Design Review Panel - Meeting Minutes October 12, 2017 OF TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES: MEETING 7 – October 12, 2017 The Design Review Panel met on Thursday October 12, in

CITY OF TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES: MEETING 7 – October 12, 2017

The Design Review Panel met on Thursday October 12, in Committee Room 2, Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, Toronto, at 11:00am.

Members PresentMembers of the Design Review Panel

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

Michael Leckman (Vice Chair): Architect, Principal – Diamond Schmitt Architects

Carl Blanchaer: Architect, Principal – WZMH Architects Dima Cook: Heritage Specialist, Architect, Senior Associate –EVOQ Architecture George Dark: Landscape Architect, Urban Designer, Principal – Urban Strategies †##‡

Ralph Giannone: Architect, Principal – Giannone Associates Meg Graham : Architect, Principal – superkül ‡

Brian Hollingworth: Transportation Engineer, Director – IBI Group *#‡

Jessica Hutcheon: Landscape Architect, Principal – Janet Rosenberg & Studio **††

Viktors Jaunkalns: Architect, Principal – Maclennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects ##

Joe Lobko: Architect, Urban Designer, Principal – DTAH †**

Jenny McMinn: Sustainability Specialist, Managing Director – Urban Equation Jim Melvin: Landscape Architect, Principal – PMA Landscape Architects Ltd.

Adam Nicklin: Landscape Architect, Principal – PUBLIC WORK Heather Rolleston: Architect, Design Director – Quadrangle Architects

David Sisam: Architect, Principal – Montgomery Sisam Architects #

Sibylle von Knobloch: Landscape Architect, Principle – NAK Design Group

†in conflict-of-interest for first item *absent for third item **in conflict-of-interest for second item #absent for fourth item ##in conflict-of-interest for fourth item ‡absent for fifth item ††in conflict-of-interest for fifth item

Members of the Metrolinx Design Review Panel – Present for First Item Fung Lee: Landscape Architect, Principal – PMA Landscape Architects Ltd.

Members of the Waterfront Toronto Design Review Panel – Present for Third Item

George Baird: Architect, Partner – Baird Sampson Neuert Architects Inc. Paul J. Bedford: Urban Mentor, former Chief Planner – City of Toronto Pat Hanson: Architect, Partner – gh3 Jeff Ranson: Sustainability Specialist, Executive Director – Toronto 2030 District

Design Review Panel Coordinator

Meredith Vaga: Urban Design, City Planning Division

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 7–October 12, 2017 1

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The Panel confirmed minutes of their previous meeting which was held on July 18, 2017 by email.

MEETING 7 INDEX

i. Davenport Diamond (2nd Review) ii. 363 Yonge Street (1st Review) iii. 1-7 Yonge Street (3rd Review at WT Panel; 2nd Joint Panel Review) iv. Wynford Green Master Plan – 844 Don Mills (2nd Review) v. Agincourt Mall (1st Review)

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 7–October 12, 2017 2

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 67– October 12, 2017 1

DAVENPORT DIAMOND JOINT METROLINX DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES

DESIGN REVIEW Second Review APPLICATION Transit Infrastructure DEVELOPER Metrolinx PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF David Bruno, Transportation

Planning; Deanne Mighton, Urban Design

DESIGN TEAM gh3

VOTE No Vote

Introduction City staff outlined the project history, existing and future context, and planning framework. (Please note the TPAP for this project has been approved and is currently in detailed design with an AFP process due to commence at the beginning of 2018. Metrolinx has committed to a 90% Public Realm Plan to be taking into the procurement process vs. the traditional 30%.) The purpose of this review is to update the Panel on the evolving Public Realm plans as the City and Metrolinx work through detailed design to resolve key issues. Staff are seeking the Panel's advice on the following:

1. Bloor: Grade Relationships, including future connections to the Landsdowne Subway Station, Bloor-Lansdowne RER Station, West Toronto Railpath and future Bike lanes on Bloor.

2. Relationship to Parks: Interface, program relationship, edge treatment.

3. Dupont: Overall composition of Public Realm Design, Grades, Bridge, Integrated Art, Adjacencies, Relationship to the new public library, Connection to existing bicycle lanes on Dupont.

4. Davenport: Grades, Connections to the Green line, Earlscourt Park and direct connection to existing Davenport Bike lanes.

5. Name: Branding / Identity. The consultant provided background information, design rationale and responded to questions.

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank Metrolinx for an excellent submission that sensitively elevates transit infrastructure as a significant civic amenity woven into the community context. Further development is encouraged to realise the full potential of this exemplar city-building design strategy; including the following:

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Further develop design to improve connectivity with and relation to surrounding context (including existing parks and pedestrian/bike pathways).

Introduce brighter celebratory colours to balance darker materials, and uplift the spirit of the design concept.

Ensure that art strategy includes grade level presence for pedestrian level benefit.

Consider built ravine design approach that balances “organic/wild” with “urban/structured”.

Design spaces beneath elevated transit structure as outdoor rooms or verandahs; with ground, edges and ceiling planes given equal care.

Panel Comments Many of the Panel members mentioned having familiarity with the areas impacted by the project. They thanked the design team for their presentation and were in agreement that they appreciated the evident design evolution of the project, specifically making reference towards how well the design team had responded to the Panel's previous commentary. The members found it encouraging to see the project at a larger scale at this review, as they felt they were able to see how the pieces were fitting together. The Panel appreciated the clarity of the overarching design idea, specifically the conceptual "ribbon" running through several communities in the city. One member elaborated on this point to say the project was building an interesting "non-automotive grid" that would begin to function as an urban connector for the city, while another member, speaking to the future impacts on the surrounding context, commented that "design makes the difference" and complimented both Metrolinx and the City on their ability to foresee the positive and transformative results good design can have on an area. The Panel was in agreement that the success of this project necessitated a "city-wide" view rather than the more common perspective of multiple smaller neighbourhoods. Although the Panel was generally pleased by the progression of the project, they felt more development, particularly of the connection points (e.g. at Davenport Road, Dupont Bridge, Paton Road Crossing and the various park connections) was needed, and that further refinement of the green spaces and materiality would better serve the public spaces.

