that the work should challenge the established ideas and standards about how to build buildings in a good way.

Look at Precedents Some members suggested the study team should look at other countries that have experience with inclusionary zoning and developing affordable housing, with reference to both what worked and what didn't work.

Phasing is Crucial The Panel advised that the phasing of any new strategies was critical for success. Many members pointed out that inclusionary zoning was a long term discussion and that increasing affordable housing will be a catalyst for substantial change to the construction industry.

Various members mentioned projects that "ground to a halt" because the amount of required affordable units made the project untenable. These members felt that phasing would help alleviate that issue.

Transition Stage The Panel felt that awareness of a proper transition period was important to the success of these strategies. Several members cautioned that it may need to be a long transition window due to the amount of people with existing financial commitments.

Other members pointed out that market issues including land values and construction costs were moving targets that could also increase the transition period.

Market Mysteries & Too Many Moving Parts Many Panel members commented that the market in Toronto is "a bit of a mystery" and difficult to predict how people react and what uptake would be. Some members gave examples of projects they worked on that targeted a different demographic than ultimately occupied the units.

Several Panel members pointed out that the precedent shown in the presentation was unusual as it was on City-owned land. The Panel advised simplifying the various moving parts through regulations and a suite of incentives for the development industry and designers to respond to.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Affordability & Costs Several members felt that the affordability numbers provided by the study teams were not quite accurate. A few members brought up the "missing middle". Various members noted there were challenges when prices keep going up.

Many Panelists commented that construction costs have become increasingly expensive and causing projects to go over budget. Some members were concerned that the private sector would be bearing the brunt of the proposed affordability measures.

Establish Incentives & Relief The Panel felt that there needed to be incentives and relief, especially during the transition phase. Some members suggested providing relief with respect to approval time or amenity requirements.

Various members wondered whether a sliding scale could be developed rather than having a hard number triggering density. Many members noted that a sliding scale would help incentivize much needed midrise development.

Increase Overall Supply Some Panel members noted there was an overarching need to increase the supply of housing. A few members pointed out there was an existing issue of unoccupied condo units and wondered if there could be incentives to open those units up.

Support Integration of Income Levels & Ownership Status The Panel felt that having the affordable units fully integrated into a single complex was a desirable outcome. Some members noted that while an affordable ownership model and second mortgage has been successful, high land values could curb the ability to implement it here.

Various members pointed out that in terms of ROI, this model is a better choice for durability, which in terms helps with resiliency. The Panel felt the St. Lawrence Market housing development was a good precedent for integrated housing. Artscape Lofts was also noted as an integrated project.

Develop Strategy for New Rental Units Several Panel members pointed out that location was a key aspect of successful affordable housing. Many members thought there should be an emphasis on locating these units along good transit routes. Other members noted that access to amenities, recreation, groceries and education was an important consideration.

Many members pointed out that there should be more provision and consideration for family units in addition to bachelor or one bedroom units. The Panel felt it was necessary to ensure locational availability was being matched with need.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


31R PARLIAMENT STREET DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW Second Review* APPLICATION OPA & Rezoning PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Henry Tang, Community Planning;

James Parakh, Urban Design; Joe Muller, Heritage Preservations Services

DESIGN TEAM SHoP Architects, Quadrangle,

Daoust Lestage

VOTE Support – unanimous

*Although this is the second review of the site, it is the first review with this proponent team.

Introduction City staff outlined the project history, existing and future context, and planning framework. Staff are seeking the Panel's advice on the following key issues:

1. Relationship of the proposal to the significant heritage resources in the Distillery District.

2. Design and materiality of the three components; the 49-storey tower; the centre ("kettle"); and the Ribbon Building.

3. At-grade retail and pedestrian realm improvements to respond to the character and role of the open spaces in the Distillery District.

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent team for a compelling project in a National Heritage Site and significant cultural resource in the City. In summary, the Panel observed that the retail podium development was progressing well, that more public programming and separation distance from adjacent buildings should be assigned to the Kettle; whereas the tower appeared significantly under-developed, by comparison.

