design review panel meeting minutes november 2 2017 review panel minutes: meeting 67– november 2,...

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 8–November 2, 2017 1

CITY OF TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES: MEETING 8 – November 2, 2017 The Design Review Panel met on Thursday November 2, in Committee Room 2, Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, Toronto, at 12:00pm.

Members of the Design Review Panel

Members Present

Gordon Stratford (Chair): Architect, Senior Vice President, Design Director – HOK

҂ Michael Leckman (Vice Chair): Architect, Principal – Diamond Schmitt Architects ǂ Carl Blanchaer: Architect, Principal – WZMH Architects Dima Cook: Heritage Specialist, Architect, Senior Associate –EVOQ Architecture George Dark: Landscape Architect, Urban Designer, Principal – Urban Strategies ** Ralph Giannone: Architect, Principal – Giannone Associates Meg Graham : Architect, Principal – superkül Brian Hollingworth: Transportation Engineer, Director – IBI Group Jessica Hutcheon: Landscape Architect, Principal – Janet Rosenberg & Studio Viktors Jaunkalns: Architect, Principal – Maclennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects

Joe Lobko: Architect, Urban Designer, Principal – DTAH * Jenny McMinn: Sustainability Specialist, Managing Director – Urban Equation

Jim Melvin: Landscape Architect, Principal – PMA Landscape Architects Ltd. ## Adam Nicklin: Landscape Architect, Principal – PUBLIC WORK

҂ Heather Rolleston: Architect, Design Director – Quadrangle Architects ** David Sisam: Architect, Principal – Montgomery Sisam Architects Sibylle von Knobloch: Landscape Architect, Principle – NAK Design Group #

* in conflict-of-interest for first item **in conflict-of-interest for second item # in conflict-of-interest for last item

## absent for first item ҂ absent for last item ǂ chair for last item

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

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The Panel confirmed minutes of their previous meeting which was held on October 12, 2017 by email.

MEETING 8 INDEX i. Dr. Lillian McGregor Park – 11 Wellesley Street (2nd Review) ii. 721 Eastern Avenue (1st Review) iii. 215 Church Street (1st Review)

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 67– November 2, 2017 1

DR. LILLIAN MCGREGOR PARK – 11 WELLESLEY STREET WEST DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES

DESIGN REVIEW Second Review APPLICATION Site Plan Approval DEVELOPER Lanterra Developments PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Eric Stadnyk and Corinne Fox,

Parks, Forestry and Recreation DESIGN TEAM DTAH

VOTE No Vote

Introduction City staff outlined the project history, existing and future context, and planning framework. The purpose of this review is to introduce the site to the Panel, present key design themes and receive early comments. Staff are seeking the Panel's general advice, as well as advice on the following issues:

1. Site Constraints: The Park is a strata-park, to be built entirely over privately owned parking garage. The design is constrained by stairs, vents and other structures related to the garage, and is further constrained by the private driveway providing access from Breadalbane.

2. Indigenous Design Inspiration: The park concept and public art components acquire their meaning through materials and themes relating to Dr. Lillian McGregor, her homeland and clan within the Whitefish River First Nation. The team wants to honour these ideas in a meaningful but simple way.

3. Overall design program and layout: The project will be a large and significant new park in

the neighbourhood and Toronto.

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent team for the significant addition of a thoughtfully designed park that will become a major amenity in a rapidly growing neighbourhood. Thanks as well for a design and engagement process that will serve as an exemplar for the creation of future park space in the City. The Panel encourages further development of the design, including the following:

Refine and more closely knit together the weave of rocks, reeds and pathway through the park.

Enhance art strategy through consideration of: o Increased abstraction and simplicity o Use of natural materials

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


o Creating controlled-view settings for sculpture to minimize distracting physical context and optimize visual impact of art (e.g.: elevated settings, natural/man made backdrops, placement of art with open sky as background)

o Siting sculpture to ensure visual safety and security of park visitors.

Hide air shafts through placement of sculpture and hard and soft landscape.

Provide a strategy that proactively ensures continuous long term life of park’s design; in particular anticipating the replacement of parking garage roof membrane beneath park.

Ensure that adequate access to sun for the park is protected into the future.

Ensure strong connectivity and green space continuity with East of Bay Park.