Connections A member thought that reframing the project as a "regional ribbon" was extremely important to understanding the project and various connection points. They suggested the Emerald Necklace in Boston could be an appropriate precedent to develop this concept further. However, the Panel agreed that it was difficult to fully comment on the connections in the project because in general they had a hard time understanding how many of these spaces actually functioned: as it was presented, it was unclear how they connected to either the existing community or to the surrounding context. One member hypothesized that this could be a function of the design stage the project is currently at; that the design team is still focusing on the larger-scale design elements. In general, the Panel felt the connection points needed to be further refined including through bringing them forward as a part of community discussions. Several members noted that the highly "graphic" quality of the public realm (such as through material choices etc.) has made an improvement on how bikes and pedestrians interact and share

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


the public spaces, with one member commenting: "with this level of graphic treatment it is very clear when bikes need to slow down for pedestrian crossings." There was appreciation for the way the project created a didactic understanding of the public realm. A member wondered if there was an additional opportunity to foster another direct connection outwards back to the city through the substantial existing built fabric along the edge of the project limits. They felt this could establish another "system" within the proposed regional ribbon that would prevent the project from becoming a closed circuit. Relationship to Parks The Panel felt the park connections on the whole needed to be strengthened, with one member pointing out that emphasizing the park connections could also serve to positively reorient the parks themselves. It was noted that currently the park connections were generally implied rather than clearly defined. Many of the members thought the links needed to become distinct elements and "destination points" themselves, and suggested the paths in between could become fairly plain in contrast. One Panel member felt the drawing package would be helped by naming and locating the depicted views alongside a key plan. Several members specifically called out Earlscourt Park as a huge destination point for the community whose connections needed to be further developed. A member thought having a pedestrian-only connection to Earlscourt Park would let pedestrians branch off the trail sooner. Another member suggested more wayfinding would additionally help with this park connection. Campbell Park was brought forward as another park connection that needed to be looked at again, here specifically to address how the connection functioned across different seasons, as the park has a large amount of winter programming elements. Davenport Road Connection A member felt this was currently one of the more successful connections for the project, noting that through the shown images they were able to see the overall impact and scale of the proposal as well as the scale of the walkway etc. Dupont Bridge One Panel member commented that the spiral ramp at the Dupont connection point visually looked great, but needed to be better engineered. The member specified that the connection points at either end of the bridge still needed to be addressed, and that it "looks like a spiral without a beginning or an end." Paton Road Crossing A few members mentioned that they enjoyed the lighting strategy employed at this crossing. One member pointed out that this tunnel will be a critical space for the community, and as such it needs to be further refined. The member made the point that if designed well this crossing could become a space that the community will love. Another member noted that the project has had such a successful design evolution in other areas, and wondered if there could be a stronger design solution here, rather than implementing a tunnel.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


The Berm Several members agreed that the biggest issue the first time they saw the project was the berm. They agreed they were still concerned about the berm, but recognized its logistical reality. Given this, the Panel cautioned the design team to make the adjacent space as wide as possible and as pleasant a space as possible. One member asked if there could be more connection points across the berm, and another member similarly wondered if there was a way the berm could be broken up. The Panel were concerned about the impact of the wall at the berm, although they acknowledged the design team had undoubtedly already looked at the berm/wall/walkway width. Even so, they were concerned that the impact of the wall was "more ominous" now even if this was in response to the issue of the walkway.

Public Realm The Panel was impressed with how the design team had clearly delineated the different uses (e.g. pedestrian vs. bike paths) and established a strong design vocabulary for the proposed public realm. One member specified that the design had very clear intentions: that there were clearly defined areas of circulation as well as other places that were clearly being developed as "urban living rooms." However, the majority of the Panel agreed there were still visibility issues in general that needed to be addressed. With regards to the overpass, a few members reiterated that by raising the rail line through the implementation of an overpass the design team is positively enabling the development of the public realm. Commenting further, a different member felt that the reality that something exists above the public realm should be more clearly known and signalled in the design. Programming The Panel appreciated the efforts made to activate the spaces under the overpass. One member noted that with a neighbourhood undergoing a transitional period there is the potential "loitering aspect." They elaborated that the design should try to encourage "good loitering" moments and discourage any potential unwanted activities. It was felt that designing "good loitering" moments could be an opportunity for local community engagement, and that input into these programmatic elements could not only help foster positive spaces but also establish community ownership and thereby "eyes on the park." On the other hand, some members felt the project was becoming over-programmed, while others thought some of the programmatic elements were still "a bit officious."

Artwork Although all agreed to its importance, the Panel was divided on the approach to the public art. Some members felt it was disappointing that the art was restricted to the rail line overhead and thought the art should be brought down to grade as well. For these members, bringing the art down would allow for direct community engagement with the art in addition to the visual appeal for the broader community seeing the art along the guideway at some distance or from a train. One member further hypothesized as to whether the art could be brought to the berm as well, suggesting that implementing the art at grade could be used as a strategy for breaking up the spaces with design issues.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


For those members who appreciated current art strategy, several felt that the art had already been brought to the ground through the design of the public realm spaces and the materiality choices. Some members specifically liked the approach of having 5 discrete locus points along the overpass for the different artists to develop.

Materiality The Panel generally appreciated the material choices, finding them durable and clean, but had several different suggestions for refinement, specifically for the materials proposed on the ground plane: A member commented that they appreciated the overall design move to bring the materials from the existing railway into a new context, but felt that in execution the materials were beginning to become a bit relentless. Building on the overarching effects of the material choices, a member thought it was important that the materials introduced a new, bold language to the area rather than solely reacts to the Davenport community. Several members mentioned that the material choices were good approaches to accessibility requirements (AODA) as well as sustainability strategies (permeability, storm water management, etc.) while a member thought it would benefit the materiality strategy and future maintenance to re-conceive of it as a series of components rather than one continuous plane across the entire project. Solepave A member who had familiarity with the proposed material solepave noted that the product had several different colours available. This member suggested that it would help break up the spaces if the material colours could change to demark different places, zones or typologies. They suggested this could also begin to work with a branding strategy or with establishing different community identities. IPE wood While the Panel agreed IPE wood was as an appropriate material choice for this project, one member cautioned the design team about accidentally encouraging wasp nesting in the wood modules. Guideway Underside Several members thought the underside of the guideway had been addressed successfully. Another member, suggesting that the project had a "great public veranda," wondered if the underside of the guideway would benefit from a different "cool finish" to compliment the other materiality choices. It was cautioned that the project should avoid creating another underpass space like that of the Gardiner, which perceptually lacks a "ceiling." Lighting A member felt that the lighting was one of the most important aspects of the project. One member appreciated the aesthetics behind having thin, suspended LED lights illuminating in "pools of light," but some members were worried this strategy was not robust enough from a practical standpoint.

Plantings and Green Space

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


The Panel encouraged the proposed greening on principle, but felt that the plantings needed to be further broken up similar to the material choices, as they were worried the current strategies could begin to become "relentless." Some alternate suggestions included changing the willow wall in points to other materials such as dogwood, as well as the incorporation of ivy on the walls. A member mentioned they could be convinced that the gardens under the rail had access to sunlight, but thought there might still be irrigation issues with this area. They suggested looking into passive means of irrigation such as through planting choices. Several members suggested the design team should look at the plantings and green spaces from a "local" perspective, and that the green spaces could in some areas be allowed to become wilder with less built infrastructure, or "the neighbourhood's ravine." A member suggested this could also help with the over-programming issues in the project.

