city of toronto design review panel...2019/07/08 · design review panel minutes: meeting 3 –...

CITY OF TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES: MEETING 3 – March 7, 2019

The Design Review Panel met on Thursday March 7, 2019, 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): 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 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 Heather Rolleston: Principal, Design Director – Quadrangle Architects ** David Sisam: Principal – Montgomery Sisam Architects Sibylle von Knobloch: Principle – NAK Design Group

*Conf l ict for Second Item **Conf l ict for Last Item #Absent 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 February 14, 2019 by email.

MEETING 3 INDEX i. 161 Parliament Street (1st Review)ii. 333 King Street East (1st Review)iii. Scarborough Centre Focused Review – Phase 1 (1st Review)iv. OXFORD's draft Master Plan for Scarborough Town Centre (1st Review)

1 DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 3 – March 7, 2019

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 3 – March 7, 2019 1

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

DESIGN REVIEW First Review

APPLICATION OPA & Rezoning

PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Henry Tang, Community Planning;

Myron Boyko, Urban Design; Reynold Caskey, Heritage Preservation Services

DESIGN TEAM Kirkor Architects + Planners

VOTE Support – 4 Non-Support – 3

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:

Response to Context How clear is the proposal's understanding given the context of the area, specifically the proposal's interface along Queen Street East, Power Street and Parliament Street?

Built Form Massing, Height and Articulation How has the proposal addressed massing and height transition from the main street character of Queen Street East towards the regeneration area character further south?

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent for their submission and for providing a new interpretation to the mid-rise building type. Built form and public realm design are key drivers for the Design Review Panel when assessing projects, thus a clear and comprehensive document is essential. To achieve this goal further work is needed in the following areas:

Response to Context

• See Site Plan Design and Built Form.• Develop design to provide a more sensitive response to St. Paul's Basilica, context south of

the site and context along Queen and Parliament Streets.

Site Plan Design

• Response to St. Paul's Basilica:o Replace proposed north-east corner park with wider street-level setback along

entire Queen Street frontage.o Increase visibility of St. Paul's Basilica along Queen Street.

• Response re: south side of site:o Respect the 12.5 m setback along south edge of site.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


• Context along Queen and Parliament Streets: Provide wider street-level setback along Parliament Street frontage o

Pedestrian Realm

• See Site Plan Design. • Develop internal central lane through centre of site to be an attractive pedestrian

friendly/safe realm.

Built Form (Massing, Height, Articulation (including heritage conservation))

• Shift tower west to reduce presence/shadow impact on Power Street and St. Paul's Basilica. • Reduce height of proposed 10 and 11 storey “shoulder” built form to reduce bulk/presence

of development. • Maintain proposed aesthetic expression for street and “shoulder” built form but increase

visual differentiation of tower from rest of built form.

Landscape Strategy

• See Site Plan Design and Pedestrian Realm. • Create more open space at north-west corner of site, with a community amenity focus. • With wider street-level setback along Queen and Parliament provide an enhanced public

realm with increased landscape.

Sustainable Design

• With a project of this size and importance develop a holistic, highly efficient sustainability strategy for the overall building.

Comments to the City

• No comments.

Panel Commentary The Panel thanked the design team for a very thorough, clear and "high quality" presentation. The Panel appreciated the work that had been done to develop the original proposal and many members felt the project was "trending in the right direction" with regards to the architectural form.

The Panel was extremely interested in the site and the implications that it would have on a "very important part of the city". They recommended further refinement to the building massing as well as the public realm. The Panel advised developing a more sensitive response to the heritage context including St. Paul's Basilica. They looked forward to seeing the project again.

Response to Context (including local character and heritage)

Understanding the Neighbourhood Context Several members thought that the proposal needed to better understand and respond to the existing context. Many members pointed out that the site was located in a "very cool neighbourhood" made up of a mix of building typologies and uses.

One member elaborated that the neighbourhood was composed of "a great suite of industrial and religious and cultural basilicas and [different] building forms [including] a lot of great 19th century stuff and first generation retail". Another member noted that "there are ways of infusing something that could be quite meaningful from the context".

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


St Paul's Basilica While many members appreciated the planametric gesture of open space in the north east corner in response to St Paul's Basilica, the Panel did not think the park was successful. They noted that the space lacked liveability and would primarily be in shadow.

The Panel was concerned that the proposed tower was negatively impacting the adjacent heritage resources including both Power St and the Basilica. They advised that there needed to be better recognition of both the impacts of shadow and the form articulation on the Basilica itself. The Panel felt that the relationship between the tower and the Basilica was very abrupt and overwhelming.