Consideration for more development was suggested in the following areas:


No comments.

Site Plan Design

Many panel members felt that a 3D model was needed to better understand the positioning of the kettle, to properly address view corridors and the significance of the future tunnel.

The fountain concept and position should be redesigned to consider better use of the plaza and open space.

Pedestrian Realm

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


See Site Plan and Landscape Strategy.

Built Form (Massing, Height, Articulation, Heritage Conservation)

Tower position and height are good, but articulation needs much further development.

Articulation of the retail elements and the kettle were well developed and appreciated.

See Site plan design above.

Landscape Strategy

The central location of the fountain was found to undermine the multifunctional role of the plaza and should be relocated.

The extent of the scope under consideration should be clarified in the site plan.

Sustainable Design

A project of such importance should develop an aggressive sustainability strategy, in response to the ambitions - not only the requirements - of the Toronto Green Standard.

The project should explore opportunities for geothermal and district energy to reduce the energy footprint.

The tower fins should be explored to provide practical solar benefit to the project.

Comments to the City

The city should circulate the presentation shown during the meeting, in lieu of the one issued for review, as the meeting version was much better.

There was a low level of detail in the package submitted for panel to review, and quite under-developed for a site plan submission, especially in regard to the landscape scope of work. The project should be return to the DRP with more complete drawings, suitable to SPA.

Panel Commentary The Panel thanked the design team for their presentation. Many members felt it had the potential to become a good addition to the "incredible area" of the Distillery District. The Panel thought the design was headed in the right direction, but recommended further development to the public realm as well as the tower portion of the proposal.

Several members noted that the content of the presentation was much more developed and explanatory than what had been submitted in the drawing package. Many members felt that a model and additional rendering would have helped illustrate the proposal.

The Panel looked forward to seeing the project again.


Distillery District Heritage Context & National Historic Site The Panel noted that the proposal was located in a very significant and valued National Historic Site of Canada. Various Panelists expressed strong support to protecting the vibrant and historic Distillery District and some members pointed out that the project needed to respect integrate into the entire district in a high quality way.

The Panel felt that the Distillery District was a very special place and has grown into an incredibly popular and successful neighbourhood and destination. Some members commented that part of the allure of the district was that "it oozes authenticity". The Panel cautioned that maintaining the authenticity was integral to the success of the district moving forward.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Site Plan Design

Public Realm Many Panel members supported the decision to keeping the public realm design simple and uncluttered. Some members encouraged developing a vibrant public realm on the proposed green roof as well.

Cherry St Entrance & Drop-Off Zone The Panel advised undertaking a transportation study. They noted it would help confirm drop off and pick up locations. Some members noted there were conflicts with the proposed location of the bollards in the drop off space as well as conflicts between the bollards and accessing the parking.

Many members commented that traffic signaling may be necessary for the area. Several members pointed out the loading and parking would cause an "enormous change" to the traffic and would impact the pedestrian experience on Cherry St.

Location of the Fountain The Panel thought that further development on the placement and design of the fountain was necessary. Many members felt the proposed location for the fountain would preclude a potential future gathering space in the area. Other members felt the square should be "multi-use" space.

Various members felt they needed a better understanding on how the area was used at different times before they could comment on the location of the fountain. A few members questioned what would happen to the existing art piece in the proposed fountain location.

Connection to the Waterfront The Panel thought both the physical and visual connection to the waterfront needed to be stronger. Several members thought the connection didn't feel urban and many members advised further opening the physical gap at the lower level.

The Panel noted that the view to the water from the Distillery District has been in place for many decades and should be something to "hold on to". Many members commented that there should be a corresponding connection from the water looking north back to the city.


Articulation & Materiality on the Kettle & the Podium Many Panel members thought the articulation and materiality of the ribbon and kettle facades had a lot of potential. The Panel appreciated the amount of detail being shown in these facades at this stage of the development.

