2024

267 O’Connor St. | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment & Zoning By-law Amendment Application | Taggart Realty Management, Hobin Architecture, UNStudio

Key recommendations

• The Panel members welcomed UNStudio to the project and expressed their gratitude to the proponent for engaging in a productive discussion with the Special Review Design Panel.
• The Panel appreciates that the project is moving in a positive direction toward the requirement of a landmark building—which is to provide the community with privately owned public space, which may incorporate vital institutional use(s), and landmark architecture while remaining respectful of the Centretown Heritage Conservation District.
• The Panel has fundamental concerns with the proposed density on the site, particularly in relation to the sensitivity of the heritage neighbourhood context.
  • The Panel recommends further exploration of alternate massing/density options that improve the building’s transition to the immediate heritage context (e.g., reducing the height and/or tower floorplate of the south-east tower).
• The Panel asks that the proponents provide further visual analysis of how the proposal fits within the context of the Centretown Heritage Conservation District, and the immediate vicinity in all directions, prior to their next review with the Special Review Design Panel. The Panel suggests modelling both the current and future planned contexts for the area would be a good basis for such an analysis.
  • The Panel seeks clarification on the proposed development’s relationship with the east property line and adjacent properties, noting that the current relationship needs refinement to address both the current and planned context. 
• The Panel supports the design approach and material palette proposed for the podium.
• The Panel recommends the podium and towers should be designed in a manner that faces and treats O’Connor Street as the primary façade, cautioning that the current proposal seems to have the building turning away from O’Connor Street and puts too much focus on the local side streets (Gilmour Street and MacLaren Street).
  • Some Panel members suggest exploring a slight increase in podium height along O’Connor Street and stepping down toward the east to relate with the heights of the adjacent heritage context may be a solution that helps re-establish the building’s west elevation as the primary façade of the development.
• The Panel supports the overall architectural expression of the towers but has concerns with the cantilever's impact on the public realm/privately owned public space (particularly in the south corner) as well as the minimal separation distances proposed between the towers and to adjacent properties.
  • The Panel suggests removing/reducing the corner balconies as a potential way to mitigate the negative impacts of the overhang on the public realm below.
  • The Panel suggests further shaping/reducing the massing of the towers to allow for appropriate separation distances from adjacent properties and from one another.
• The Panel encourages the proponents to expand the scope of the institutional use and ensure that the building’s architecture clearly defines—and is informed by—the institutional space.
  • The Panel recommends the proponents secure and clarify the institutional use prior to their next review with the Special Review Design Panel.
• The Panel appreciates the look and feel of the interior space but strongly recommends that the urban room be lined with public and/or publicly accessible uses, and have strong visual connections to the exterior public realm on all sides in order to be readily apparent to the community as a publicly accessible space.

Site design and public realm

• The Panel appreciates the vision to express the design with green infrastructure horizontally and vertically, but did not fully see that vision permeate into the plans and renderings.
• The Panel encourages the proponents to consider bringing additional privately owned public space to the podium rooftop, with a clear public connection to the indoor/outdoor privately owned public space at ground level.
• The Panel recommends exploring more privately owned public space external to the building. There should also be a greater proportion of the privately owned public space provided as exterior space rather than as interior space, with an emphasis toward at-grade privately owned public space.
• The Panel has concerns with the current program proposed around the urban room inhibiting its success as a premier public space for the community.
  • The Panel recommends the urban room space be lined with uses that would encourage engagement from the public.
• The Panel suggests further bolstering the relationship between the interior and exterior privately owned public space at ground level in order to create an interior privately owned public space that truly reads as a publicly accessible space.
  • Consider the importance of strong public connections to all streets, including the local streets, for a successful interior privately owned public space.
• The Panel suggests the proponents undertake a study of the neighbourhood's open spaces to determine the lack of public space available in the area and then adjust the size and program of the proposed exterior and interior privately owned public space accordingly.
• The Panel seeks clarification on how the project interacts with the east property line, emphasizing the need for refinement to better integrate with both the existing surroundings and the future development plans.