The Panel thought the open space should relate better to the front yard of the Basilica and give the heritage building more prominence. Some members advised that the design team additionally needed to consider how people would experience their building, and in particular the base building, when exiting the Basilica. As one member noted:

"…you come out of the front doors of the building and you are elated by the experience, and I think, we always talk about urban vistas, but that actual experiential vista of coming down the grand steps of the Basilica, what will your view be? […] that would be something quite wonderful for people to leave the building and just have something to recognize that axial relationship between the podium piece and the [Basilica]."

Queen St Character Many members noted that the contextual response needed to better reflect Queen St and Parliament St as "great streets" in Toronto. The Panel noted that Queen St was unique in its diversity and culture, and physically was a "critical space". Some members felt that Queen St was so special because it is an "unofficial street" vs other more formal streets such as King St.

The Panel suggested the proposed building should more directly address the existing Queen St character. Several members thought the building façade should continue the "belt lines" created by the existing streetwall. The Panel advised focusing more attention at street grade to amplify the existing Queen St character.

Existing Character Transition The Panel thought the proposed parkette created a gap in the retail grain and should be reconsidered. Looking from a broader scale, several members felt that the proposal was located at a point of character transition to the Corktown neighbourhood just past the Basilica. Other members pointed out that the project was also sited at a vehicular gateway to downtown Toronto.

Many members felt that the proposal was still too dominating or "superscale" for the location. In terms of the challenges and responsibilities one has to the site, these members pointed out that while it is a gateway site and on the edge of two neighbourhoods, it is also part of the Queen St continuum and adjacent to the historically significant Basilica.

Site Plan Design

Servicing & Loading Some members noted that their appreciation for an inboard servicing solution rather than having it on the street. A few members advised ensuring that the covered driveway was developed as a safe space that was "welcoming and activated" through careful detailing.

Develop a Block Plan Many members wanted the design team to develop a block plan. They advised against making assumptions about the adjacent properties and specifically noted that the property in the south

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


west corner of the block could be redeveloped as a tower. The Panel then noted that it was necessary to respect the 12.5 m setback in the south.

Looking at the public realm with respect to block planning, several members suggested having enhanced setbacks on both Queen St and Power St with possibly a double allee of trees on streets to acknowledge the importance of the Power St façade as a gateway façade.

Many members noted that Parliament St was a "Great Street". They felt attention should be given to the Parliament/Queen corner.

Many members advised finding a way of making the view to the Basilica "even more special". These members thought instead of the proposed park on the northeast corner, the intersection should be turned into a "special spot" that reflected its uniqueness for the neighbourhood, as the Basilica is both part of the Queen St fabric and uniquely separated from the fabric.

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

Simplify Massing & Proposed Mix of Typologies While the Panel appreciated how much the massing had been simplified from the earlier design iteration, they advised it needed further simplification. The Panel noted there was "ambivalence" in the massing and they felt the proposal should either be a midrise building or a tower/podium.

By mixing typologies in the massing, the Panel found the current design too bulky and "crowded". Several members felt the density should be scaled down to a midrise or "villa" form with terracing from south to north. Many other members felt a pure tower/podium would help alleviate the bulk.

The Panel additionally pointed out that adjusting the form would allow the Basilica to maintain a strong presence in both the immediate and the broader context.

Distribution of Massing Across the Site The Panel had concerns with the general massing moves on the site. Several members advised simplifying and clarifying the each portion of the massing, including the base, midrise and tower, to ensure they distinctly respond to the each part of the site/related context and are articulated accordingly.

Many members noted that they weren't going to speak to the proposed height, feeling it was "outside the discussion". Some members thought the tower shoulders were "a bit looming" and recommended bringing the height of those pieces down. A few members felt that it was appropriate for corner sites to be articulated as civic thresholds.

Location of Tower Form Several members thought the setbacks and view down Power St were overpowering the basilica. They noted that by pushing the tower to the southeast it had created a canyon effect on Power St. as well negatively impacting the basilica. One member commented that "the section down [Power Street] looks pretty scary". The Panel urged further study for the location of the tower element.

Several members thought pushing the tower further west would be an improvement. Alternatively, one member suggested the north-south position instead should be adjusted. A member thought there should be a redistribution of the bulk from the tower form.

