2024

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.

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.