While many members thought the simplicity and elegance of the lower facades was well done, the Panel advised that more visual breaks in the façade as well as between the tower and the podium was necessary.

The Podium "Ribbon" Several Panel members complimented the design team on the character of the podium, commenting that it harkened back to a post-industrial revolution of cast iron facades interpreted in a modern way. Many members felt there was a "three-dimensional richness" to the podium articulation and encouraged City staff to find a way to enshrine that quality into the approval of the project.

However, the Panel felt that the podium was too relentless. The Panelists advised further breaking up the massing as well as finding more opportunities to differentiate the individual blocks. Some

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


members suggested introducing a different materiality to help break the massing up. One member wondered whether the entry niches could move inward.

The Kettle Some members thought it would be nice if the kettle was on an axis with the street and view terminus; however, other members thought it also worked in its current position as it created a sense of mystery and anticipation.

Many members questioned the scale of the kettle. These members were concerned that it was too large, but felt it was difficult to say definitively without the benefit of a physical model.

Various members thought the programming of the kettle should be more special than the proposed conventional office or retail space due to both its form and the significance of the surrounding National Historic Site of the Distillery District.

Access to Top of Kettle The Panel thought it was important to have more visible access to the kettle terrace. Some members suggested incorporating stairs winding on the outside of the form. Other members suggested looking at lighthouses and what draws people up there. The Panel felt access to the top of the kettle and to the two views of both the Distillery District and Lake Ontario was important.

Some members thought the roofscape should become less formal and start to introduce aspens and other tree species that would provide shade to the kettle terrace as well as be visible from below. The Highline was suggested as a precedent.

Kettle as a View Terminus While many members thought the kettle was a thoughtful way to terminate the view from Trinity as well as to break up the podium "ribbon", they felt it needed to be more unique in terms of program and utility.

Various members suggested the termination should be an "event" that enhanced the entire development. Several members thought a more definitive gap between the kettle and podium would celebrate the views more strongly.

The Tower While the Panel appreciated the move to have the tower become a background building allowing the eye to focus on the lower levels of the heritage buildings through the simplicity of the tower form, the Panelists noted that the tower elevation was still fairly preliminary in character, especially compared against the podium and kettle.

Many members commented that the tower design did not feel like it was part of the rest of the development and felt it could integrate more than it currently was. Some members were glad to see no balconies were proposed on the side of the tower facing the expressway.

Mixed Uses & Proposed Café Several members supported the decision to have mixed use on the site. Many members felt that the café could be developed into something special. Some members thought the restaurant proposed for the "kettle building" was too small. A few members suggested that curatorial merchandising should be used to define what the retail would become.

Landscape Strategy

Tree Planting Many Panel members suggested incorporating more tree species. A member suggested placing a columnar tree in the tower block on the north side. The Panel had differing opinions on the amount

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


of trees proposed for the site. Some members felt more trees should be incorporated into the landscape design to soften the edge of the site.

However, other members felt the heritage and the genius loci of the district was incompatible with numerous trees. These members pointed out that the district is a former industrial space. They advised thinking about the landscaping as "a tree grows in Brooklyn", or the idea of a tree imperfectly emerging from a crack in the pavement.

Pavers Some Panel members found the implementation of the pavers "appropriate" and "exciting". These members appreciated the granite materiality as well as the proposed colours of the pavers.

Fountain While many members commented that they liked the idea of the fountain and using water in the landscaping, they were concerned that too much was going on in the square.

Some members suggested instead incorporating a smaller, more intimate fountain "that is found rather than seen". One member proposed it could be placed outside Balzacs. Another member wondered whether there could be two smaller "dueling fountains" in the square.

Lighting Some members had reservations about the scenographic lighting moments on the fountain. These members felt there were already so many special elements to the space and commented that the district did not necessarily need additional scenography. Other members suggested using lighting elements to define the public realm.

