city of toronto - mississauga · urban designer program manager. background to the toronto drp •...
TRANSCRIPT
City of Toronto
Friday November 13, 2009
Hamish Goodwin Leo Desorcy
Urban Designer Program Manager
Background to the Toronto DRP
• April 2007, Council approval of the Pilot Project
• 2 year pilot period: July 2007 – July 2009
(extended to Nov. 2009)
• The pilot project will help determine the feasibility of a
city-wide design review panel
• The pilot period was an opportunity to determine what
thresholds were appropriate for identifying projects for
review by the panel
Ontario Association of Architects: 6
1. Gordon Stratford (Chair), Sr. Vice President,
Director of Design - HOK Canada
2. Michael Leckman (V/Chair) Principal – Diamond & Schmitt
3. Shirley Blumberg, Principal - KPMB
4. Ralph Giannone, Principal - Giannone Associates
5. David Pontarini, Principal - Hariri Pontarini
6. Sol Wassermuhl, President - Page and Steele / IBI Group
Ontario Association of Landscape Architects: 3
7. Robert Allsopp, Principal - du Toit Allsop Hillier
8. Paul Ferris, Principal - Ferris Associates
9. Janet Rosenberg, Principal - Janet Rosenberg Associates
Ontario Professional Planners Institute: 2
10. Dan Leeming, Partner - The Planning Partnership
11. Eric Turcotte, Senior Associate - Urban Strategies
Professional Engineers Ontario: 1
12. Peter Halsall, President - Halsall Associates
DRP Members
Meeting Procedures
• Monthly meetings
• Public forum, non-participatory
• Members receive info package 1 week prior to the meeting
• 4 projects reviewed / meeting
• Vote is held at end of each review
Types (and #) of Projects Reviewed
Private Development
Condominiums (27)
Townhouses (2)
Office (1)
Religious (1)
Public Projects
Landscape plans for new public parks (3)
Public Infrastructure (bridges) (2)
Transit Projects (3)
Public Policy Documents (2)
Sample Review of Supported Projects
Mixed-use Condominium (Scarborough Centre)
First review – March 2008
Summary: scale, massing, articulation
and materiality is inappropriate within the
neighbourhood context
Outcome: Non-support (0 – 11)
Second review – May 2008
Major revisions Included:
•Lowered bookends
•Use of brick rather than metal cladding
•Finer grain relates better to site context
•Step-backs reduce massing and shadowing on
neighbours
Outcome: Support (5 – 1)
Types of Comments Received
• The Panel appreciates the importance of street trees in their role of greening of the city,
contributing to air quality and enhancing livable communities
• This project presents an excellent opportunity for the TTC to reestablish a progressive
design presence and quality
• short-term financial considerations should not curtail the
opportunity to provide for a meaningful and symbolic civic gesture
• develop maintenance specifications and funding that ensures long term success
• [the City should]… reintroduce its rich history of building fine
public buildings, and fulfill its important role of building urban
landscapes which become true instruments of civic life, identity and
vitality
Pilot Project User Survey….
What do you like about the DRP?
• The Panel provides strong emphasis on the urban design and
architectural merits of a proposal in contrast to more numeric
preoccupations in planning
• It is a very good way to elevate the importance of good design in
the City
• It gives staff the confidence to support high quality projects
• Helps the relation between architect and clients, giving a stronger
voice to design issues
• There is much benefit from comments that come from a broad
spectrum of disciplines
What do you DIS-like about the DRP?
• the majority of comments were not relevant to what was proposed
and certainly not feasible for a project of this size
• Panel input was received far too late in the process
• The panel members did not understand the site context
• Some comments were derogatory and uncalled for
• No opportunity to defend the design presented after comments
received by panel members
• It complicates an already cumbersome approval process rather than
refines it
• There is a great deal of chance in the outcome - it's like asking 5
people what colour to paint your living room and receiving 5
different choices
Suggestions for Improvement?
• Have the Panel involved right at the beginning of the project, when
hand sketches are being reviewed
• Ensure Panel members understand the context of the site and review
information before meeting
• Some responses from the applicant should be allowed and could
prove beneficial to the outcome
• Issues of massing and density should be touched on but should not
be a deciding force in the vote
• A landscape architect should not comment on density, setbacks etc.
• There is no mechanism for correcting the Panel if they have mis-
understood something.
Pre-DRP Commentary
Pilot Project Evaluation
• A Design Review Panel for Toronto is feasible
• Stakeholder feedback has generally been positive
• “blanket” review for all projects is unpractical & unnecessary
• Focus on larger projects with significant public realm components
• only projects which are at the EARLY stage of design-
development should be considered
Recommendations for Public Projects
• All Public capital projects with a significant visual and
physical impact upon the public realm will be reviewed
by the Panel.
• Refer to attachment for additional info
Recommendations for Private Development
• projects with minor public realm impacts, such as
townhouses, will be excluded
• Focus upon “Growth” areas which are experiencing
development pressure (Centres, Avenues, Downtown and
priority transit routes)
Private Development (Existing)
Scarborough CityCentre
St. Lawrence King-Parliament
Humber Bay Shores
North YorkCentre
Etobicoke Centre
Fort York
Private Development (Proposed)
Implementation Points
The Chief Planner will have discretion to add a project for review which
does not meet the thresholds but which is of City-wide significance for one
of the following reasons:
• The proposal is likely to establish the planning, form or architectural
quality for future large-scale development or re-development in an area;
• The proposal is out of the ordinary in its context or setting because
of scale, form, materials or surroundings;
• The proposal is particularly relevant to the quality of everyday life
and contains design features which, if repeated, would offer substantial
benefits for the City or, conversely, detriments; or
• The proposal is a ‘test case’ and would be likely to set precedents for
City building
Lessons Learned
Flexibility. The format needs to be flexible in order to
respond to different project needs or other specific nuances
Consistency in rigour. Standards of design excellence should apply to all projects. This helps maintain credibility of the
Panel, and spread standards of design excellence beyond the
Panel’s realm
Predictable for all stakeholders. Stakeholders should be able to understand the process and know where they fit it.
Design Review should not be used as a tool to stall development
Early Early. The Process is most beneficial when projects
are at the early stages of design development
end