Sustainability

• The Panel questions the sustainability of the cantilever given the embodied carbon necessary.
• The Panel has concerns with the sustainability and implications of using aluminum materials in the design.
  • Consider using durable noble materials in the design as much as possible. 
• The Panel asks that the proponents provide a revised shadow analysis and wind analysis of the design and massing prior to their next review with the Special Review Design Panel.

Built form and architecture

• The Panel understands the proponents’ desire for a two-tower building. However, the Panel has concerns with the size and mass of the towers, which are too large for the site.
• The Panel suggests the tower massing/program be revised with reduced floorplate sizes in order to increase the separation distance between the two towers and improve both building’s relationships with the public realm and the historic context. The Panel has concerns with the heaviness and expansiveness of the towers along the small local streets, Gilmour Street and MacLaren Street.
• The Panel appreciates the architectural expression demonstrated in both the podium and the towers which differentiate their expressions depending on orientation. The Panel also appreciates the thoughtful consideration given to the design of the tower top, but question the orientation of the slope.
• The Panel suggests that a single tower on the site may be more suitable given its size, and that pursuing a single tower massing could help with strengthening the relationship with O’Connor Street as the main arterial (e.g., orienting the longer façade along O’Connor Street).
• The Panel appreciates the attention given to the details of the podium, such as the colour selection, architectural detailing, and brick material used in the façade. However, to assist with understanding how these fit within the context, and how they might be improved, the renderings of the podium should accurately show the surrounding buildings.
• The Panel suggests that the podium currently appears squat beneath the towers, and recommends working with City staff to improve the building massing in a way that rebalances the tower and podium relationship to visually hold the weight of the towers, while remaining respectful of the surrounding Heritage Conservation District and stepping down to the public realm and the scale on all sides.
  • Consider sculpting the towers to reduce the overall massing, or pursuing a single tower option, to create a better balance between the tower and podium.
  • Consider studying stepping the podium up slightly toward O’Connor Street to give the podium a stronger presence along the main arterial, while maintaining the two-storey height toward the east/neighbourhood. These studies should be shared first with staff for their review and comment.
  • Consider lightening the towers visually as a possible solution to rebalancing the tower-podium relationship.
• The Panel suggests giving the towers a lighter appearance by reducing the overhang of the corner balconies and limiting the number of projecting balconies.
• The Panel has concerns with the large, tower cantilever which in their view negatively affects the privately owned public space and public realm. The Panel recommends softening the cantilever as much as possible, potentially by sloping/tapering it considerably over several floors or increasing the height of the cantilever to at least six or seven-storeys above the privately owned public space. The Panel provided a few examples in Toronto, such as the Pinnacle on John Street and 8 Cumberland Street.
   

1500 Merivale Road | Formal review | Site plan control application | Claridge Homes Inc., EVOQ Architecture, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key recommendations:

• The Panel The Panel is supportive of the overall vision of the Master Plan for this site.
• The Panel appreciates that this is a complex site which creates challenges, particularly regarding the ground plane relationship to Merivale Road and the future park space.
• The Panel recommends further consideration is required in terms of the overall site plan and the buildings surrounding context. Consider strengthening the relationship between the building and the park edge to the north, with particular attention to how the ramp could be screened from the park, potentially with commercial frontage onto the park.
• The Panel recommends regularizing the two sides of the proposed new street as a gateway into the site. On the western side of the new street, locate the street-trees between the roadway and the pedestrian sidewalk as is shown for the opposing eastern side of the street.
• The Panel recommends discussing with the City what a possible interim condition could be along Merivale Road, despite the potential future widening. It is important to determine the future street condition of Merivale Road, and how this project can relate to Merivale in the interim.
• The Panel recommends further considering the context between the proposed building and the neighbouring property to the west. The goal of this space should be to create a pedestrian entry to the site that would connect to the future park as well.
• The Panel appreciates and supports the overall garden and pathway concept.
• The Panel recommends simplifying the base of the building and making the building appearance lighter.
• The Panel has concerns with the hydro-vault at the southwest corner of the building, and the overall relationship of the building base to the street edge along Merivale Road and the new local street.