Sustainable Design

Develop Sustainable Energy Model While the Panel supported the desire to develop a stormwater management strategy, the Panelists were concerned that not a lot of energy modeling had been done. Several members pointed out that it was not yet clear what the design team was trying to achieve or how it would contribute to the entire development.

Many members encouraged further developing a geothermal solution, and one member suggested contacting the YMCA located to the north of the site as they have already started a new district energy system.

Develop Tower Fins as Passive Shading Devices Many Panel members suggested developing the proposed tower fins as passive shading devices by refining the angles to enhance daylight quality in the suites and/or prevent solar glare

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


20-100 COWDRAY COURT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review APPLICATION Zoning Amendment & Subdivision PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Katrien Darling, Community

Planning; Sasha Terry, Urban Design

DESIGN TEAM Teeple Architects

VOTE Support with condition* – 8 Non-support – 1 Introduction City staff outlined the project history, existing and future context, and planning framework. Staff are seeking the Panel's advice on the following key issues:

1. Response to Context Please comment on the proposed utilization of the CPR Rail buffer and how it could provide the best landscape strategy and direct pedestrian connections to West Highland Creek.

2. Built Form – Block Porosity and Building Setback Do the blocks provide appropriate built form porosity and does the proposal provide a suitable public realm in terms of building setback?

3. Built Form – Scale and Variety Is the height and scale of the base buildings appropriate in terms of pedestrian perception and comfort on local streets? Does the design of the base buildings and tower, including tower orientation provide adequate visual variety in the creation of a new residential community?

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent team for a compelling project in a rapidly growing area in the City of Toronto. The Panel appreciated the innovations on the building typology, and the promise of mixed-use occupancies, but strongly felt that the planning and massing would benefit from greater focus on a public realm amenity, on elements that would contribute to a sense neighbourhood.


Re-consider the tunnel; at grade street-focused connections should be given priority

Consider multiple not a single access road to Kennedy Road.

Re-consider the internalized office building locations, which were felt to be unlikely to succeed in their current location.

Site Plan Design

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Improve the street character of Kennedy Road and of the internal streets, with at minimum double rows of trees.

Reconsider above grade parking as it neither pedestrian friendly and risks creating un-safe areas around it.

Reconsider the obstruction to the continuous greenway created by the above grade parking structure.

Pedestrian Realm

See Site Plan Design, above.

Built Form (Massing, Height, Articulation, Heritage Conservation)

Raised courtyards seem optimistic and may not be viable.

To ensure usability of the streets and open spaces, conduct solar access studies, and adjust the built form accordingly.

The massing, street configuration, site planning and at grade planning should more explicitly focus on the open space rather than the current approach, which appears indifferent to the major amenity.

Landscape Strategy

See Site Plan Design, above.

Sustainable Design

A project of such importance should develop an aggressive sustainability strategy, in response to the ambitions - not only the requirements - of the Toronto Green Standard.

Comments to the City

N/A

Panel Commentary The Panel thanked the design team for their clear presentation. Many members felt it was an interesting site with complicated context. While several members thought the proposal was interesting, they felt the proposed massing and planning rationale would benefit from further development to the public realm and master planning.

The Panel looked forward to seeing the project again.


Existing Context & Sense of Place Many members noted that the project was located on a very dense site. Various members pointed out that while the proposed master plan seemed more successful than the development directly to the south of the site, the project lacked a sense of place.

The Panel advised developing a hierarchy of public spaces as well as designing a central focus for the future community. Many members suggested providing a retail amenity for the large amount of people living in the area.

Tunnel

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Several members questioned the feasibility of the tunnel connecting the two sites, including whether it would meet the grading requirements. The Panel recommended prioritizing ensuring there were multiple at-grade connections in addition to exploring a potential tunnel connection.

Multiple Access Roads The Panel strongly advised ensuring there were multiple access roads in and out of the area and commented that a single access loop would not work. Many members recommended establishing connections to the north to more effectively link to existing transit options.