Panel Comments The Panel thanked the design team for a very detailed design package and presentation, commenting that the project was well developed and the presentation clearly indicated the entire design process and challenges for the park. The Panel unanimously felt that it was a very successful project, variously commenting that it was "rich and diverse … containing many very intriguing symbolic elements"; "a very well thought out and attractive design" and a "really great magical little park". They felt it would be a valuable addition to the park network in Toronto. While the Panel was very supportive of the park and design, they felt there should be more refinement with regards to some of the proposed design elements, including the rock outcrops and public art, as well as further development to aspects of the overarching design inspirations and 'gestalt' of the park.

Site Constraints The Panel agreed it was very unfortunate that the road alignment to the existing parking access could not be altered, and acknowledged how challenging that must have been. Given these site constraints, the Panel felt that placing the dog park inside the driveway was a good design solution. Several members noted that the road would act as a buffer between the off leash area and the rest of the park. A member mentioned the dog park in the Grange Park in Toronto as a successful example of incorporating off leash areas into park programming; due to its placement in Grange Park it is less noticeable for the passersby. Another member pointed out that the presence of cars on the access ramp would become an issue of pedestrian safety, both for the dog walkers using the off leash area and for people traversing along the diagonal pathway off Bay Street. This member wondered if further measures could be taken in addition to the proposed crosswalks, suggesting there could be a change in material along the road to alert drivers that people may be crossing there. Regarding the life-cycle of the park, a member noted that because the park will be constructed over a parking structure, when the membrane needs to be replaced in about 50 years the park will effectively have to be rebuilt. This member wondered what this meant for the conception and construction of the park, and whether there was an opportunity to perhaps create modular design components and/or incorporate this regenerative narrative into the artwork. The Cloud Gardens at the Bay Adelaide Centre in Toronto was suggested as a recent example of a park which had to be reinstated/rebuilt. A few Panel members noted that in the future the surrounding buildings would likely be taller than what presently exists; they suggested this future condition should be addressed in the proposal.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


With respect to the plantings, another member cautioned that the design team may need to develop an itemized management strategy because the chosen plantings will grow very quickly. This member felt the plantings should not be left to the condo to manage.

Indigenous Design Inspiration and Public Art The Panel liked the driving forces and ideas behind the cranes and the 'reed' screens. A member thought the art and landscaping worked really well together, and particularly liked the crane sculptures. They also felt the 'feather' canopy in the north of the site at the proposed Wellesley Plaza had a "lovely pattern". A Panel member suggested there was an opportunity to connect the sculptural elements back to the functional necessities of the site, (e.g. how is the wind or the water dealt with?) noting that this could link the structural and cultural elements together. A member wondered if the plantings could be tied to the themes of the artwork and First Nations' inspiration. Building off of this, another member wondered if the Canadian Shield references and recognition of the condition of the landscape pre-urbanization could be carried through into the plant material as well. Indigenous Inspiration and Consultation Although the Panel was glad that there had been consultation with both members of Dr. McGregor's family and the University of Toronto's First Nations community, as well as through the art competition, several members felt more consultation would help elevate the project. One member noted that engaging First Nations communities and peoples was crucial, feeling that this type of design consultation would be coming to the forefront on many more projects in the future. This member further asked whether the design team had looked at the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada when developing their design. Another member wondered if the design team should undertake one further level of indigenous consultation, specifically with the local First Nations groups from the Mississaugas of New Credit. Several members noted that the indigenous design could derive greater inspiration from the geographic location and from the fact that the park will be dedicated to a specific indigenous person. One Panel member commented that they would like to see larger, broader references, and that further engagement with indigenous communities might reveal different ways of thinking about how things fit into a bigger picture. A member, recalling consulting with First Nations' communities on their own work, noted that when they were hesitant to use various ideas or geometries because they didn't want to culturally appropriate any forms, were told that many of the traditional forms were abstractions of natural phenomena. This member thought that the application of such forms could be interesting for this project and also agreed about the importance of further consultation. Crane Sculptures The Panel generally liked the crane sculptures and their siting in the Central Gathering space. With regards to the art itself, a few members suggested the design team think about viewing the art/sculptures from a distance, particularly against the sky. One member pointed out that when placing a sculpture, the issue becomes about whether the sculptures can be clearly distinguished from their context. This member noted that the central plaza where the sculptures are to be placed is below the rock outcrop line. They suggested the design team look closer at the grading within the project, and wondered if the central plaza could be designed such that it was higher, meaning that the sculptures could always be seen against the trees and sky.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Another member noted that the 2D quality of the cranes meant that the sculptures began to form silhouettes. This member suggested that the shadows from the pieces would become more tangible than the pieces themselves. A different member liked the sculptural connections and overall thinness of the designs. Although a few Panel members liked the way all the different pieces of the park felt like "part of the same family" through their similar construction, one member questioned the materiality of the crane sculptures. This member noted that while they understood that steel had been chosen for its durability, they felt the art was losing something with regards to its textural quality. They wondered if a more "ephemeral material" such as wood could be looked at, pointing out that it could be interesting to explore different materiality. 'Reed Screens' and Air Shafts A few members felt that there seemed to be three seams running through the design of the park: the major pathway lined with benches; the idea of the rock outcrop; and the reed screens. One member thought the screens could be a stronger layer in the project if they became less literally aligned with screening the air shafts. This member suggested some of the screens could be submerged, or begin to rise out of the ground. Another member wondered if the screens were cluttering up the park and suggested they could instead be clustered together, taking inspiration from a grove of reeds. Although the Panel agreed that the air shafts throughout the park were a large design challenge, they felt they should be considered design elements in the park rather than competing structures. A member mentioned that it would be a lost opportunity if the air shafts did not become something special, and that the design team should work with the grates instead of fighting them. One member suggested the reeds could be placed on top of the vents or that the screens could be used to mitigate wind in some areas. Another member suggested the design team could use grading to disguise the air shafts, or that the shafts could be incorporated into the hard surfaces such as through terracing or the implementation of a patio. A different member pointed out a safety concern in that in the present design scheme there was an opportunity for people to conceal themselves behind the screens. Medicine Wheel The Panel wondered if the medicine wheel needed to be represented so literally, but agreed that this space could be very interesting. One member commented that this park was an exciting opportunity because typically indigenous themes are dealt with in very general terms on design projects. This member encouraged the design team to look at more specificity with reference to the indigenous iconography they were drawing from. They wondered if there was any other iconography specific to both Dr. McGregor and her specific clan, the Whitefish River First nation that could be incorporated into this central space. Another member, while noting that the medicine wheel is a very important symbol, expressed concern regarding its overuse in design projects. Rock Outcrops Several Panel members noted that they appreciated the rock outcrop, with one member commenting that it was "wonderful". A few members suggested the outcrop could be aligned with the path so that one side was bordered by benches and the other side was defined by the rock outcrops. A member felt this realignment could give another meaning to the project. However, while agreeing that it was important to strengthen the rock outcrop idea, another member liked that the rock was not "slavishly following the path". A different member thought the essential