Continuity of Queen St Façade Several Panel members strongly felt it was very important not to interrupt the continuity of the Queen St façade for a "somewhat residual park". These members reiterated that the park would be in shadow. Instead, many members suggested setting back the entire building on Queen St.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Built Form Articulation Several members thought the architectural expression "looked promising" and was "quite handsome" and expressed appreciation for the level of study with respect to the base. However, the Panel noted that the architecture would not be secured as part of the rezoning application. They still advised staff to try to secure as much as possible at this point.

Materiality Continuity The Panel thought the materiality needed a unified expression that better responded to the surrounding built context. Several members felt that the quilted metal proposed along the podium was too "scaleless" for Queen St. The Panel advised analyzing different building materials.

Some members suggested translating the patterns from the taller elements at the podium level. However, many other members thought the "intense patterning of the upper levels of the building" was not successful.

Several members liked the brick expression along the Power St façade. These members advised wrapping the masonry around onto Queen St. A member additionally noted that this could begin to develop a dialogue with the heritage building across the street along Parliament to the west. They pointed out they were the same height "so why not draw a bit of a reference to that building with the use of material".

Resolve Internal Overlook & Facing Distance Issues A member pointed out that the proposed massing above the courtyard on level 3 was creating an overlook and view/facing distance issue for the units facing into the courtyard. They advised that the facing distances within the project needed to be taken as seriously as those between buildings.

Landscape Strategy

Street Trees & Public Realm Elements Some members noted that there was inconsistent inclusion of street trees across the drawings. They encouraged incorporating all the street elements as early as possible to ensure there was enough room left for the clearway and retail zones. A member pointed out that in one of the sections the building overhang seemed to infringe on the placement of street trees.

A member wanted to see further development on the public realm pieces. They suggested the grocery store at Dundas and Parliament as a precedent for a place where the street trees and landscape elements help activate the public realm, noting:

"there's all these raised planters, and they're in a sense barriers, but then you go there on a Saturday and there's nowhere to sit […] there is this community aspect of where people go to shop, and in this sense perhaps go to church".

Proposed Amenity Spaces A member appreciated the early ideas around the dog terrace run. They thought that making an exterior space with the building for dogs and their owners "would be great". However, a different member thought the adjacent pergola space was unconvincing.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


333 KING STREET EAST DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review APPLICATION Rezoning, Site Plan Approval PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Katherine Bailey, Community

Planning; Myron Boyko, Urban Design; Reynold Caskey, Heritage Preservation Services

DESIGN TEAM WZMH Architects VOTE Non-support – unanimous


1. Does the proposal comprehensively plan for the site as a whole, including the west side of

the site?

2. Is the proposed building height, massing, positioning on the block and architectural design appropriate for the site with respect to the context and character of the King-Parliament area, the original 10 blocks of the Town of York, and the relationship to King Street East and Front Street East?

3. Does the proposal adequately address the public realm, including appropriate boulevard improvements, parks/open spaces on the block, site circulation for vehicles and pedestrians, and animation of the ground floor?

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent team for their considerable efforts in tackling a complex project on a challenging site. Design ingenuity is evident, but development of strategic vision is needed in the following areas:


• Provide a master plan for the entire city block so that full future context is shown; especially west end of block.

• Improve response to existing heritage south of site.

Site Plan Design

• Include in master plan of city block strategy for reconciling vehicular servicing/access vs pedestrian movement.

Pedestrian Realm

• See Site Plan Design.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


• Significantly increase street-level public realm space.

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

• Develop built form character alternatives to proposed design for street building and tower, that are more sensitive to surrounding context.

Landscape Strategy

• Provide high quality landscape for increased street-level public realm space.

Sustainable Design

• Include in master plan whole-block sustainability strategy.


• No comments.

Panel Commentary The Panel thanked the design team for their presentation. Many members appreciated the complexity of the project due to the existing site conditions. The Panel noted that the structure, services, loading and coordination of the existing tenants would need to be knitted together "in an extremely sophisticated way for any project here to succeed".

While the Panel thought the design team had approached the logistical challenges with ingenuity and cleverness, they thought the proposal needed further work to better address the public realm and heritage context, in addition to further consideration and refinement of the built form.


Develop a Block Context Plan The Panel strongly advised that a comprehensive block context plan needed to be developed for the entire city block. Many members felt that a proposal of this scale in the evolution of the King-Parliament area as well as the evolution of the site "really presupposes that it be considered and approved in the context of a block plan".

Facing Distances & Future Development of the Block The Panel noted that the placement of this new tower would offer the opportunity for further development to the west of the site. The Panelists also pointed out that this proposed tower about already be impinging on the facing distances, particularly in the section that overlaps.

Several members questioned what the intended future of the block was, including whether this project would be the second of three towers on the site or the end of development. The Panel reiterated that a master plan would help fine tune the expectations of the area.