Branding and Identity The Panel agreed that what is proposed is already very strong, and they don't think the project needs a name to be attached to it; that the project should let the community push their own sense of "branding." Several members further pointed out that this could be another way for the community to take ownership of the project. A member suggested that the identification is that the project is part of the beltway, with another member agreeing that the branding should therefore be looked at from a regional scale as it is part of a larger system. To this another member suggested that although we tend to think of ourselves as belonging to/identifying with distinct neighbourhoods that already exist, we have the opportunity to shift Toronto's perception of itself to a city-wide continuous fabric, to create a new identity via the project's intervention.

363 YONGE STREET DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review

APPLICATION Rezoning and OPA DEVELOPER Cresford

PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Derek Waltho, Community

Planning; James Parakh & Caroline Kim, Urban Design

DESIGN TEAM KPF/Architects Alliance

VOTE Refine with conditions – 7 Redesign – 1

Introduction City staff outlined the project history, existing and future context, and planning framework. Staff are seeking the Panel's advice on the following:

1. What are the street relationships, including heritage

2. Any comments on the form of the tower – please note that the overall height of the tower will not be discussed.

3. Public realm and pedestrian connections.

The consultant provided background information, design rationale and responded to questions.

TALLER BUILDING PROJECTS The Panel would like to thank City staff for including 363 Yonge Street and 1 – 7 Yonge Street in today’s agenda. These projects are examples of a new level of development that poses a seriously significant impact on both immediate and broader community context. With this in mind the Panel requests that the City initiates a study of what an exemplar of this development type for Toronto would be; with the intent of creating a tool that holistically assesses the overall impact of such development. This in turn would enable informed project review input and decision making at both micro and macro levels. The Panel would be pleased to hold a session with the City to help start this process.

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel thanks the proponent for a comprehensive submission, and a project design that proposes an intriguing blend of uses. As noted above this development type presents a serious game-changing level of impact on its immediate and broader context. With this in mind further design is needed, including but not limited to the following:

• Provide a comprehensive on-site and off-site green space and amenity strategy that supports the proposed development’s population, and contributes to the broader community. This includes details regarding park contribution noted during presentation.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


• Create along Gerrard and Yonge frontage a weather-protected pedestrian arcade set back inside existing building walls; and push back tower lobby entry façade.

• Coordinate and integrate development design with Yonge Street streetscape initiative strategy.

• Develop coherent streetscape design strategy for block bounded by Gerrard, Yonge, Gould and O’Keefe Lane; including potential Blocker Site strategy.

• Proposed built form envelope evokes a uniform corporate character; at odds with the largely residential use of this development. Develop design to portray residential programme inside.

• Provide sun/shadow diagrams.

Panel Comments The Panel complimented the applicant and the design team on the clarity of their drawing package and presentation. They felt that it clearly articulated the design intentions and that it was very easy to follow.

Several Panel members noted that this project had the opportunity to be a game changer for the City. They felt, with a project of this scale, that it was important to give time to the design process to allow the design to evolve and to ensure everything within the design has been resolved appropriately. The Panel felt that the design team still needed time to better resolve the project.

The Panel appreciated the retention of the heritage buildings along Yonge St. and Gerrard St. mentioning that they were worth preserving. They agreed that the setbacks from the heritage facades seemed appropriate at this location.

Although the members appreciated the overall simplicity of the tower form, they felt that the architecture needed more articulation and refinement. They also felt that the proposed affordable housing; the amenity and the public spaces all needed further consideration and design. Regarding sustainable measures, the Panel wanted to see a stronger, more developed sustainability strategy.

Public Realm

Streetwall and Street Relationships A Panel member noted that dealing with the public realm was a challenging proposition as the design team were being asked to consider the streetscape when the streetwall and sidewalk widths were largely already predefined by the existing heritage buildings.

One member commented that there will be a huge amount of people to accommodate in the public realm with this project, but that presently there is no physical space available – where can more space be obtained? As an aside, it was noted that this was a general city issue that needs to be addressed overall.

The Panel members agreed that if possible it was important to deal with the streetscape from "street to street all the way down"; i.e. that the streetscape design should not stop midblock. It was also cautioned that the project shouldn't rely on potential future city-initiatives to widen sidewalks or reduce traffic on Yonge St. when developing their streetscape and public realm strategies.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


It was felt that the streetwall considerations currently worked well in plan, but more consideration was required when looking at the streetwall, and particularly the proposed building entrances, in section. Overall, the Panel felt that the project needed to be designed three dimensionally.

A member commented that the success of the current streetwall was in part due to the rhythm of the heritage buildings and human scale. It was suggested that the design team maintain this rhythm and "keep a lot of doors" as another way to achieve a successful street realm and further preserve Yonge St.

It was felt that the proposal lacked a strong, overarching idea for the public realm, and that this was an area that needed to be better considered: "big ideas" of the public realm and public good are as important as ideas of the tower architecture.

"Arcade" One Panel member suggested that the design team could re-conceive of the space at grade in the heritage building at 385 Yonge St. on the north corner of the site at the intersection of Yonge and Gerrard. They suggested the space could become an "arcade" to both increase the public space available and create stronger pedestrian connections to Ryerson University in the east. However, the majority agreed that they were conflicted about this suggestion as they felt the heritage buildings and existing streetwall were worth being preserved as is.

In response, another Panel member suggested that alternatively this "arcade" and increased public space could be achieved by removing part of the programming on the ground floor.

Pedestrian Connections The Panel agreed that they would like to see more east-west pedestrian connections linking and engaging Ryerson University with Yonge Street. It was suggested that the "buffer building" to the south of the site could be a place where some of these connections could be achieved.

O'Keefe Lane Although Panel members were engaged with the proposed interventions along O'Keefe Lane, they cautioned that the realities of the site were that this was a functional laneway which will always be a reflection of the success of the stores using it. One member commented that they still needed to be convinced on the proposed pedestrian uses, as the laneway is already a narrow space with loading docks and auto access requirements; the proposal would "need a lot of work to make work."

Another Panel member applauded the intentions behind O'Keefe Lane, but agreed it was a practical challenge, saying that it responds to the site issues more in spirit than in reality. The proposed textures and notions along the laneway in plan were also appreciated. A different member further commented that they liked the idea of an animated laneway connection running parallel to the more "carnival-esque" Yonge St.

Heritage Buildings

The Panel agreed that the heritage buildings and streetwall were worth preserving; however, a couple members questioned whether the streetwall of the XTC building at 367 Yonge was worth restoring. Overall, the Panel felt that the streetwall on Yonge St. adds to the character of the area which needs to be maintained.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Several Panel members agreed that they appreciated that the heritage elements could still be seen through the new design proposal, and that the tower above the heritage buildings "does what one hopes towers above heritage [do]." As well, the setbacks from the heritage facades were seen as appropriate for the project's location.

On the other hand, a Panel member mentioned that there was the opportunity to use the heritage elements to juxtapose between the old and the new, versus the current strategy of just maintaining what was there.