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


diagram of the park needed further refinement, suggesting that resolving the seams of the bench edge and the rock edge would help clarify the "gestalt of the project". A Panel member wondered if this idea could be strengthened by bringing the rocks back to the overarching indigenous design inspirations and the dedication to Dr. McGregor, by specifically drawing from the Northern Ontario landscape of the Whitefish River Nation. This member noted that in northern Ontario, the granite rock outcrops tend to occur in relation to water. They additionally felt that within the presented project, a river, or "sinuous nature" was emerging, and wondered if there was a further opportunity to bring an element of water and the Northern Ontario landscape to the proposal, perhaps through irrigation or stormwater management. Another Panel member thought that the rock outcrop should feel like they came out of the ground as opposed to a rock "just dropped on the site". They mentioned Olmsted's rocks in Central Park in New York City as a "very convincing" precedent.

Overall Design Program and Layout Several members wanted to see more drawings showing the broader site and surrounding context adjacent to the park, including any park connections between the proposal and the East of Bay Park at the YMCA across the street and directly south of the site. One member noted that this was an unusual opportunity as it was a "cool condition in the city to get to grow two green spaces across the road [from each other]" and wondered how the two parks worked together. They suggested this was an opportunity to stitch the parks together and connect them into broader urban systems such as the PATH network. A member felt that the sense of layers existing in the design was creating richness for the park. Another member appreciated the variety of spaces designed throughout the park and thought the placement of the benches was very successful. A different member felt the micro topography was working well and was helping the park seem more expansive. A member thought that the design team needed to further develop the "diagonal traversing" through the park, and that perhaps this aspect could be refined by establishing commonality between the materials experienced in those spaces. Programming Many Panel members agreed that they supported the amount of programming proposed, with one member noting that while it is easy to look at landscape projects and think that too much has been designed, when experiencing the built thing one finds that it is not overpowering. Another member wondered what programming or design elements had been developed for the other seasons, e.g. winter. In general, it was felt that the park needed longer seasonal use. A member suggested that the patio and gathering space on Wellesley Street could become more expansive. Commenting on the two parking exits, one member cautioned that although the exits seemed to be placed appropriately within the park, the design of the exit in the centre of the park should be focused on safety above anything else, including mitigating any resulting divisibility. Sustainability and Park Function One member questioned whether the park was protected from future shade and would remain sunny after additional construction. On the other hand, another member pointed out that as-designed the park will receive a lot of sun, particularly in the seating areas, and wondered if more shade should be provided in these places. A member appreciated the 'feather' canopy and liked its