Site design and public realm:

• The Panel appreciates the efforts made by this master plan to urbanize the existing context in this area.
• The Panel recommends ensuring that the Master Plan and Secondary Plan for this area strongly consider the overall street network, and suggests greater land consolidation could be beneficial to the final outcome of this new community.
• The Panel supports the strong singular idea of how buildings set in the landscape. The relationship between the buildings and the “finger” parks and landscaping is very positive.
• The Panel recommends the landscaping of this site be more indicative of future phases of the Master Plan, and the park should be delivered in this first phase of the project.
• The Panel expressed that a tree-planted edge is important to have at this site, particularly along the new local street, and recommends bringing the sidewalk closer to building while placing the street trees between the roadway and the pedestrian sidewalk to set up a more urban condition. Consider matching the street edge and planting condition proposed for the east side of the new street.
• The Panel appreciates providing a promenade that is accessible to the public around the site, but more thought about the relationship of the building to the park is needed.
• The Panel expressed the importance of having a more urban edge to the park, potentially having units at-grade fronting the park space, while softening the edge of the site between the underground parking ramp and the park.
• The Panel recommends internalizing the bicycle parking for the building residents, with the potential for a bicycle sharing program on the south-west corner in the future.
• The Panel recommends additional planting wherever possible, especially with respect to Merivale Road right-of-way, which needs a much more robust greening plan.

Sustainability:

• The Panel recommends the applicant pursue a holistic approach to sustainability and site design. This will be particularly important for this Master Plan, along with ensuring there is sufficient public transit to support the size and future density of the overall site.
• The Panel recommends ensuring the Master Plan development provides a complete community that develops with the adjacent areas to be part of a cohesive whole.
• The Panel recommends focusing on sustainability as a major aspect of this Master Plan, considering the great opportunity for sustainable stormwater management, district energy, geothermal, etc.

Built form and architecture:

• The Panel appreciates the architectural design of the building and the overall Master Plan for the project.
• The Panel appreciates the use of colour and inset balconies in the architectural expression of the building.
• The Panel notes that Phase one of the Master Plan will be an indicator of future phases to come. Consider the lighter-coloured material palette for this building and evoking more of the optimistic and colourful architectural style(s) to come.
• The Panel questions whether this building is best served by the darker material palette, and proposes pursuing the lighter palette that is prominent throughout the rest of the Master Plan for this building. The darker palette seems to be reserved for ‘knuckle’ buildings in the Master Plan, which this is not.
• The Panel recommends simplifying the architecture of this Phase one building. The curve along the eastern elevation and the lower eastern portion is too much of a contrast to the simple bar building architecture of the rest of the Master Plan—which is not deconstructed.
• The Panel recommends pursuing a pavilion-style building with four frontages, with particular attention on fitting into the new urban context.
• The Panel appreciates the two-storey scale of the base, and recommends it wrap around along Merivale Road as well to set up more of a pedestrian scale.
• The Panel suggests however, that the two-storey base should read as one-storey, and should be extended along the south and east elevations.
• The Panel suggests the punched window openings in the two-storey element appear as a residential scale and recommends instead pursuing a more heightened feel to the building base. Consider a bigger, heightened, and more refined architectural gesture at the southeast corner.
• The Panel recommends emphasizing the building entrances to have a clearer and more prominent feel for easier wayfinding.
• The Panel has concerns with the prominent location of the hydro vault on the ground floor, and recommends doing whatever is possible to mitigate its prominence on the streetscape, including moving it elsewhere if possible.
• The Panel suggests, as a stand-alone building that will be viewed and experienced ‘in the round’, there is potential for commercial uses along park edge (e.g., lunch spot, bike shop, etc.).
• The Panel recommends the two grade-related residential suites which project on the east side of the building would be better served as a retail or community use.
• The Panel has concerns that there are too many different elements at the base level, and recommends simplifying the expression/ground floor plan, with greater focus on how the lower levels relate to the surrounding context/landscape.