Integration of the Ground Plane & Public Gateway Several members questioned why there was no midblock connection given that one owner controls the property. One member contrasted this project to Calatrava's BCE Place: Galleria and Heritage Square in Toronto, which they called a "great new public space" and a gateway through a block.

The Panel felt there was a missed opportunity with this proposal and advised better integration on the ground plane. Many members suggested developing a Nolli plan to think about how to knit the site together beyond the perimeter of the block.

Heritage Context & Character

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Several members were concerned that an addition to this site of the scale being proposed needed to be considered and approved in the context of a block plan looking at the evolution of the King-Parliament area.

Many members thought the proposal needed to be more sensitive in its response to both the broader heritage context/character of the area as well as to the specific heritage buildings located to the south of the site.

Site Plan Design

Public Realm Looking at the needs of the tenants and the impacts on the public realm with the insertion of this building, the Panel wanted to see the development of a significant public realm gesture. Many members questioned how the Front St frontage would be improved long term.

Some members thought the promise of that roof space was a "wonderful idea" and encouraged keeping in the project one way or another.

Vehicular Access & Loading Several members thought that more consideration was required to resolve the different vehicular entrances into the site in terms of the pedestrian experience. Many members pointed out the loading access in front of the grocery store. The Panel felt this should be part of the block strategy.

Pedestrian Realm

Increase Public Realm Space The Panel advised that the at-grade public realm spaces needed to be increased due to the additional density in the area as a result of the proposal. Many members pointed out that the design team needed to consider how the 24 floors of office space and needs of the tenants would impact the public realm and life on the street.


Architectural Response & Massing Several members pointed out that the architectural response and massing should be dependent on whether the block was going to be a development site again in the future, reiterating the need for a block context plan.

Some members noted that if this proposal was the last projected development for the block it would give the design team more flexibility to pursue an "anti-gravitational" form that took up more of the site and was reduced in height.

However, if the currently proposed levitating object was so restricted to make room for a future tower, these members felt a different architectural response would be more appropriate. Many members thought the current form was "very bulky" and tall for a context that seemed appropriate for the "midrise scale". The Panel advised that the massing and response needed more thought.

Precedent "Anti-Gravitational" Buildings Some suggested precedents included the Rhone and Iredale Architects' Westcoast Transmission Company Tower in Vancouver; the Gunnar Birkerts' Marquette Plaza in Minneapolis and the work of the Archigram architectural collective.

Built Form Articulation While they appreciated that it was still early days, the Panel thought the architecture was trying to do too many things. Several members commented that it should either be developed as a

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


"sculptural jewel" or a "pristine […] pure structural tower"; however, the Panel felt it was not accomplishing either at the moment.

Many members felt the floorplate size needed to be reduced. One member thought the bulk of the floating tower was visually creating an "awkward" form. Another member noted that part of the success of the Rhone and Iredale building in Vancouver was the smaller floorplate size.

The Panel was concerned that the project could be precedent setting in ways that needed to be more carefully examined.

Heritage Considerations The Panel thought the height, massing and positioning on the block needed to better consider the existing area. Several members questioned whether there was a way for the proposed architecture to recognize and respect the "special neighbourhood" of the original 10 blocks of the Town of York.

Positioning on the Block The Panel was not convinced that the decision to elevate the building derived any benefit for the planning of the block and felt the positioning should be examined more comprehensively. Several members thought aspects of the proposal were not civic in nature including the location of the taller element in the middle of the block rather than at the corner.

Some members felt that the project should be a "very careful exercise in inserting something and having the architectural expression be about [the] careful maneuvering". Other members wondered if the positioning was a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Materiality Many Panel members thought that while the architecture had been carefully inserted into the existing fabric, the proposed building lacked character. Some members did not have a problem with simplicity in general, noting that the proposal could be a counterpoint to the "dynamic" Globe and Mail building; however, they felt this project should relate more to the surrounding context.

The Panel felt that the materiality needed more attention, such as the fins on top of the glass as well as the terracotta façade. Several members thought the material selection was "neither here nor there"; "an abstract façade"; and "a gauzy effect […] like it's a bit temporary along Front St".

Coordination of Existing Tenants Many Panel members noted that while one could see the logic of the complex phasing, it needed to be balanced with the needs of the existing tenants.

Landscape Strategy

Strengthen Landscape Strategy The Panel advised looking at ways to improve the public realm via the landscape strategy. Many members pointed out the existing parking lot had improvement potentials. Several members suggested developing something that had a community benefit.