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


dappling and visual effects, but pointed out that it would not shield from the sun. As an overall question the member wondered how the sun was being collected and what the shading strategies were. Another member asked how the park would respond to the microclimate conditions. They questioned how many extra hours of comfortable outdoor time the park would actually provide. This member was also interested hearing about the acoustic conditions in the park, and suggested the design team look into these various functional qualities.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


721 EASTERN AVENUE DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review APPLICATION Rezoning and Subdivision DEVELOPER General Motors of Canada

Company PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Paul Mule, Kyle Knoeck,

Community Planning; Deanne Mighton, Urban Design

DESIGN TEAM Quadrangle Architects Ltd

VOTE No Vote

Introduction City staff outlined the project history, existing and future context, and planning framework. The purpose of this review is to introduce Panel to the project and seek advice on the following key issues:

1. Frontages: The overall built form composition along both the Eastern and Lakeshore Avenue Frontages with special regard for scale, character, architectural fit.

2. Site Organization: The Site Plan composition including circulation plan, grades and relationship with adjacent lands to the east and the west.

3. Relationship to Linear Park / Bike Path: Interface, program relationship, edge treatment.

4. Heritage: The compatibility of the new design with the existing structure.

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel appreciates and thanks the proponent team and client for sharing their innovative strategy at an early stage of design. The concept possesses the potential to lead the way as an architectural landmark, and exemplar for infusing GM’s vibrant new mix of employment and initiatives into the evolving context of Leslieville’s residential neighbourhood, big box retail/business and arterial road. Further design development is encouraged to help achieve this potential, including in the following areas:

Anticipating evolution of this part of the City design overall site as an engaging urban campus, with GM’s dynamic mix of mobility programmes strategically placed throughout the campus; including taking full advantage of:

o Street level presence and accessibility along Eastern Avenue and campus’ internal streets

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


o Longer view visibility along Lake Shore Blvd. o Creating GM Mobility presence at Berkshire and Eastern.

Consider alternative approach to traditional car dealership planning/design for this site to strongly connect GM and its mobility programmes with the forward thinking growth and change of the City and its neighbourhoods.

Develop a high quality, urbane landscape and pedestrian-first realm strategy/story that cohesively ties the overall campus together.

Create a site-wide deep sustainability strategy as a visible example of GM’s environmental commitment.

Panel Comments The Panel complimented the design team on a strong project, and specifically commended the presentation. The Panel was very appreciative of the drawings and materials presented including the site plans, massing etc. feeling that they clearly showed the design process and logical design solutions reached by the design team. The "day in the life" images were also complimented as being very helpful towards understanding how the project might work. Several members were familiar with the site and all of the members were very supportive of the aims of the project, noting that it was a really exciting proposition. The Panel agreed that this project was a "golden opportunity" to bring employment downtown. They felt that the project was a great opportunity for exceptional design, and that this was additionally a great chance to reinvent both the site and the employment uses of the site.