A different member pointed out that there are many examples of both good and bad ways to deal with putting a tower on top of original two storey buildings and that how this project managed it was "skillfully done."

Building Form and Articulation As a general comment it was noted that the fact this intersection is becoming a place where several "supertall" structures are being clustered is unexpected. As such, it was felt that this project has the opportunity to do something equally unexpected with the design.

Tower Design The Panel liked the general shape and form of the tower design. One Panel member commented that the sculpting of the "Ryerson piece" above the heritage component was deftly done. Another member agreed that they appreciated the simplicity of the tower form. They particularly liked the sculpting at the top of the tower, especially if it was helping with shadow mitigation: "a great reason for the way the building meets the sky."

While a Panel member commented that the shape and form of the tower beyond the overarching sculptural moves was generic and underdeveloped, several other members found the tower to be an elegant sculptural form.

The Panel had particular comments around the design of the architecture at the base. One member thought the soffit that catches the curtainwall at the bottom seemed heavy and out of place, with another mentioning they were not keen on the curve. Instead it was suggested that the design would benefit from simplifying the architectural language by having a space, or reveal, between the tower and the base to separate the two elements.

A further comment on the importance of the design of the base pointed out that from the perspective of people on the street it is the first 10 floors that are key components to the success of a building in the public realm.

Curtainwall and Sustainability Although the Panel appreciated how the curtainwall was contributing to the simplicity of the tower form, they felt that the strategy needed to go further as the materiality was not keeping with the site context or with sustainability issues. It was pointed out that the percentage of glass in the tower and any measures taken to address this were being glossed over. It was mentioned that, especially when there is a tower this large, detailed sectional drawings through one floor should be provided to show how these envelope components are working.

Another member asked if the design team had considered net zero carbon, ultra low energy or other sustainability strategies, which would be keeping in line with what building industry is moving

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


towards. They suggested there was a way to infuse the floors with these strategies, and that this project had the opportunity to lead the charge on sustainable measures in general.

Members pointed out that the sustainability strategy overall was still quite thin, especially given the proposed height of the tower. The Panel would like to see shadow diagrams to understand the impact of the tower on the surrounding city.

Identity/Branding Several members liked the moves that had been made to create a unified identity with Ryerson University, specifically with regards to the sculptural form of the piece above the north heritage corner. These members felt that the project was going in the right direction with respect to both branding Ryerson and establishing an identity for the adjacent neighbourhood.

Affordable Housing From both physical and social design perspectives the Panel was in agreement that the placement of the affordable housing does not work. The Panel would like the housing to be better integrated in the project, because it is currently designed as quite separate.

A member speculated that perhaps the intention was to create an internal community, but noted that the space as designed does not function as a layer within the project; rather, it feels pulled out and not integrated with the rest of the building physically or socially. The Panel strongly felt that the placement of the affordable housing at present was not sending an appropriate message and needs to be rethought, ideally through consultation with experts in the appropriate field.

Amenity Spaces and Roof Terraces The Panel appreciated that there were amenity spaces and roof terraces included in the design; however, they felt more refinement was still required.

Several members felt, when looking at the number of units in the building together with the proposed building height, that the amenity spaces and roof terraces were too far away and fragmented to support the anticipated users and inhabitants in the tower. The Panel felt these spaces were incredibly important and should be considered "quality of life infrastructure." One member commented that the project was already "pushing the envelope on height but not on these other things; [you] can't build like this but not support it in other ways."

Another member commenting specifically on the roof terraces noted that they functioned independent of each other and wondered if the terraces could instead be seen as one connected space; how could the faces work together to provide what is naturally provided at grade? Generally the Panel thought these spaces also needed to be considered 3 dimensionally.

Response to Context

The Panel was very interested in the future use of the "buffer building" located just south of the site and wanted the project to speak more to its proposed uses and how they could impact the design of their development.

The members were in agreement that it would better serve the project to connect it to a broader context, and that generally the design still needed considerations beyond their immediate site. For instance: how does the project respond to the fact that the adjacent subway is already past capacity?

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Further, the Panel would like to see drawings of the proposed off-site park to help understand the building and what would be available to the residents. The project still needs to consider and show the existing open space context: what is available to the residents in a 5 minute walk? In a 10 minute walk?

Finally, the Panel mentioned that this project was a "big ask" in terms of the amount of development being proposed on the site. The Panel was then in agreement that the project should give back to the city commensurate with what is being asked for.

Vote

The Panel voted for Refinement of the project with conditions. The agreed refinement conditions were to include the "buffer building" and proposed use of this space as part of the application, along with more information about the proposed off-site park.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


1-7 YONGE STREET JOINT WATERFRONT TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW Third Review

APPLICATION OPA, Rezoning & Site Plan DEVELOPER Pinnacle International

PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Daniel Woolfson, Community

Planning; Caroline Kim, Urban Design; Chris Glaisek, Waterfront Toronto

DESIGN TEAM Hariri Pontarini Architects

VOTE No Vote


1. Comments on the design excellence and materiality of the two towers. Please note that the overall heights of the towers will not be discussed.

2. Public art and public realm connections including the city-owned parcel at the southeast corner of Yonge Street and Lakeshore Boulevard East.

3. POPS and mid-block connections.


Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent for a well-presented scheme, and for their further design evolution since earlier reviews. This development adds a considerable concentration of population, built form and infrastructure reliance to the City’s fabric, resulting in a significant game-changing level of impact on its immediate and broader context. With this in mind further design is needed, including but not limited to the following:

• Avoid +15 bridge connections in favour of increasing pedestrian activity and animation at street level.

• Provide a comprehensive green space and amenity strategy that supports the proposed development’s population, and contributes to the broader community.

• Initiate a design competition for City-owned ground plane. • Further develop visual variation between towers including:

o Reconsidering degree of curving/swooping sculpting of built form. o Adjusting tapered sculpting of tower forms.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


o Proposed built form envelope evokes too much of a corporate character; at odds with the largely residential use of this development. Develop design to portray residential programme inside.

o Options for providing usable balconies at upper floors. • Increase access to natural light and sun for amenities at lower levels. • Provide holistic sustainability strategy that includes but is not limited to: solar control,

envelope performance, on-site renewables, etc.

Panel Comments The Panel commended the design team on the evolution of the project, mentioning that the care and effort going into the project was very evident. They thought the presentation was very strong and were particularly appreciative of the inclusion of the physical models. The Panel further commended the five year design process, saying it was appropriate to get the project right.

On a broader scale, the Panel found the project to be very interesting in the context of the future of Toronto and residential towers. They were in agreement that the project and scale were both incredibly challenging.

Design Excellence

The Panel agreed that while there were good design moves, specifically noting the sophisticated program complexity, further refinement was required. On a macro scale, one Panel member appreciated the big design moves, and felt that the architecture was moving from west to east in a language that was "more civic" along Yonge St. This member further commented that they appreciated how the language then shifted as the architecture moved inwards to become "a good residential scale."