Activate Front St Streetscape While the Panelists understood there may be challenges in terms of planting trees due to the existing utilities on Front St, they felt the streetscape needed more activation. Various members suggested implementing interesting lighting or community art pieces to help activate the frontage.

Sustainable Design

Many members indicated that they wanted to see a sustainability master plan developed for the entire block.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


SCARBOROUGH CENTRE FOCUSED REVIEW – PHASE 1 DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN REVIE W PANE L MINUTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review APPLICATION City Study PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Kelly Dynes, Community Planning;

Xue Pei, Urban Design DESIGN TEAM The Planning Partnership

VOTE No Vote


1. Does the draft Preliminary Public Realm Plan reflect a compelling vision and framework for change that will transform Scarborough Centre in a way that will meet the needs of existing and future residents, workers and visitors?

2. Connectivity throughout the Centre and to adjacent neighbourhoods is vital to the success of the Centre. Is this well captured in the draft Preliminary Public Realm Plan? What improvements can be made?

3. Does the Design Review Panel have any advice on key considerations for subsequent phases of the Scarborough Centre Focused Review, in particular refinements to the draft Preliminary Public Realm Plan?

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent team for their submission package and presentation. The area covered by this review is one of the City’s major hubs and is in the process of undergoing significant transformation. To take full advantage of this unique, once in a lifetime opportunity a compelling strategic vision is needed; including work in the following areas:


Define what the unique "place of choice" story will be for the future of this area, and how to make that story a built reality.

Create within each district a future context of finer-grained, well-defined neighbourhoods; each with its own distinctive character.

Ensure that mall and surrounding planned context fully weave together.

Take into consideration prior studies/reviews in City that may be relevant (e.g.: Yorkdale, Golden Mile, Fort York Neighbourhood, East Harbour, etc.).

Site Plan Design

Enhance connectivity throughout area.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


In Civic Node eliminate barriers to connectivity.

Provide significantly more park and green space in every neighbourhood within the area; including larger footprint spaces.

Pedestrian Realm

Develop (and provide more information regarding) hierarchy of pedestrian realm vs servicing.

Develop a well-connected network of different types of public realm.


Move beyond just "podium and tower" built form typology; developing a range of different typologies to help create distinctively unique neighbourhoods.

Landscape Strategy

See Site Plan Design.

Sustainable Design

Develop an area-wide holistic, interdependent strategy that provides more energy to the broader community than it uses.


The following tools are needed in order to fully assess this review: o Figure ground plan. o Comparison of proposed block sizes to existing urban fabric in central Toronto. o Diagrams/views clearly showing scale of proposed spaces vs. built form.

Given close connection with Scarborough Town Centre master plan effort, consider sharing this Panel feedback with STC proponent.

Panel Commentary The Panel thanked the study team for their presentation. Many members noted that the project comprised a "massive" study area. They were appreciative of all the materials and level to which the team had explained their process to date.

While the Panel recognized that it was an evolving process, they felt there needed to be more diversity of form, affordability and use. They advised developing a strong vision and identity for the area by working closely with the private developer along with the local community.


Future Identity for the Overarching Area The Panel thought the draft public realm plan did not yet reflect a compelling vision or framework for the future of the area. Several members commented that the planametrics had gotten ahead of the form making and character building and advised further thought should be given to what kind of place this will become.

Define the Public Realm Framework The Panel thought it was "great" to approach the study from the perspective of the public realm; however, they noted that the character of the public realm needed to be defined both as it exists in a larger, recognizable system legible at a city scale, as well as how it is experienced at a finer grain.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Many members felt this was an opportunity to also consider how the public realm could reinvest in or give prominence to new definitions of public life in the midst of the shift of the shopping experience being the primary experience on the site, dominated by cars, to being a supportive compliment to the future area.

Develop Each District as a Unique Neighbourhood Several members commented that they appreciated the overlay comparison of the area to downtown Toronto, feeling that it helped them conceptualize the scale of the study area. A few members pointed out that the equivalent area downtown held a number of distinct neighbourhoods.

The Panel advised developing the identified "emerging character areas" by further defining their unique characteristics including a kit of parts to accompany each district. Many members thought that each district should have their own open green space, high street, unique benchmarks and street and block pattern.

One member suggested that the creek district could respond to the natural edge with winding streets while the Brimley district could be more urban with a tighter block structure.

Develop the Civic & Commercial Focus Areas Many Panel members pointed out that the Civic Centre and the shopping mall were two focal points in the larger district. While the Panel felt the Civic Centre character was slowly evolving through the addition of the library and Albert Campbell Park, the shopping mall needed further consideration.