Frontages and Site Organization Broader "Landscape Identity" The Panel thought it was important that the project fit into the broader area's "landscape identity". One member noted that the proposal will be successful when it can support this larger identity by being able to tolerate many different kinds of employment uses. Another member felt that the "deliberateness" of the design was crucial to the success of the broader scheme. A different member wanted to know what the design team was envisioning for the future context north and south of the site. They asked about any future linkages north-south across Lake Shore Boulevard or how the project would be impacted if/when Lake Shore was no longer an arterial road, noting that these variables will change the area considerably. Street Organization and Rushbrook Avenue Alignment Several members felt that the design team was developing a strong street and block grid that could accommodate a variety of different ideas and site uses. One member noted that the amount of adjacent transit was a challenge for the site and wondered how people would be accommodated from the north-east. Another member was concerned that they did not see any strategy for people arriving to the site other than through cars. A few members wondered if the street organization should be functioning as more of a main street typology. The Panel agreed that the Rushbrook Avenue alignment was a better option compared to the first design iteration. Many members felt that the Rushbrook Avenue extension created more openness on the ground plane for pedestrians as well as for the site and neighbourhood. A few members suggested that with the Rushbrook extension there was an opportunity to better address and engage with the east side of the building, with a member positing that there could be the creation a street plaza entrance on that frontage.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Regarding the broader implications of the Rushbrook extension, a member pointed out that the area is additionally anticipating an east-west connection to the former film studio lands. This member thought this was an essential diagram for the project, as an overarching block pattern could then begin to be developed over time which connected the broader areas together. This member felt the design team needed to consider and develop these existing "seeds" or site potentials. Landscape and Site Context The Panel was concerned that the building and site felt very suburban. One member pointed out that the site is nestled between two very urban areas with downtown Toronto to the west and the East Harbour lands immediately to the east. They were surprised by the "urban difference" and wondered if ten years from now there might be regret that a more complex hybrid of denser buildings had not been developed on the site. Regarding the landscaping adjacent to the building, several members encouraged the design team to think about these spaces as a series of landscapes with different hierarchies as opposed to one large "landscape space" outside the building. One member mentioned they were particularly concerned about the treatment of the spaces between the buildings, feeling that they were neglected spaces that needed better activation. The Panel agreed that the public spaces at grade needed further design development, with one member commenting that the proposed building was presently surrounded by a driveway and asphalt and didn't feel like it was for either cars or pedestrians. Another member pointed out that the proposal was showing a driveway with a 20m Right of Way, followed by a row of parked cars and then an island space for landscaping elements, and felt this needed to be addressed. The Panel thought that these spaces should be "more giving" places for the community. Several members questioned the placement of the driveway along the south face of the building, with one member specifically questioning the south-east corner where it completes its circle. This member, while understanding that the road continues to facilitate the egress of transport trucks, felt that they would rather see a space for pedestrians on this portion of the site. They suggested that pedestrians should have the opportunity to enter from the southeast and that this would be a highly traversed pedestrian route. Building Frontages Many of the Panel members felt that there was positive development with regards to the site organization and building frontages, although one Panel member noted that there were still many alternative schemes that could be explored. The Panel thought that the building was designed with three public faces, and that there was a general feeling that other than the café it is the backside of the building that is engaging the public, and where the main entrance is located. One member noted that the building itself seemed iconic and as if it should be "a gateway to something", as opposed to just a linear experience along a street. They suggested the Toyota on the Park dealership at Eglinton Avenue East and Leslie Street as an example of a building that is also a celebratory element for the surrounding area, but noted the contrast in surrounding contexts. Architectural Composition The majority of the Panel felt that the architecture was a really interesting proposition and appreciated the general architectural response. One member thought the overarching architectural forms were responding to the site context, noting that the north was very rectilinear whereas the

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


south was more about movement. This member thought this was spatially very interesting. A few members appreciated that the building had been oriented on the diagonal such that it fronted Lake Shore, an arterial road. A couple of members questioned whether the building was located in the right place on the site. A member wondered if more public space could be provided by separating the proposed buildings by moving the dealership to one side of the site. A different member suggested that the non-dealership portions of the building could be oriented to the public street to improve street animation. Generally speaking, the Panel encouraged the design team to think about how this project could contribute to a new landscape character for this sector of the city.

Relationship to Linear Park / Bike Path Many Panel members felt that they could see the beginnings of connections to, and in support of, the bike path and trail, but thought that more design development was required to strengthen these connections. While they appreciated the inclusion of a cafe, a few members suggested the design team incorporate POPs (privately owned public spaces) along the south face of the proposed building to further engage the cyclists and pedestrians as well as better activate the public realm. The Panel agreed that the road to the south of the building could be unnecessary, with several members commenting that it interfered with the engagement of the sidewalk and cyclists to the buildings. A few members pointed out that it was unfortunate that the design required people from the bike path and park to cross a street to get to the building and café. These members felt that the bicycle movement could be better integrated with the function of the cars. Regarding the road, one member wondered if it was possible to eliminate the turn around to create an actual pedestrian landscape, noting that "just because the building is about cars doesn't mean that it needs to be surrounded by roads". Building on these suggestions, another member thought that there should be further design development to indicate that different transportation aspects and modes are coexisting on the site. The Panel observed that the trail along Lake Shore Boulevard seemed to only have a strong presence on the proposed site in contrast to the site's adjacent surroundings. They advised the design team to think about and incorporate the broader future context of the area even for things that had not yet been approved. Another member suggested that the proposed design also needed to better reflect the hierarchies inherent within the site, noting that the cadence of the trail felt very different to other aspects of the project and should therefore be treated accordingly. This member wondered if the creation of the adjacent plaza to the south of the building was then not the most effective design solution, and suggested instead that a better design response could be for the space to become less of an urban plaza and more of a "landscape element" for the project. A few members noted that they were familiar with the site from biking past it frequently. One member questioned how the building would read to cyclists and pedestrians, noting that the architecture seemed to be for people in cars who would be relatively far from the building. This member wondered whether the building would become overwhelming for those closer to the