Tower Design Although the Panel appreciated the evolution of the towers, with multiple members noting the elegance of the proposed design, most members were not convinced that the "sweeping curvilinear motifs" were the most effective design solution. Many members felt that the tapering of the towers, especially the largest one, needed further refinement and attention. One member stated that, as designed, the tallest tower was bending too much; most noticeably where the tower comes down to meet the ground.

A few Panel members suggested the design team look at such precedents as the Rockefeller Center in New York City and the TD Centre in Toronto for examples of similar projects that took tower building to a new level by both reorienting and creating new foci for their respective cities.

Podium Design Several members, while acknowledging the improvement to the podium design, felt the podia still needed further articulation, with one commenting that they felt "a bit chunky and divorced from the elegant towers." A different member agreed, feeling that the base was "overwrought" and pointing out that, as the towers had such a strong form the base could become more normative.

Regarding the scale of the podia, a member mentioned that it was very important to get the scale and design of the base buildings right as they will affect the quality of space in the surrounding neighbourhood. This member noted that the area below Lakeshore was already designed at a larger scale than the "Victorian" streetscapes found elsewhere in the city.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Relationship of the Three Towers One member mentioned that they appreciated that the design team had moved the tallest building to the south of the site.

The Panel noted that one of the towers stuck out from the rest in terms of the design language, with one member saying that it currently looked like the smallest tower was "adopted." The Panel didn't necessarily think that there should be three identical towers, but felt that the relationship between the three would be strengthened if they were somehow more similar. One member suggested that making the tops of the buildings more alike was a way to address this, as it would cause the three towers to look as if they all belonged to the same family. Another member commented that it was okay for the towers to share a more similar architectural language as the project was proposing an entire new district for the city.

A different member suggested that the design team could use the evolving podia as a way to develop a more cohesive design language between the towers. This member also mentioned the TD Centre as an interesting precedent, noting that "similarity doesn't prevent exploration."

Sustainability The Panel agreed that the sustainable measures still felt underdeveloped. One member noted that these buildings will be built in the early days of green standards, and as such have the opportunity to push sustainable design forward with regards to both existing and new procedures.

Specifically analyzing the proposed design, one member pointed out that there is a known problem with sustainability and glass buildings, which will only be exacerbated as the climate warms up. They commented that triple glazing as a solar control will only help so much, and suggested the design team look into tintable electrochromic glass or photovoltaics on the facades to help with the occupancy and loads. Another member agreed, wondering if there was the possibility of having an adaptive skin on the towers to contribute towards better sustainability. A member suggested the design team take advantage of the fact this was such a tall proposal and that there won't be shading issues in terms of implementing these sustainable measures on the buildings.

Wind and Balconies The Panel thought using the balconies for wind mitigation was a very interesting design solution. One member wanted to see further wind analyses to understand more about the actual inhabitability of the balconies beyond wind mitigation. Addressing this, another member wondered if there was some sort of additional design solution for the balconies themselves that could partially or fully enclose the balconies when the wind levels were "completely uncomfortable."

Building on whether the balconies were usable spaces, a further member agreed that although balconies began as a way to have outdoor private space years ago, with the increasing tower heights balconies are becoming something different. This member noted that they personally would never step out on these balconies; "[they] would be completely terrified." Another member pointed out that, due to the height, the balconies have become an expression of form rather than usable space, and so alternative equivalent spaces need to be proposed.

A different member, while acknowledging it was a very challenging proposition, thought the buildings should be made rougher and less aerodynamic in general and felt there needed to be a stronger overarching idea about wind and scale. For a few members, the balcony design of the 65-storey tower in particular needed further design. Another member suggested the design team explore different wind mitigation strategies in other parts of the world that have similar climates.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Materiality One Panel member suggested looking at "roughening up" the tower and podium skins, to make the towers less aerodynamic as well as to possibly introduce a new architectural language to residential tower design.

Another member, commenting on the proposed diagrids, said they should be made a meaningful part of the building and structure rather than just a "graphical exercise."

Public Realm and Relationship to Context

Although the majority of the Panel appreciated the evolution of the public realm, with one Panel member noting the current approach was "quite wonderful," the Panel felt that more refinement was required, and that the design team should develop an overarching public realm strategy for the spaces at grade.

A couple members noted that while many of the interior spaces on the ground level had been developed well ("more rational and generous than [they were] before") more refinement was necessary in the corresponding exterior spaces. One member was concerned that these spaces had become "a bit amorphous and non-hierarchical" and thought that simplification would help improve them. Another member encouraged the design team to think about what the "quality of life experience" would be in 10 years, 50 years etc. when resolving this aspect of the design.

Relocation of Community Centre Spaces above Drop-off Court One area of concern for the Panel was the space beneath the community centre, and, as designed, whether it would receive enough sunlight and proper ventilation to actually function as an inhabitable and enjoyable space. The Panel strongly suggested that the design team relocate some or all portions of the community centre (e.g. the pool, the gym) to open up the space below. Elaborating on the spaces at grade, the bulk of the Panel also suggested removing the proposed canopy.

Midblock Connections Several members thought the north-south connection between the buildings had been resolved very well compared to the last time they saw the project. However, one member conversely thought some of the previous schemes with diagonal walkways through the buildings had held "very viable" public realm potentials.

Multiple Panel members thought there should be further development of the public space, especially regarding the midblock connections as well as the spaces between the buildings. A member questioned what the midblock connections actually were, specifically regarding the north-south and east-west public realm links. This member felt that overnight bridges were not an appropriate design solution, stating they didn't want to see "the waterfront cluttered with bridges at every block" and further pointed out that other cities with similar climates such as New York and Chicago don't resort to networks of enclosed bridges.

Public Art and Parkettes Several members wanted more information about the public art strategy, feeling that they hadn't heard enough to appropriately comment on it. There was a feeling that there was a massive opportunity for creative public art interpretations for the project and public realm spaces.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Regarding the parkettes, a member thought that it was important to review the new plaza parkette at Yonge and Lakeshore in conjunction with the open space kiddy-corner to it. The Panel generally felt the landscaping should be bolder, with one member noting that the public park will become a neighbourhood park for the "thousands of people that move there."

A Panel member noted that these spaces, whether designed via a competition or otherwise, should be developed concurrently with the towers. This member clarified that this was not necessarily a comment aimed at the design team, rather an overarching observation of the benefit of designing simultaneously, and at both micro and macro levels.

Relationship to Context The Panel thought there was a currently missed opportunity to connect the project to the north-south Yonge Street spine coming up from the waterfront. Several Panel members thought this north-south connection to the water, whether it was city-owned or POPs was a very important piece that needed to be looked at. One member pointed out that when completed, this spine will carry lots of people. Referring to where the spine connects to the design site, another member mentioned the existing context was very evocative in the way it bowed back when approached from the waterfront, and that it also had the potential of becoming a great new pubic space for the city.