Define Future Mall Identity The Panel felt that the identity of the mall in the larger plan was an important element for how the community would emerge. The members then questioned whether the mall would become a visual focus distinguished from the new intensified community by public space buffering the existing structure, or whether the intention was for the mall to ultimately be hidden.

Site Plan Design

Develop East-West Connectivity throughout the Area The Panel advised that the connections needed to be strengthened throughout the study area. Looking at the east-west connections, some members felt that Corporate Dr. as would be an important connector for the northern portion of the precinct.

The Panel thought the east-west connection from Brimley Rd through the park zone to Albert Campbell Park and Bushby Dr. and terminating at East Highland Creek would be an essential connector for the future of the site. Several members advised further developing this connector via establishing a sense of hierarchy and a series of public spaces.

Find Ways to Bridge Physical Transit Barrier Looking at opportunities for future north-south connections, the Panel thought it was imperative to connect the civic node to the north portion of the site across the proposed "trench". The Panel noted that a big question was how the civic node could expand across "that huge barrier" calling it a "challenge" but "really important".

Organization of the Broader Site Many members pointed out that two major rings already existed in the area: an outer perimeter ring bounded by Ellesmere Rd and Hwy 401, and an inner ring from Borough Dr. looping around the mall. These members noted that looking at this as an entire city, the inner loop would be the public realm with civic infrastructure and retail.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


These members advised further developing this site organization by reinvesting in "hard and soft, active and passive public realm" to clearly define the public life of the community as well as connect the plan across the transit "moat".

Develop Figure Ground Plan for Site The Panel strongly advised developing a Nolli plan for the area to both look at what one might propose for the site as well as at what exists and might exist in other places. Several members noted that Nolli plans, or figure ground plans, are useful tools for understanding the morphological basis for public spaces.

Many other members felt a Nolli plan should also be used to refine the proposed block sizes, with several members noting that streets and blocks were the "bedrock" of precinct plans. The Panel was interested in how the proposed block sizes compare to existing blocks in downtown Toronto. They advised further consideration of walking distances etc.

Embed the Shopping Centre in the Community The Panel noted that retail and shopping centers are changing dramatically. Many members noted that many shopping centers are becoming mixed use developments with integrated residential and they advised looking at similar projects throughout Toronto.

Several Panel members pointed out that the blank exterior facades of the traditional shopping center don't make urban faces. The Panel was then concerned that several plazas had been created adjacent to the blank walls/back of the retail.

Instead, the Panel suggested bringing the streets closer to the mall and having some street related retail start to animate the edges and embed the mall into the community. Several members also advised further consideration for what the mall could look like in the future.

Pedestrian Realm

Establish Hierarchy between Pedestrian Realm & Servicing Many members found the pedestrian connections confusing. The Panel advised developing a hierarchy for the proposed connections and several members suggested further clarity around their function including: whether they were to access particular parcels; whether they would be used for loading, or whether they were intended purely for pedestrians.


Develop Range of Building Typologies The Panel noted that the only indications of built form in the plan imply a uniform tower community, which one member called "a kind of even distribution of towers on podiums going on forever". They did not think one uniform typology would add up to a compelling future community.

The Panel felt that the plan lacked a sense of scale and advised further investigation into different building typologies. They advised relating the built form back to the urban grid overlaid on the area.

Use Block Pattern to Characterize Distinct Neighbourhoods Several members felt that the incorporation and development of a Nolli plan would also be useful as it could be used to understand what scale of development parcel could fit on those blocks.

Other members pointed out that by parsing the blocks differently they could be used to help characterize the different districts such as through the development of courtyard buildings versus perimeter blocks with towers.

Landscape Strategy

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Secure Park Spaces While they understood that parkland contribution had been identified as a challenge due to the parcel sizes, the Panel pointed out that there was a very big parkland opportunity and advised securing some larger park spaces within the area.

Develop a Connected Natural Green System Many members advised developing a connected natural structure for the broader area that would anticipate and emphasize an open and green structure. These members felt an integrated, robust green system would have a powerful organizing capacity for the plan.

Some members advised looking at Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London by LDA Design and Hargreaves Associates. One member called this park "a remarkable rebuilding of a city structure […]on a scale that is all centered on a continuous river and green structure that is at least as powerful as the grid street structure".

Sustainable Design

The Panel thought the plan needed to develop a comprehensive sustainable strategy for the entire area.