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


structure. However, a different member also familiar with the area thought that the building would not be overwhelming, but would become a "highlight" for pedestrians and cyclists passing by.

Heritage Several Panel members encouraged the design team to keep heritage buildings/elements. One member commented that the industrial heritage on the site is critical for Toronto, especially in this area of the city where there is a long history of industrial heritage. Another member agreed that the heritage was important, noting that broadly speaking it is important that the city "doesn't continue to wipe the slate clean" of its built history, because the city is richer when these elements continue to be integrated in the built infrastructure. While pointing out that it was difficult to comment properly on the heritage without knowing more about what was on the site or in the surrounding context, the building in the north-east corner was identified as a good building to keep, as it looked like it would give a sense of what the past of the site was while still being a fairly modest element. Another member thought that there should be more consideration regarding the heritage buildings on the site, but felt these decisions should be made after looking more in depth into the historical context of the area. A different member, while understanding the value of industrial heritage, pointed out the dangers of the toxicity on the site. This member felt that if there was a preference between the two the importance of the development of the site should take precedence over the heritage. Another member agreed that the toxicity was an issue, but noted that "there [were] ways of addressing that".

Innovation, Adaptability and Future Context Sustainability The Panel felt that it was important for the design team to develop sustainability strategies concurrently with the design development process. Several members expressed concern that the proposal was presented as a demonstration project for sustainable design and energy efficiencies when there hasn't been in-depth consideration for achieving these measures. A member pointed out that the design process should not be a linear one; rather, sustainability should be informing the design of the site, the architecture, the form of the building, etc. One member suggested the design team should look into incorporating photovoltaics, noting that the building's area/height ratio was ideal in terms of achieving net zero. A few members suggested looking at hitting passive design targets and reducing energy loads to try to have a 'net zero ready' building, noting that these targets will soon become the standard for Toronto. Several members felt that a commitment to sustainability was also an important aspect of innovation, with one member commenting that the design team "should pursue innovation in all facets of the project". Innovation The Panel was very happy to see employment, particularly from large scale international employers, being brought down to this area of the city. One member said that this move represented a "high bar" regarding maintaining and protecting employment for the next generation. Several Panel members wanted clarification on what a "mobility campus" really meant for the project. A few members commented that the ideas behind the proposal seemed to be around questions of what transportation means for the future, and engaging with the changing world

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


moving forward; however, what is actually shown is a design for a car dealership. One member felt it would be more exciting if the project became more about the future of mobility. Another member suggested the building and "mobility campus" could reinvent itself and move beyond the idea of a car dealership through the way the proposal puts itself into the fabric of the city. This member additionally noted that the site was interestingly located between the remnants of an expressway in the south and an area that is intensifying in the north. Many Panel members appreciated the spirit of a "mobility" or "innovation" campus, particularly regarding the changing way cars are being purchased and used, as well as the evolving technology around automobiles. However, several members thought that the dealership felt somewhat static and "put on". These members wondered if the other aspects of the project could then become more "real", or if there were any ways of engaging the public in an outward way regarding what was occurring on the site. The way patrons are able to see the student chiefs cook at George Brown College in Toronto was given as an example of a dynamic way to show the internal workings of an institute. Another member suggested the building and public realm could be activated by bringing the buildings' functions back to street level and propagated throughout the site, for example by having a bike shop adjacent to the bike path or by bringing the car maintenance to a street frontage. Future Adaptability Several members were interested in how the project would fit into the massive changes that are/will be occurring in the broader site at the base of the Don River. One member noted that the project is sited in an area undergoing a lot of transformation, as can be seen in the ongoing debates around the future of the Port Lands. They also pointed out that Lake Shore Boulevard will also be changing in the future, as there has been planning done both north and south of the boulevard, in addition to a transportation plan south of Eastern Avenue. This member went on to comment that this area of the city was being broken up from the factory sites into a smaller scale, finer grain of development. They then wondered how this proposal fit in to this changing overarching context. A member questioned the future of the project in ten years when the issue of the floodplain had been lessened, and there was less of a danger of flooding on the ground plane. Another member wondered how the ground levels would be reoccupied or what would occur when the parking requirement was not as high. A member suggested that most of the buildings' flood levels seemed to be very capable of eventually taking on new uses. They encouraged the design team to think about the adaptability of these spaces in the future. Another member, reflecting on the future of cars, imagined some of the spaces for cars could also eventually be reimagined. A different member felt that the character of the building was very specific to the project, but noted that this was not a detriment to the adaptability or resiliency of the architecture.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