Several Panel members recommended putting more emphasis on alternative road options, including cycling such as through the implementation of bike lanes.

Internalized Office Building Locations The Panel noted that inboard office buildings would not be viable from a marketing perspective. Some Panelists suggested relocating an office building along Kennedy Rd and rearranging the residential towers so each office would have an address.

Site Plan Design

Existing Road Capacity of Kennedy Rd Many Panel members questioned whether there was enough available road capacity for the amount of development proposed for the area. The Panel advised putting emphasis on alternative road options beyond Kennedy Rd.

Better Connections North The Panel strongly recommended developing better connections to the north towards Sheppard Ave E. Many members pointed out that all the existing and proposed transit routes were located to the north of the site.

Several members additionally advocated for a complete streets approach to connecting Cowdray Court north, including through cycling infrastructure. Many members advised bringing retail on site, or at least within a walkable distance, to help create a complete community and help avoid the "Armageddon of traffic" that was in danger of occurring.

Above Grade Parking The Panel thought the above grade parking structures should be reconsidered. Many members questioned the rationale of the high water table, noting there were many precedents across the city with high water tables where alternative solutions were reached.

If the above grade parking was to go forward, several members advised ensuring they would be resilient, such as through considering how they would transition in the next 10-20 years if autonomous vehicles became more prevalent, or if the spaces could be transitioned to other uses.

Many members also recommended supporting multiple modes of mobility including by providing bike infrastructure as part of the parking structure.

Continuous Greenway While the Panel was pleased to see there was land being dedicated to parks, they thought further consideration was required regarding the usability of the space. Many members noted that the green space felt like leftover space.

Several members recommended relocating the above grade parking structure that was currently infringing on the greenway to allow for a continuous green space.

Highland Creek Watershed

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Several members noted that creating a buffer area for the Highland Creek watershed would help bring the natural area back in a meaningful way and would allow people to explore the natural area. Some members noted that developing this green space in such a way could become a precedent for how to improve creeks and channelized rivers in the city.

Develop Green Streets Several Panel members noted that the future streets, as well as Kennedy Rd, should become "far more generous green streets". Some members felt there should be a double row of street trees on both Kennedy Rd and the internal streets. A few members thought the ROW width could narrow slightly to accommodate this.


Raised Courtyards Many Panel members thought the idea of creating space through the raised courtyards was interesting; however, the Panel was concerned that they would not create inviting spaces due to both the local climate and the position of the towers above. Some members suggested developing raised terraces instead of enclosed courtyards.

Solar Access Studies The Panel noted that a lot of the courtyard would be in shadow. They advised undergoing sun shadow studies to see what the impacts would be at grade in the public realm as well as for the grade related units.

Built Form Massing Approach Many members appreciated the diversity of built form and use within the proposal. Some members thought the "blurring" of the line of the podium and cascading language of the massing was helping to break down the scale. A few members suggested the massing approach could begin to support an integrated community.

However, the Panel advised further refining the massing to ensure there was access to daylight on the street. In the public realm, several members felt there needed to be a stronger open space hierarchy. Moving forward, they suggested approaching the massing and street configurations from the perspective of creating usable open space for the future community.

Many Panel members questioned the narrow frontages of the proposed units. Several members encouraged the incorporation of more family sized units.

Sustainable Design

Sustainability Strategy Several Panel members were pleased to see a stormwater and flooding strategy included in the proposal. These members noted that flooding will be a huge problem on site. The Panel advised the design team to push the envelope further regarding stormwater management.

Many members thought a community plan should be done at this stage of the project. These members noted that in the long term it might take 30+ years to build out. Some members felt the community plan should target carbon reduction, and a member suggested that could be partially achieved through the incorporation of the green roofs.

*Vote

The Panel voted 8-1 to support the proposal with the key condition that there will be a reexamination of the parking requirements and parking design.

city of toronto design review panel · the panel complimented the design team on their...

Documents