829 Carling Avenue | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan Control Application | Claridge Homes, Hariri Pontarini Architects, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the presentation and the revisions to many of the aspects of the previous design. In particular, the elimination of the above grade parking.
• The Panel recommends further design work is required to create a thriving public realm and streetscape that introduces the UNESCO world heritage site across the street.
• The Panel offered commentary on recommended changes to the ground floorplan.
• The Panel suggests the podium need not be the same number of storeys and height on all sides, but recommends further study on how the podium relates to the surrounding buildings and context to inform the podium heights and datums, especially along Preston Street.
• The Panel has concerns with the corner treatments of the building—both in the podium base as well as in the tower portion.
• The Panel strongly recommends ensuring the podium corners are transparent elements that animate the street frontage.
• The Panel recommends the tower expression have more of a singular vision and refine the tapered top to have more of an iconic silhouette.
• The Panel has concerns with the wind analysis provided and recommends ensuring a comfortable pedestrian experience at grade.

Public realm and site design

• The Panel appreciates that the site is tight for a tower of this scale.
• The Panel questions whether locating the retail along Carling Avenue, rather than along Preston Street, is the appropriate approach.
• The Panel recommends pursuing retail continuity and animated uses along Preston Street as much as possible, especially at the north-east corner of the building.
• The Panel recommends relocating the lobby and mail room in order to provide more commercial space along Preston Street.
• The Panel suggests it is extremely important to establish the appropriate datums, scale, and setbacks in the first 10-15 metres of the building in order to create a suitable streetscape and a strong pedestrian experience.
• The Panel recommends finding a better solution for the pinched public realm along Preston Street to ensure that all street fixtures can be accommodated. Consider alternative options, such as the potential relocation of the ‘Little Italy’ signage to a better location in order to provide a more ambitious public realm experience complete with street trees and street fixtures.
• The Panel recommends ensuring that the pedestrian clearway along Preston Street connects from the north of the site straight through to Carling Avenue.
• The Panel has concerns with the viability of the street trees. Ensure that trees will be able to thrive through implementation of open planters, soil cells, adequate space, protection from salt, etc.
• The Panel recommends removing the existing trees on Preston Street (as they will not survive the construction process), and continuing the planter and tree planting treatment of the Soho site to the north to establish a sense of continuity along Preston Street.
• The Panel is pleased to learn that the proposed street trees along Carling Avenue will not run into the below grade issues that the Icon site across the street faced.
• The Panel notes that Dow’s Lake is a UNESCO World Heritage site directly to the south of this proposal. As such, the planting design approach should reference that iconic landscape. Consider large street trees along Carling Avenue that reference the cultural heritage landscape to the south, rather than gingko trees.
• The Panel appreciates the location of the servicing and parking ramp at the north-west corner, with access off Sidney Street.
• The Panel recommends ensuring the pedestrian experience along Sidney Street is successful as a future major pedestrian connection to the LRT station. Consider relating to the treatment/condition of the Soho building across the street and having some animation fronting Sidney Street.
• The Panel recommends opening up the south-east corner at Carling Avenue and Preston Street to ensure a strong public realm and corner presence.
• The Panel recommends the corners of the podium be transparent at grade. Prioritize the south-east corner and north-east corner as key areas for transparency and animated uses, followed by the south-west corner along Carling Avenue.
• The Panel has concerns with the wind study provided being too vague (stating that the situation would be ‘adequate’). The Panel highly recommends ensuring that the wind conditions do not negatively impact the pedestrian experience at street level; consult with wind engineers to confirm comfortable pedestrian experience.