Some members also raised the issue of air quality for future residents due to the proximity of Highway 401. They noted that building towers next to highways was not acceptable due to the poor air quality and noise. The Panel felt that there should be a discussion on appropriate setbacks from Highway 401.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


OXFORD'S DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR SCARBOROUGH TOWN CENTRE DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review APPLICATION Preliminary Discussion PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Kelly Dynes, Community Planning;

Xue Pei, Urban Design DESIGN TEAM Urban Strategies

VOTE No Vote


1. Is the Vision of Oxford's draft Masterplan for Scarborough Town Centre complete and comprehensive? How can their plan better respond to the emerging principles and big

moves of the draft Preliminary Public Realm Plan?

2. Do the proposed interior and exterior "streets and blocks" fabric of Oxford's draft Masterplan seamlessly interconnect with the draft Preliminary Public Realm Plan, including the three proposed POPS?

3. Is Oxford's draft Masterplan for Scarborough Town Centre, including the four character areas, proposed linear public parks, and POPS, a diverse and robust enough framework for the residential redevelopment they are proposing?

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent for bringing their draft document forward for discussion. The thoughtful evolution of the master plan, meshing mall with future context and integration with the City’s area review is much appreciated. Further work in the following areas is encouraged:


• Consider residential neighbourhood alternatives in response to noise and pollution of Highway 401 context.

• See Built Form.

Site Plan Design

• Programme variety of community amenities into master plan (e.g.: educational, civic, workplace, etc.) to provide a complete community.

• Create a variety of public spaces throughout. • Provide sufficient quantity, quality and variety of public park and green space to support

planned population.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Pedestrian Realm

• Ensure high quality, well-connected pedestrian realm throughout.


• Move beyond just "podium and tower" built form typology; developing a range of different typologies to help create distinctively unique neighbourhoods.

• Further to above consider built form precedent relative to Highway 401 edge (e.g.: Byker Wall, Newcastle, UK).

Landscape Strategy

• Further enhance landscape to create distinctively green "place of choice" neighbourhoods.

Sustainable Design

• Develop a holistic, interdependent strategy for master plan area that provides more energy to the broader community than it uses.


• See Panel comments from Scarborough Centre Focused Review – Phase 1 review session.

Panel Commentary The Panel thanked the design team for their presentation and draft document. They thought it was an exciting project for this area of the city and many members felt there were lots of good places to go with it.

They felt that the City's work on the larger district, as reviewed in the previous session on the Scarborough Centre Focused Review – Phase 1 could "mesh nicely" with this proposal. The Panel strongly advised the proponent team to work closely with the City team as the work evolves.


Develop Three Dimensional Drawings The Panel strongly advised developing three dimensional drawings as a part of the master planning for the area. Several members noted that absent three dimensional imagery it was difficult to comment on whether the strategies shown were working.

Figure Ground Plan Several Panel members thought the road network was beginning to have "a grain and a characteristic". The Panel understood that the area would be challenging to transform and some members felt that aspects of the plan could speak to a thoughtful evolution over time.

Moving forward, the Panel advised developing a Nolli plan to refine the figure ground and block pattern. The Panel was concerned that the proposal was too regimented with respect to built form.

Four Character Areas While the Panel appreciated the descriptions of the four proposed character areas, they were not convinced that they would make unique neighbourhoods. They felt that there was a potential for uniformity and advised looking for opportunities to differentiate between the various zones such as through the integration of more midrise development.

Moving forward, the Panel recommended undertaking three dimensional studies as part of developing the characteristics of the areas.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Site Plan Design

Density Distribution & Traffic Several Panel members wondered how the needs of all the additional people who would not necessarily always be shopping would be accommodated. The Panel pointed out that residential communities behave differently than either people in commercial towers or people visiting malls.

Many members were concerned that the proposed downtown district on the east side of the site would not have adequate space for the density. Looking at traffic requirements, the Panel advised superimposing peak season mall traffic on the future neighbourhood to better understand the order of magnitude of traffic trying to access and exit the area.

Need More Public Space Looking from a community level, the Panel was concerned that there was not enough public space allocated for the planned future population. Some members suggested looking at similar developments such as the West Don Lands in Toronto to compare the amount of public space.

Gateway & Arrival Places Many Panel members felt that the three proposed commercial plazas could become important gateway places for the community. A few members noted that they could function as a reinterpreted "main street" with regards to creating a sense of community.

Animate Edges of Existing Mall The Panel reiterated from the previous session on the Scarborough Centre Focused Review – Phase One, the importance of animating the exterior edges of the existing mall with new street related retail along with bringing the road closer to the building.