Regarding the streetscapes, many Panel members thought the design team should look at ways of greening, especially along Yonge Street, with one Panel member noting that the existing conditions felt very "hard." A member agreed that it was important to design streets that people wanted to be in, stating that the design team should endeavour to find a way of "lightening up" the spaces as well as consider how the pedestrians and cars etc. will interact with one another.

Another member cautioned that the design team should not let the pre-existing boundary lines determine the final design: "human beings don't understand why these lines are there […] don't worry about the jurisdiction lines; just figure things out."

The Panel also questioned the exclusive programming of retail space at the site and why it was considered "special public space." One member asked about considerations for all the other social spaces: "where are the churches and schools going to be?" pointing out that currently the design team has only allowed for "high-level shopping." This member felt that the pedestrian experience would be enhanced by designing the social layers rather than just the implementation of retail spaces.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


WYNFORD GREEN MASTER PLAN – 844 DON MILLS DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW Second Review

APPLICATION Subdivision and Rezoning DEVELOPER Diamond Corp

PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF John Andreevski, Community

Planning; Rong Yu, Urban Design DESIGN TEAM Adam Nicklin, Public Work; Ralph

Giannone, GPAIA; David Pontarini, HPA

VOTE No Vote


1. Public Realm: Does the proposed public realm (streets, parks and open spaces, trails, plaza, POPs, private street, bridge link) provide for appropriate connections through the site and to the surrounding neighbourhood?

2. Heritage: Has the proposal appropriately incorporated and repurposed the site's existing heritage, including:

a. Integrating noteworthy features of 844 Don Mills Road into the design of the north-south Private Street B; and

b. Conservation of the Parkin Building at 1150 Eglinton Avenue East and the integration with the proposed tall buildings.

3. Built Form: Does the proposal appropriately transition from the high-rise to the low-rise areas on the site (i.e. adequate mix of mid-rise)?


Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent team for their efforts since the last review and resulting comprehensive presentation. This project has great potential to be a landmark development and an exemplar community; but further work is needed to realise this possibility, including the following:

• Push design further to achieve seamless integration between living, working, site history and natural setting for a cohesive community and unique Wynford Green “place of choice” identity.

• Resolve confusion of building types along Eglinton frontage.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


• Infuse an interconnected necklace of small outdoor amenity nodes throughout the development.

Panel Comments The Panel complimented the design team on their presentation with several members saying there had been enormous improvements from the last time they had seen the project. The Panel felt that the project was successful in several ways, but they were particularly interested in the treatment of the heritage buildings and natural features on the site. The Panel thought the master planning was very developed, but that the massing and architecture still needed to be brought up to higher standards.

Several Panel members felt there was something about the project that had the potential to become "completely different and exemplary" and "a landmark project". The Panel commended the design team on their aspirations and said they would welcome seeing the project again.

Public Realm

A Panel member noted that the amount of public space and community amenities (e.g. daycare, community centre, affordable housing etc.) were critical, saying that there was a huge potential in the site to provide a high quality of life for a diversity of ages and socio-economies. This member suggested that the design team push the envelope on what constitutes a "complete community" and think about what draws people into a site. Other members agreed that the incorporation of community amenities was very important, suggesting that the design team think about children living in this community and what makes spaces "home".

A few members liked the proposed bike path connection over the CP Rail line to the Leaside Spur Trail. One member noted that this was a very positive connection to have.

Street Network One member questioned whether any traffic analyses had been completed, noting that the arterial streets are currently full. Another member appreciated the overarching site organization coming from the Aga Kahn building in the east and then sweeping into the ravine, but felt that practically speaking the primary armature of the site was the 'L' of Eglinton Avenue East and Wynford/Don Mills Road. They warned that this armature will be the most trafficked portion of the site.

Another member felt that the proposal should incorporate different street typologies. A member noted that the proposed street network is not taking into account that the streets will have very different conditions based on the differing facing conditions etc. They wondered what the precedents for these streets were and why the streets were designed to be "so green". A few members thought the proposed streetscapes needed to be looked at in greater detail, specifically around how they perform and their standards.

A Panel member thought the proposed plaza around Private Street 'B' looked really enticing. This member noted that there would be some amount of shading in the space, but thought that despite the shading issues the plaza had the potential to become a lively space.

Parks and Ravine Several Panel members remarked on how strong the linkages between the different parks were, and appreciated how the proposed various green spaces went from small to large (parkettes-parks-DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


ravine). These members thought the scale of the parks as well as the sensitivity in which the green infrastructure together with the public realm infrastructure were knitted through the site was working well. A member recommended eking out more little corner parkettes, suggesting they could become a huge amenity.

A member wondered how the public and private parks would actually function, and whether the public parks would truly feel public. While noting that they were "great spaces", this member cautioned that moving forward the design team needed to ensure these parks felt like public places.

The Panel really appreciated how accessible the ravine was for the community, feeling there was a lot of potential embodied by this natural space. A few members wondered whether the ravine could be brought further east in front of the Parkin building, with one member suggesting it would bring some "roughness" back to the site. Another member thought that although there were changing conditions on the site, they would be better realised through more natural plantings in front of the Parkin building, rather than having the building disappear in the ravine. This member pointed out the importance of maintaining the views associated with the Parkin building, and specifically the value in being able to see the heritage building from the street below.

Heritage

MacLean Building – 844 Don Mills Road The Panel thought the "portals within portals" idea with regards to the MacLean Building was very well handled. One member specifically liked the reuse of the original entrance portals to highlight the new retail. This member thought the heritage of the building had been integrated into the project in a meaningful way.

Parkin Building – 1150 Eglinton Avenue East The Panel unanimously commended the design team on their strategy for the Parkin building and the way they incorporated the heritage into the new architecture. The Panel thought this building was very important both architecturally and to the history of the site, and felt that something "very special" was emerging with the treatment of the heritage. One member felt the proposed conversion of the Parkin building was quite poetic, saying that the design had created "an archaeological condition" on the south facade through the way the building and history were being "terraced up" to become the base of the next physical and cultural layer for the site.

Several members appreciated seeing the before and after views in the presentation as the images clearly demonstrated the subtle shift of the tower placement. The Panel thought the current placement of the towers was very strong. A few members wondered if it was possible to slide the two leftmost towers further north to incorporate/retain more of the heritage building on the north face the way the design team was starting to do with the third, east-most tower. They suggested that in addition to retaining more of the building, this would allow the design to further separate the heritage base from the new towers. A member also thought that by retaining more of the north side of the building the design team could introduce a covered walkway or arcade oriented towards the proposed park, noting it could become another way to enter and frame the park.