Podium architecture and design

• The Panel greatly appreciates the elimination of the above-grade parking from the previous proposals. It was a major concern of the Panel’s previously, and is a very valued change to the proposal.
• The Panel suggests the podium design should emphasize the masonry gridded framework, with the corner reveals being fully glazed ‘cut-out’ elements. Consider extending the masonry grid to the corner elements and replacing the metallic panel corner elements with a re-entrant glass corner.
• The Panel recommends dropping the scale of the podium to relate more closely to the scale of the streetscape and its adjacent buildings (Icon 1 across the street to the east and the Soho building across the street to the north). The Panel considers Icon 1 and Soho to have successfully achieved the appropriate podium scale for the context.
• The Panel appreciates the stone masonry material proposed for the podium and encourages the proponents to explore a stone grid frame with more glazing and transparency at the corners.
• The Panel suggests the six to nine-storey range is an appropriate height for the podium along Carling Avenue in this location. However, the Panel strongly recommends a lower podium height of three- to four-storeys would be a more appropriate scale for the streetscape and context along Preston Street and Sidney Street. Consider aligning the datums of the podium with those of the Soho building to the north and the Icon 1 building to the east.
• The Panel has concerns that the opacity of the corner elements is disrupting animated/retail continuity along the Preston Street and negatively impacts the success of the podium.

Tower architecture and design

• The Panel believes that Icon 2 should be an iconic building in this high-profile location, but it should also complement Icon 1, which the Panel views as successfully providing a compelling identity from top to bottom. The Panel notes that the original Icon 2 tower design had a more clearly defined architectural expression that complemented Icon 1, whereas the current tower design has lost that clarity of expression with the introduction of the opaque sculptural corners and the loss of the layering and stepping language that was proposed in the original design.
• The Panel suggests drawing some inspiration from the original proposal which had more of a singular vision for the tower.
• The Panel expresses the importance of having a singular vision in the development of the tower design, suggesting that the opaque sculptural corner elements distract from the tower’s architectural expression and presence. Consider emphasizing the building’s architectural framework rather than placing so much emphasis on these opaque sculptural corner elements.
• The Panel recommends the grid frame of the tower should be the focal point, while the sculptural corner elements could potentially be successful as simplified transparent glass elements which highlight and further emphasize the frame.
• The Panel recommends Icon 2 should have a distinct expression from Icon 1, and does not need to evoke the curvilinear language of Icon 1 to be a successful tower. Consider building on and emphasizing the verticality of the original design going forward, in combination with emphasizing the tower frame, rather than juxtaposing the corner and top elements against an otherwise rectilinear façade expression.
• The Panel recommends further developing a tapered expression to the tower top. Consider tapering the tower with the north and south as primary, and from the west and east as secondary. The Panel recommends building upon the proposed tapered framework/silhouette to the tower top rather than relying on the sculptural corner elements/façade materials to create a tapered effect.
• The Panel suggests exploring the potential the grid frame tapering at the tower top as well as at the podium level to reveal glazed corner elements.

Next steps

• The Panel recommends the applicant’s revised design be circulated with the Special Design Review Panel for review and comment, with the option of requiring an additional meeting with the Special Design Review Panel to be determined upon review.
   

1740-1760 St-Laurent Boulevard | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan Control Application | Groupe Heafy, Lapalme + Rheault Architectes, PMA Landscape Architects, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key recommendations

• The Urban Design Review Panel appreciates the proponent’s thoroughness of the submission package for such a large and complex project.
• The Panel strongly recommends adding a more pedestrian-focused layer to the site design, with a more robust tree planting approach and public realm spaces.
• The Panel has concerns with the amount of surface parking and servicing areas being proposed at-grade and recommends internalizing those elements entirely within the building envelopes and/or underground.
• The Panel appreciates and supports the evolution of the POPS space from the previous iteration of the design.
• The Panel recommends relocation the entrances of Tower 2 and Tower 4 to a more central point in the building, along Everest Private, with grade-related units to either side.
• The Panel recommends more of a mid-rise typology for the western portion of the site (Towers 2 and 4), and a higher-density on the eastern portion along St-Laurent Boulevard.
• The Panel recommends reducing the size of the tower floorplates to abide by the City’s design guidelines.
• The Panel appreciates the brown brick base and recommends further establishing that element to read more like a podium.
• The Panel recommends simplifying and lightening the appearance of the towers above the brick podium, as they currently appear heavy and opaque.
  • Consider forgoing the darker metal paneling and relying on more white, pop of coloured glass dividers, and balcony expression to inform the tower design above the brick podiums.
• The Panel recommends foregoing the drive-thru component on Tower 1 and replacing it with on-street parking for restaurant pick-ups, in order to provide a more pedestrian-friendly site and ‘Complete Streets’.
• The Panel recommends further exploring and developing a sustainability strategy. Focus should be on striving for better stormwater management, lowering heat island effects, and greening the site as much as possible.