215 CHURCH STREET DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review APPLICATION Site Plan Approval DEVELOPER Sentinel (Church) Holdings PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Myron Boyko, Urban Design DESIGN TEAM RAW Design

VOTE Refine – 4 Redesign – 5

Introduction City staff outlined the project history, existing and future context, and planning framework. Staff are seeking the Panel's advice on the following: The OMB asked that "the deployment and design of balconies is to be resolved through submission of the balcony design to the City's Design Review Committee at the site plan approval stage" What is the Panel's opinion on this matter? The consultant provided background information, design rationale and responded to questions.

Panel Comments The Panel focused their comments around the most recent iteration of the proposed balcony design, noting massing and setback issues, particularly with the encroachment by the balconies on the 3m stepback specified in the Tall Buildings Guideline along with the implementation of wraparound balconies. Although they could see an interesting design emerging with regards to the form of the project, the Panel felt the balconies needed further design consideration specifically looking at utility and function, sustainability and articulation. Many members found it unusual the way this project was brought to the Design Review Panel by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). A few members mentioned that they would have preferred having less ambiguous parameters on what to review, noting the benefits of having a clear set of review criteria.

Form of the Balconies The Panel noted that the form of the tower was very important, especially with such a tall building proposal. Speaking to the sculptural qualities of the balconies, one member remarked that they thought for a condo proposal the articulation was intriguing. However a different member, while acknowledging that this was subjective, disagreed that an interesting architecture was emerging.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Several members agreed that it was disappointing that it seemed as if the architecture had been reduced to balcony design. A member noted that the economics of the project seemed to have resulted in a fairly basic façade onto which there was sculptural manipulation of the balconies. They were disheartened that this was where the project derived any sense of character or architectural expression. As general commentary, this member found it troubling that the economics of these projects ultimately meant that these buildings didn't have proper investment for design or sustainability. Expose the Building Corners The Panel agreed that at minimum the design team should redistribute the balconies around the perimeter to expose the corners of the building. By exposing the corners the perception of the size of the tower would be reduced as the balconies would no longer be the most dominate form. Generally the Panel was not in favour of the proposed wraparound balconies. The Panel noted that even without balconies at the corners the design team would still be able to provide every unit with a balcony. One member suggested the balconies could be roughly redistributed to have 3 units on each floor of the north and south faces, and 4 units on each floor of the east and west faces. Design Balconies with Units The Panel felt very strongly that the balconies should be designed in conjunction with the building units, not just as sculptural ornamentation stuck to the exterior of the tower. They agreed that viewing each balcony as part their respective units and designing these two elements together would allow for a more refined balcony placement around the tower. Further to this point, several members mentioned that it would have been appropriate to show the balconies in plan with a typical floorplate so the Panel could understand how they were working as inhabitable space in addition to the sculptural expression. Building Footprint and Setback While acknowledging that the location of the building on the site was set, several members agreed that it would solve a lot of the balcony massing and setback issues if the position of the building could be moved back from Dundas Street. Regarding meeting the 3m tower stepback outlined in the Tall Buildings Guidelines, several members suggested reducing the percentage of wall with balconies was preferable to reducing the proposed building footprint to accommodate wraparound balconies within the stepback. A member thought that, moving forward, the design team should spend more time on what percentage of balcony is available to the perimeter. Dalhousie Street While the Panel was conflicted on whether the project should meet the 3m stepbacks on all the building faces, many members agreed that, due to the narrowness and existing built form/density on Dalhousie Street, it was inappropriate for the balconies to encroach on the 3m stepback on the east façade. One member suggested as a solution to only have balconies on the other three faces. A different member wondered if instead the building footprint could be moved off the eastern wall. A few members further hypothesized that perhaps the proposed encroachment to the stepback could be better tolerated on the larger streets of Dundas Street and Church Street.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