A Panel member felt all the aspects of the entire project came together with the treatment of the Parkin building. They thought that from a community scale all the way up to a monumental scale the design team had managed to take an iconic view for Toronto and give the building a new life with the sensitively placed new buildings on top of them.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


A different member noted that the heritage on this site was different than the heritage one would normally expect to find, as it is heritage from "modern history." This member thought that although the retention of the physical building was very important, there was a second, intangible layer for the site in terms of the "modern thinking" or cultural aspects that were occurring within the buildings. This member felt this was an additional important layer that should be captured by the project in some way.

Built Form

A Panel member pointed out the intersection between Public Street 'A' and Eglinton Avenue East will function as a gateway for the neighbourhood. This member then suggested creating an architectural dialogue between the proposed tower on Block 6C and the west tower of Parcel 7 as they will be framing this gateway. It was then suggested that the east tower on Parcel 7 could become a unique building.

Several members were concerned that the two rows of townhouses behind the Parkin building were misplaced, noting that there would not be enough sun, especially with a low-rise building typology. A member suggested that the density from these townhouses could be removed and transferred into midrise building typologies.

With respect to the Parkin building, although the Panel appreciated the moves on the south face, several members thought the north side generally needed further examination and refinement.

Along Don Mills Road, a member mentioned they liked that the proposed building heights meant that the park would rarely fall into shadow. Another member felt the two taller residential buildings north of Eglinton Avenue East were using balconies as a shortcut to creating the architecture. This member questioned whether the sculpting of the balconies was the extent of the design and noted these buildings will have sustainability issues related to the balcony placement.

The Panel agreed that the architecture and built form still needed a lot of design and refinement, but felt the design team was aware of this. A member thought the project had the framework for an idealized city with the proposed master planning, but now the design team needed to work on the architecture, saying "the next challenge is to bring the architecture to the level of the planning framework." This member suggested looking at St. Lawrence Market in Toronto to understand how that project managed to infuse a sense of monumentality into "even the smallest pieces of architecture" on the site. A different Panel member thought it was important that the project was providing different housing types, e.g. for families, seniors, etc.

Density A few members questioned why the proposed density had gone up since the last time the project was brought to the Panel, with one member commenting that it was unusual to see the density increasing as a project moves through the design process. Another member noted that even if the proposed FSI (Floor Space Index) was low at 2, the project felt very dense. They recommended the design team look at shadow studies. However, another member thought the density could be worked with if implemented strategically.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


AGINCOURT MALL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review

APPLICATION OPA

PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Andria Sallese, Community

Planning; Itai Peleg, Urban Design DESIGN TEAM Gianonne Petricone Associates

VOTE No Vote (See *Note)

Introduction City staff outlined the project history, existing and future context, and planning framework. Staff are seeking the Panel's advice on the following issues:

1. Parks and Public Realm Strategy: A 20% on-site parkland dedication will be required for the site. Please comment on the location and configuration of the proposed Parks and Public Realm Strategy, specifically the size and location of the proposed public parks, connectivity to the larger open space system and issues related to shadowing.

2. Retail Strategy: Please comment on the proposed form (size and footprint) and location of the proposed large format retail on the site (Walmart and grocery store) and built form relationship to the Avenue.

3. Built Form Strategy: Large residential developments provide an opportunity to achieve a mix of housing in terms of types and affordability. Please comment on the proposed mix of building types, and whether additional building types (ex. Mid-rise buildings and lower scale buildings) should be provided to respond to its existing and planned context, including areas near transit stations, lower scale neighbourhoods, existing and planned streets and park(s).

4. Phasing Strategy: Please comment on the proposed phasing of the site in the context of urbanizing the Avenue and this site from a suburban mall to a new community.


Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel appreciates the proponent team's efforts in tackling a challenging site with multiple restrictions, and goal to create an exemplar quality mixed use neighbourhood. The design presented has potential to achieve this goal but needs further work in the following areas:

• Built Form: o Adjust building height across site to shift density away from park. o Reduce number of towers and space them farther apart. o Consider adding another building type to current range of typologies.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


o Vary tower heights from lower adjacent to park to higher along east edge of site. • Site Plan:

o Explore alternative street grid patterns framing park, to determine if any result in more effective/efficient development blocks and improved connectivity into balance of site.

• Landscape: o Increase green edge (and quantity of landscape) along Sheppard and Kennedy, to

improve transition between proposed development and busy thoroughfares. o Further develop interconnected mix of large and smaller open spaces.

Panel Comments The Panel complimented the presentation and materials relating to the project, saying that it clearly articulated the history of the concept development plan and showed how the project got to its present incarnation. The Panel remarked that they hadn't fully appreciated the challenges of the site until seeing the presentation, commenting that the project has come a long way with regards to the negotiations around the onsite relocation of the existing big box retail. Several members further agreed that the complexity of the project was "enormous" and that they appreciated that there were numerous conditions that needed to be addressed.

A few members expressed familiarity with the area and felt that this was another important "transformation project" for the city, with one member commenting that they appreciated the "spirit of place" the design evoked, especially when held against what is currently there.

Parks and Public Realm Strategy

The Panel appreciated the proposed park and public realm framework, and specifically commended the overarching design moves towards establishing the Central Park as the primary public space and the shopping axis of Las Ramblas as the secondary public space for the site. Many members felt the public realm framework was relatively successful in urbanizing the site, with a few members suggested there could be 3 or 4 additional public realm spaces. A member complimented the evolution of the Central Park and liked how it was "engaged outwards" beyond the immediate site. One member further wondered if there was an opportunity for the planned green space network to connect into a broader bike network. The panel encouraged the creation of a "necklace" of schools parks, and open spaces.

Several members felt the parks were presently the most successful part of the project and particularly liked the various sizes and types of parks proposed, with one member commenting that it was a "riches of green space." Another member additionally appreciated the chosen precedent studies.

The Central Park The Panel really liked the commitment to the Central Park and thought it was a great move declaring this open area as the "absolute focus" of the project. One Panel member felt that a crescent was potentially a very powerful form, and liked the overarching move to have a crescent of open space with towers on top. Another member, commenting on the shown park precedents, agreed that Byrant Park in New York City is an excellent place, but cautioned that when parks are "programmed to death" the quality and spirit of place is diminished. This member suggested the design team be careful that this proposed park maintains its integrity even with all the designed components, and noted that Grange Park in Toronto does this quite well. DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Las Ramblas Several members commented that they liked the way the structure of the project had established Las Ramblas as a "shopping axis". They felt the terminus of this promenade had great potential and could potentially hold a pocket park or other interesting public space. However, one member was concerned that this promenade was bigger than the public arterial roads. They noted that this was an architectural issue and the design team should find a way to "close the edge." Commenting on the size, a member thought the space was more of a plaza than a ramblas and wondered if the promenade could become a more positively formed space. This member suggested that another element could emerge within this public space to help reform it.