Site Design & Public Realm

• The Panel has concerns with the amount of surface parking in the proposal, and recommends relocating all or most of the parking underground, in order to provide a greater community amenity and green spaces.
• The Panel recommends further refining the servicing and loading areas to be more functional.
  • Consider garbage pick-up from enclosed areas within the building footprints, as well as move-in/move-out areas.
  • The Panel recommends grade-level areas should be nice courtyards and public spaces rather than servicing areas and surface parking.
• The Panel has concerns with the drive-thru around the north-east tower (Tower 1) detracting from an otherwise urban development, and recommends replacing the drive-thru with a limited number of street-parking spaces for the restaurant (Uber, Doordash, Skip, etc.) along Everest Private as a more sustainable option.
  • The Panel recommends, beyond a few short-term parking spaces for the restaurant, all commercial and residential parking should be located underground.
• The Panel recommends the proponents ensure that Everest Private and St-Laurent Boulevard be developed as ‘Complete Streets’ in collaboration with the City.
• The Panel appreciates the way the POPS has evolved and the integration with St-Laurent Boulevard.
  • Consider how the POPS could further connect with Everest Private by relocating the surface parking underground.
• The Panel recommends the site establish a more robust tree-lined character along the central access street (Everest Private), as well as a tree-lined pedestrian allée connecting Everest Private to St-Laurent Boulevard through the POPS park space, reducing the heat island effect and noise travel.
  • The Panel recommends pursuing more of a clustered tree approach in soil cells along St-Laurent Boulevard rather than single individually placed trees. Consider 2 or 3 clusters of 3 trees each.
• The Panel recommends exploring the idea of a playground space as part of the POPS park space that can gather families in the community together.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends implementing more natural and pervious treatments at grade level.
  • Consider reducing the use of concrete and asphalt at-grade in favour of pervious pavers and vegetation.