General Balcony and Tower Articulation One Panel member pointed out that it was the bulkiness of the proposed building that the City was reacting to: "the project has essentially taken a thin tower and increased the mass with the addition of the balconies." Many members agreed that the overall massing needed more work. In terms of materiality choices impacting the perceptual bulkiness, a member additionally thought the balcony panels were too opaque. A different member felt that some of the previous design iterations which had "eroded" the mass of the tower were much more interesting and successful than the current incarnation. Another member thought the current balcony design was resulting in "ragged edges" on the architectural form, and thought this was also preventing the building corners reading as the dominant form. A third member noted that with an undulating balcony form, the building perceptually never had a continuous wall, but thought this could potentially be visually interesting. Regarding the iteration that had been brought to the OMB, one member felt that conceptually it was about "collage" and breaking up the balcony fields in different ways, while they saw the iteration presented to the Design Review Panel as a "fabric building" with the balcony design creating a "woven façade." This member commented that the more recent iteration felt "chaotic", and wondered what drove the various design choices. A member suggested considering the balconies in the broader context of the site and "civic nature" of the project's location adjacent to Dundas Square. Another member thought it would help with mediation if the design team showed perspective views from street level to demonstrate the different balcony options and what the different impacts would be.

Balcony Function The Panel questioned the utility of the balconies after a certain height, with one member commenting "your ability to go out and enjoy is limited… I would use it for storage, but the angles would make it difficult to stuff things to the edge." Several members wondered if the agenda of the project was to use the balconies primarily as an aesthetic response. Several members thought that with the balcony design the composition and the utility were presently in conflict, and the design emphasis was skewing towards the sculptural form. The Panel agreed that more thought was needed towards providing an amenity for the unit. The Panel pointed out that the balconies should be a "useful depth" and inhabitable spaces. One member asked what the point of having balconies was if they were too narrow to hold a table or chairs, for example. A member suggested the Moshe Safdie development in the East Bayfront Precinct could be a precedent with reference to inhabitable and integrated balcony spaces. Many members agreed that the soffits, or the underside of the balconies, were very important spaces to consider in terms of finishes and materiality. A member pointed out that this was both an area predominantly viewed from street level as well as traditionally one of the first parts of the building to fail. The Panel also noted that the drawing package didn't include any dimensions for the balconies, which they found to be a larger issue for the project. Due to this omission, the Panel consequently felt they had only partial information for their review.

Sustainability

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Several Panel members pointed out that there were many ways the proposed balconies were negatively affecting sustainable goals. A member felt that although some energy performance issues could be offset mechanically this would be "doing the bare minimum." A few members were concerned about the partial information provided regarding sustainability strategies, and noted it was difficult again to comment with partial information. They recommended the design team utilize the Toronto Green Standard (TGS), and specifically aim for Tier 2 building performance levels. A member added as a qualifier that they would like to see modelling as part of any sustainability proposal. A member pointed out that continuous balconies contribute a lot to thermal bridging between the interior and exterior of the building, and that generally it becomes "more of a challenge" thermally the more balconies there are. This member noted that the thermal bridging will also negatively impact comfort and quality in the unit. ("The floor will be cold; there will be a cold panel wall…") They further pointed out that these issues were made more challenging by the proposed curtainwall system as those are poorly performing building envelopes in general. A member suggested a different perimeter skin could be utilized since the amount of balconies negates the aesthetic benefits afforded by glazing anyways. A few members asked whether wind, shade, sun etc. considerations were dictating the shape of the balcony, and suggested the balconies could additionally become a passive sustainability measure to address these issues as well.

Vote When preparing to vote, the Panel clarified that they were only voting on the current balcony design presented to the Design Review Panel. After a discussion, they collectively agreed that the vote was centered on the issues of setback and massing. Specifically, while noting that the building floorplate had been accepted, the Panel was voting on: whether the presented design was sufficient to forgive the stepback encroachment; whether the proposed balcony design strategy was reducing the impact of a wraparound balcony; and whether the design mitigated these issues. The Panel voted to redesign the project 5-4. The sustainability issues were not included in the parameters of the vote. Although not included, the Panel collectively thought this general question around balconies as they relate to energy performance and the Tall Building Guidelines should be further addressed, as they can see it is emerging as a city-wide problem.

design review panel meeting minutes november 2 2017 review panel minutes: meeting 67– november 2,...

Documents