Library Park Although a member noted that they liked how the design kept the library and the retail separate, several members felt the connections adjacent to the library needed further refinement. One Panel member remarked that the design had created a formal street composition around the library, and while those geometries worked internally inside the block, they weren't appropriately connecting the area outwards. This member suggested having elements "spur off" to connect to the surrounding green space. Another member thought the library park could benefit from the strong "horseshoe" language of the Central Park, and suggested using this language to play down the currently residual nature of the park to build up positive space for the area.

Sheppard Avenue East Several Panel members agreed that the proposed street planting needed to be intensified along Sheppard Avenue East, noting that it is a fast paced arterial road.

Regarding planting along Sheppard, a member further suggested that because the streets are suburban in scale there is the opportunity to use this landscaped edge to re-conceive what these amenity spaces are. This member pointed out that due to the street's large right of way and heavily trafficked environment it is not easily traversed by pedestrians. They then wondered if the pedestrian realms could be redeveloped as an urban space with planters on both sides. They further suggested the overarching building edge setback along Sheppard could be pushed back to the proposed subway parkette. The concept of "landscape urbanism" was referred to.

Retail Strategy

Although the Panel appreciated the overall intentions driving the retail strategy and acknowledged the various siting challenges, they felt the strategy needed further refinement.

One member thought the relationship to retail on "Public Road C" could be improved specifically where it turns the corner and becomes housing. Another member pointed out that Blocks 1 and 2 will have the best solar access and so wondered if there was some way to introduce "the possibility of retail" on this portion of the site, noting that any retail would be "extremely well used and enjoyed." A different member wanted to see more bars and restaurants to break up the residential areas and to encourage people to participate in their community.

Regarding the existing retail, one member questioned the decision to "bury" the Walmart in the site, noting that the design intentions were to create more retail and an urban presence on Sheppard, but then the proposal situated the consolidated Walmart in the interior of the site. This member wondered why the Walmart wasn't moved to Sheppard as well. Another member suggested that the retail on Sheppard invited people into the site because the large retail presence

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


was behind. It was then noted while the Walmart doesn't "dominate the scene" in the proposal, this will be a destination point for a lot of people.

Built Form Strategy

While appreciating that it is still early in the design process, the Panel felt that the built form strategy still needed a fair bit of development in terms of typology, massing, placement and overall density. The Panel felt the architecture was not responding correctly to the open space and thought the design team should introduce another building type to help address this. Several members questioned whether the amount of proposed density was appropriate. Some members suggested looking at the West Don Lands in Toronto as both a precedent and a point of comparison for "comfortable density". One member roughly calculated that this project was proposing about 5000 units in addition to retail, offices etc. on 26 acres, while the West Don Lands has about 6000 units on 80 acres.

Building Types and Massing With respect to massing, the Panel agreed that there needed to be more variation in building type and height. One member suggested that there was "proliferation of towers". Many members noted that the majority of the proposed towers were 35-45 storeys with very similar plate sizes and a "very strong" midrise datum, and remarked that everything looked very similar.

One member thought there should be a greater variety of plate sizes and wondered if perhaps some of the towers could become more "slabby." Several members suggested introducing an entirely new building typology with one member proposing introducing terraces and larger setbacks, and a different member pointing out that some of the buildings could be non-podium tower schemes or hybrid typologies. Another member felt more could be done with the tower above the Walmart and wondered if there could be accessible open space along with more private community spaces incorporated into this tower design. A few members suggested the introduction of new building typologies throughout the site could be used as opportunities to create more interesting outdoor spaces which could in turn build off of the other "interesting parks and open spaces".

The Panel thought the massing needed to be redistributed around the site, particularly the massing of the towers. A few members thought this might additionally help with the density issues. Many members suggested "sculpt[ing] the towers towards the park" by pushing the higher towers towards the main streets at Sheppard and Kennedy and reducing the height near the Central Park. Another member suggested concentrating the height at the east end of the site. One member questioned how to accommodate mid-rises on Sheppard Avenue.

Several members thought the architecture and massing around the Central Park specifically needed more refinement. The Panel thought the design team should be using the architecture to define the arc of this park, with one member commenting that the park should become more of a circus. Although they agreed the crescent of the park was a powerful form, the majority of the Panel felt the towers were "sitting uncomfortably around [it]" and questioned whether the built form/open space combination was there yet. One member suggested the towers around the crescent felt a "bit residual" and they should instead be reinforcing placemaking on the site. Another member suggested looking at precedents from towns such as Bath in the United Kingdom to look at how architecture is used to frame these types of curved spaces as well as how the adjacencies are dealt with.

Parking Strategy

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Many members commented that the parking strategy on the site was very important and needed more consideration. One member pointed out that the design team needed to consider that most people will be arriving by car into the proposed underground parking, and so how they will enter the site once they leave the car will be a very important connection. This member suggested designing something light and airy rather than a quick connection point for people to "pop out of".

Regarding surface parking, a few members mentioned that the Right of Ways still needed to be studied. One member noted that even though the goal is for the area to look, feel and function as an urban space with on street parking, the reality of the area is that people will still be driving, and so the design team needs a strategy to phase the parking for the users and retail clients as well.

Proposed Streets Many Panel members noted that there was an issue of incomplete routes within the project. One member specifically noted that Private Road B had a dead-end condition, mentioning that although they know the back of retail needs to be serviced, they thought it would make sense for there to be a stronger element to complete these connections within the development. Another member agreed that this road was currently functioning more "like a back alley" and thought it could become a link between the proposed park and the surrounding context.

A few members mentioned that the project had created "incredible pressure" through the axial relationship between Road C and the existing Seniors Housing. Although they appreciated the planned gardens, they wondered if something "more civic in scale" could be proposed here to address this.

Phasing Strategy

The Panel appreciated the considerable phasing and siting challenges facing the project, with one member comparing the site strategy to a chess game or jigsaw puzzle. One member stated they were fascinated by the process of moving out then returning the Walmart, but cautioned that the design team needed to be careful about the challenges surrounding this phasing. This member mentioned the retail phasing that had occurred at Don Mills in Toronto, noting that it was the social hub for the area, but then it died for a few years due to similar phasing challenges.

Another member noted that if the promised transit in the area comes through that it makes sense to build here.

*Vote

After some discussion, the Panel felt that the established parameters of the vote were not applicable to the project at this stage. Several members noted that they did not want to give the wrong signal through a vote because there were both some "great successes" along with other aspects needing to be more "fundamentally examined". The Panel specifically agreed that the public ground infrastructure seemed to be heading in the right direction, but that the tower placement and heights needed to be looked at more closely.

Ultimately, the Panel agreed that they thought the vote should be saved until the project was at a rezoning stage. As such, the Panel did not proceed with a vote at this time, noting that the next time this project came to the Panel they would be holding the first vote.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL


Documents

Design Review Panel - Meeting Minutes October 12, 2017 OF TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES: MEETING 7 – October 12, 2017 The Design Review Panel met on Thursday October 12, in