Built Form & Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the brick podiums and the planting edge condition they are providing.
  • The Panel recommends further building on and refining that “Frank Lloyd Wright” inspired podium expression, particularly along St-Laurent Boulevard.
  • The Panel recommends ensuring the planting edge of the brick podiums is designed with adequate room and irrigation for a proper green edge to thrive.
• The Panel recommends the podium expression along St-Laurent Boulevard be 2-storeys in height or more.
  • The Panel suggests the north-east corner of Tower 3 should provide a visual anchor in its architectural expression as the clear entrance to the site.
• The Panel has concerns with how heavy the upper ‘tower’ portions of the buildings appear.
  • Consider lightening up the architectural expression/massing of the buildings.
  • Consider foregoing the grey metal siding in favour of another material/colouration.
• The Panel has concerns with the proportions of the punch windows on all four buildings appearing very small, and recommends providing larger punch windows to help lighten the appearance of the elevations.
• The Panel recommends internalizing stairwell shafts away from exterior walls wherever possible in order to reduce opaque exterior wall conditions on the elevations caused by the stairwells.
  • In particular, the Panel has concerns with the stairwell along St-Laurent Boulevard in the North-East tower (Tower 1).
  • The Panel recommends further internalizing the stairwells away from the exterior walls would assist in lightening up both the appearance of the tower façades and the units by allowing for more window opportunities.
• The Panel has concerns with how the bottom 1-2 storeys of the tower’s architecture appears disconnected from the tower’s upper portions.
  • The Panel recommends creating more of a relationship between the horizontal base architecture and the verticality of the tower expression above.
• The Panel recommends adjusting the ground floor layout of towers 2 & 4 in order to have the main entrance more central to the building and relate better to the street along Everest Private, and relocating the grade-related units to either side of the entrance.
  • The Panel recommends foregoing the 1-storey notching of the brick that currently takes place over the two entrance areas (towers 2 & 4), in favour of a simpler articulation.
• The Panel appreciates what appears to be coloured glass balcony dividers, and recommends further pursuing this element of the architectural expression as an interesting device that provides flashes of colour in the towers.
• The Panel has concerns with how many materials are being used and layered into the tower designs, and recommends reducing the number of materials used in the façades.
• The Panel recommends paying particular attention to how the façades are vented, as vents tend to have a prominent effect on the façade design.
• The Panel has concerns with the large floorplate sizes of the towers and complicated building envelopes.
  • The Panel recommends going with taller and slimmer towers, and simpler floorplan designs, in order to build more efficient and economical towers.
  • The Panel recommends adhering to a maximum of 750 m² floorplates, as per the City’s design guidelines for high-rise buildings.
  • Alternatively, the Panel suggests previous versions of the proposal from 2020/2021 which were lower in height and more of a bar building typology could result in a more livable site for people and families, especially in combination with a strong public realm at grade and underground parking.
• The Panel recommends pursuing mid-rise building heights along western edge of the site, in consideration of transition to the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood.
  • Consider reallocating higher-density toward St-Laurent Boulevard.

265 Catherine Street | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan Control Application | Brigil, BDP Quadrangle, GBA Group

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates and supports how the project has come along through multiple reviews and the proponent’s willingness to attend Urban Design Review Panel for multiple reviews.
• The Panel appreciates the multiple reviews and correspondence this project and the proponent team has accommodated to improve the proposal.
• The Panel appreciates and supports the strong attention to detail apparent in this high quality and highly urban proposal, and are hopeful to see that carry through to the build out of the site.
• The Panel supports and appreciates the changes that have been implemented since the previous Urban Design Review Panel's review.
  • The Panel appreciates the lowering of the podium heights and revised massing.
  • The Panel appreciates the refinements made to the material and colour palette of the podium’s architectural expression(s).
  • The Panel appreciates the refinements made to improve the public realm, landscaping, and pedestrian experience through the site.
• The Panel recommends a refined focus on the details of the design, especially regarding the nuances of colour and textures in the materiality, in order to deliver on the high-quality architectural details of the proposal.
  • In particular, the Panel recommends giving considerable attention to the white material in the podiums, and suggest in general to maintain a varied masonry materiality in the podium.
• The Panel recommends revisiting the scale of the townhouses in the project and ensuring that they can hold their own in the block plan.
  • Consider perhaps a more modern typology, such as stacked or back-to-back towns.

Site Design & Public Realm

• The Panel appreciates the unique proposal for the site and the dynamic programming on the north side.
• The Panel recommends ensuring a 4.5-5 metre height clearance is provided for the underpass between the art space and market space, to provide the link between the parkland dedication and the interior of the site adequate breathing room.
• The Panel appreciates that the grade level paving treatments, details, and landscaping were well thought through in designing a cohesive block.
• The Panel appreciates the proponent’s approach to the at-grade relationship between interior and exterior spaces, and how they interact.