Integrate Mall into Future Community Building on their comments to the study team for the Scarborough Centre Focused Review, many members additionally expressed their support for embedding the mall in the revitalized area.

A few members further wondered whether portions of residential could be embedded into the retail "so that people can literally get down an elevator into the mall".

Connections across the Transit Barrier The Panel was very concerned that there had been no attempt to connect across the transit barrier to the civic node in the south. They strongly encouraged to try to find ways to connect across with one member commenting that "it would enhance this whole development if there was a much stronger connection to the Civic Centre".

Develop Phasing Drawing Several members pointed out that the proposed plan represents today's idea about how the development should happen; however, if the project represents a build out of 20-25 years a lot of things will have changed.

Different members noted that in the future there may be reduced parking demands due to less of a reliance on cars or no longer the same issues around lease agreements and signage rights resulting in more flexibility at grade.

The Panel advised developing a series of phasing drawings as well as different options for the area beyond what the current plan represents.

Pedestrian Realm

Develop Connected Pedestrian Realm

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


The Panel advised that the pedestrian realm should be developed to a high quality and be well-connected throughout the entire area.


Increase Range of Building Typologies The Panel strongly advised increasing the range of built form throughout the area. The members were not convinced of the efficacy of podiums with typically two towers as the prevailing typology for the area. They felt it would not provide "diversity of form, diversity of affordability, [or] a diversity of character to make this place what it needs to be".

The Panel encouraged more exploration into having a wider variety of building forms to improve the neighbourhood as well as the quality of the street.

Distribution of Built Form The Panel thought the proposed distribution of the built form across the site needed further investigation. Many members noted that there were numerous one storey buildings proposed adjacent to large tower forms.

Some members specifically felt that it would be more appropriate for the two towers proposed for the west side of Brimley Rd, to be 8 or 9 storey mid rises, similar to the form of St. Lawrence neighbourhood in downtown Toronto.

The Panel advised testing different building forms for alternatives that still achieved the proposed population density while allowing for such things as access to light. A member pointed to Leslie Martin's Centre for Land Use and Built Form at Cambridge University, which looks at the distribution of housing and density, as a resource for density alternatives and neighbourhood variety.

Relocate Residential Towers Adjacent to Highway 401 Several Panel members took issue with the placement of a series of residential towers and podiums against Highway 401 to buffer the park and adjacent uses from the noise and pollution from the highway. One member commented that "I don't think that's the way people should be used".

The Panel advised looking at examples of buildings, such as Ralph Erskine's Byker Wall in Newcastle, for examples that deal with "hostile situations" in ways that are informed by their location.

Exploration of Different Neighbourhood Typologies Many members questioned whether a tower neighbourhood would make for a great community. They felt that in the current design the towers were operating "like a fence" around the low scale center.

A member suggested looking at Roehampton, the famous post war development in London, where the sensibility of landscape was used to inform the disposition of the towers such to capture views, have an appreciation of light, and where the dense buildings became part of an English landscape.

Landscape Strategy

Create Hierarchy & Variety of Public Spaces While they appreciated the thought given to the types of spaces, the Panel advised developing a hierarchy of public spaces as an integral part of the master plan and way to organize the community. Various members thought it was important to include larger and "more spectacular" public spaces as well as "arrival places".

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Other members agreed, stating that "yes, there is a certain wonderfulness to granularity and discovering your way, but there is also something about creating a strong place […] that is not coming across yet". Some members felt there were some good precedents cited in the proposal.

Interior Mall Connections & Commercial Plazas Several members felt that the commercial plazas had a lot of good potential. While they noted that the architecture was still undefined, by being used as linking devices these spaces lining the mall could animate the facades and activate the ground floor.

Some members noted that how the spaces are programmed would be critical for their success as animators and public amenity spaces. A few members suggested developing an integrated wayfinding strategy for these connector spaces.

Linear Park Several members questioned whether the proposed linear park would provide enough space for the new community and amount of people going to the mall. Some members also wondered whether the space had been consolidated enough to be effectively programmed.

A few members suggested redistributing the development at the west end in conjunction with shifting the park parcel south to both better connect the park to the south and allow for the programs that may be necessary in a community of this size.

Other members pointed out that by shifting the parcels, the park would have two smaller streets rather than a large central street bisecting the park. The Panel advised that the smaller streets would be safer and provide a better level of animation at the edges.

Sustainable Design

The Panel advised developing a comprehensive sustainability strategy as a part of the overarching master plan for the area.

city of toronto design review panel...2019/07/08 · design review panel minutes: meeting 3 –...

Documents