Built Form & Architecture

• The Panel has concerns with the white material in the podium along Catherine Street, and how it will contrast the various red and brown brick and tones in the rest of the podium.
  • The Panel encourages using a masonry material for the white podium material, and recommends a certain nuance to the white material is necessary as it currently pops out too much from the rest of the podium design in the renderings.
• The Panel recommends the proponents spend considerable time and effort on determining what will be the right type and quality of bricks and materials, particularly in the podium, to ensure the varying architectural expressions are high quality and do not come across as a pastiche of sorts.
  • The Panel recommends the proponents consider playing on the types of masonry used in the podiums—e.g., glazed brick and rougher brick.
• The Panel has concerns that the linear white striped expression of the towers appears too institutional in character, especial in the eastern and western towers.
  • The Panel recommends exploring more of a punched brick element in the towers’ architectural expression.
  • Consider integrating the tower expressions more closely with the architectural expression(s) in the podiums.
• The Panel appreciates that there is a balance of both a variety and unity in the architecture of the three towers.
• The Panel expressed that a refined attention to the brick detailing, corbeling, and framing in the podiums architectural expression(s) will be extremely important in ensuring that the desired effect is achieved at the build out stage.

1299 Richmond Road | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan Control Application | Brigil, BDP Quadrangle, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel expressed a strong appreciation for the overall approach to the building and proposal.
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to the building’s environmental sustainability and opportunities, for example the reusability of stormwater on the site.
• The Panel recommends integrating townhouse units and considering a step in the podium along the north laneway façade in order to create a better relationship with the properties to the north.
• The Panel recommends further refining and advancing the concept of the interior greenspace and pool amenity as an architectural feature of the proposal.
• The Panel supports and appreciates the proposal of a green terracotta material and recommends using it to create a sense of depth in the elevations and to provide a partial sun-shading element.
• The Panel recommends further refining the way in which the two different architectural expressions in the elevations integrate with one another.
  • Consider perhaps wrapping them around the corners of the towers a bit to provide a greater sense of 3-dimensionality rather than a planar screen-like appearance.
• The Panel recommends implementing an architectural expression to the upper level(s) of the towers that is alternate to the towers main expression(s).
• The Panel appreciates the revisions to the tower heights and adjustments to their locations to provide more breathing room to the properties to the north.

Site Design & Public Realm

• The Panel appreciates the revisions made to increase the setback along Starflower Lane and give more breathing room to the properties to the north.
• The Panel recommends collaborating with City staff to implement the woonerf treatment all the way around the building (north and east sides).
  • If the preferred paver treatment is not feasible, consider a concrete laneway treatment.
• The Panel recommends an agreement for the laneway treatment should be achieved as part of the scope of this project, and programmed to integrate with the ground floor uses and amenity space.
• The Panel appreciates the current direction of the podium and recommends further considering the relationship of the podium corners to the public realm experience, particularly along Richmond Road.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends further advancing the sustainability initiatives of the proposal.
  • Consider opportunities to capture the stormwater in a more usable way.
  • Consider adding some depth to the green material areas and using it as a partial sun-shading element of the design.
  • Consider opportunities for a solar roof and renewable energy.
  • Consider integrating low impact development and pervious paving, for example, into the design.

Built Form & Architecture

• The Panel appreciates and supports the articulation of the building and towers.
• The Panel appreciates the green and white colour choices for the tower materials and architectural expression.
  • The Panel supports the use of green materials—whether terracotta or glazed—and recommends furthering the concept of the green vegetated central element in earlier renditions.
• The Panel appreciates the revisions to the podium and inset along Richmond Road.
  • Consider exploring a central high lobby with a tall atrium, and connecting it with the amenity space and internal green space.
• The Panel has concerns with the institutional quality of the architectural expression.
  • The Panel recommends refining the way in which the two different façade treatments of the towers integrate and tie-in to one another.
  • Explore further how to express the architecture ‘in the round’ and less as a planar screen element.
  • Consider overlapping the green material element to create less of a stark linear element on the façades.
  • Consider adding more layers and depth to the façade grids.
• The Panel has concerns with the podium base appearing as a flat white material.
  • Explore different neutral masonry materials for the podium, preferably more of a beige tone.
• The Panel recommends further exploring the opportunity for a stepped podium on the north side, potentially with residential units at grade level.
  • Consider the opportunity to tie in with the properties across the laneway by providing more of a residential feel on the north side of the podium along the Starflower Lane.
• The Panel recommends further developing the access from the plaza and how it relates to the podium’s central amenity feature, etc.