DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 1

CITY OF TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES: MEETING 9 – October 4, 2018 The Design Review Panel met on Thursday October 4, 2018, in Committee Room 2, Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, Toronto, at 1:10pm.

Members of the Design Review Panel

Members Present

Gordon Stratford (Chair): Architect, Principal – G C Stratford – Architect 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 Jessica Hutcheon: Landscape Architect, Principal – Janet Rosenberg & Studio Viktors Jaunkalns: Architect, Principal – Maclennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects

Joe Lobko: Architect, Urban Designer, Principal – DTAH 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

Design Review Panel Coordinator Meredith Vaga: Urban Design, City Planning Division

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The Panel confirmed minutes of their previous meeting which was held on September 13, 2018 by email.

MEETING 9 INDEX i. 1978 Lake Shore Boulevard West (1st Review) ii. Golden Mile Study (2nd Review) iii. 15-21 Holmes Avenue (1st Review)

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 1

1978 LAKE SHORE BOULEVARD WEST DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review APPLICATION Rezoning PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Diane Silver, Community

Planning; Jack Krubnik, Urban Design

DESIGN TEAM Graziani + Corazza Architects VOTE No Vote

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

1. Do the built form matters related to height, massing, and transition appropriately response to the existing and planned contexts?

2. The proposed podium offers the opportunity for a visual and physical relationship with the Gardiner Expressway. How can the proposal appropriately respond to this relationship?

3. What is the Panel's view on the applicants' public realm proposal as it relates to its contextual connections to Windermere Avenue, Lake Shore Boulevard West, and the Western Waterfront?

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent team for bringing this project forward at an early stage, and appreciates the challenges presented by the site and surrounding context. There is significant potential not yet addressed and given such a prominent site and setting the highest quality of design is essential. Further work is needed in the following areas: Response to Context (including local character and heritage):

• Develop a green connection with waterfront park (see Landscape Strategy below). • Improve quality of life design of residential units facing the major arterial Gardiner

Expressway; in particular units at lower levels of development. • More strongly respond to Gardiner Expressway city gateway opportunity (see Built Form

below). Site Plan Design:

• Considering Lake Shore Blvd. West context rethink street level uses along this frontage; including using retail only where viable.

• Provide more information regarding vehicular access/egress for site, including safety of Windermere Avenue access/egress relative to immediately adjacent underpass and intersection.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 2

Pedestrian Realm:

• Provide a spacious, high-quality pedestrian realm along busy thoroughfares of Lake Shore Blvd. West and Windermere Avenue.

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

• Comply within the Tall Building Guidelines 750 sm point tower built form. • Rethink proposed built form and develop alternatives (including considering shifting

density to create taller point tower at east end of site; significantly reducing height of proposed west building).

• Avoid massive lower floor plates. • Aim for design that possesses elegant simplicity and clarity.

Landscape Strategy:

• Extend green setting of existing major waterfront park onto project site; with extensive high-quality landscape both at street level and at a more generous green roof podium level.

Sustainable Design:

• Provide sustainability strategy. Comments to City:

• No comments.

Panel Commentary The Panel thanked the design team for their presentation and noted that the project was situated at a "gateway moment" for the city. The Panel understood that the project was still at an early stage but felt that this was a "great chance to develop a discourse" around such an important site. While the Panel understood more information was pending, they thought the drawing package was missing key drawings including: elevations, sections, shadow studies and site context. The members were looking forward to seeing the project again for a second review. Response to Context (including local character and heritage) The Panel members noted that the project was sited at an important gateway for Toronto, both from the waterfront into the city via Windermere Ave as well as from Lake Shore Blvd/the Gardiner Expressway into downtown. The Panel thought the project needed further development regarding how the built form would respond to these surroundings. They felt there were numerous opportunities for green and public connections to the site including bike trails and an expanded pedestrian realm. Several members also wanted more information on what other improvements the City will be implementing along Lake Shore Blvd and Windermere Ave. Site Plan Design Proposed Ground Floor Uses The Panel did not think the proposed retail and commercial uses would "survive in this location" other than as incidental to the residential uses. They noted that the area lacked visibility and access

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 3

and they felt the site did not have enough context, pedestrian movement or vehicular parking for successful ground floor animation via street retail. However, the Panel suggested removing the retail would be an opportunity to better address how the two towers were currently sitting on the site. Public Realm The Panel thought the proposal did not address or improve the public realm in part due to "too much going on" at grade. Some members suggested developing a better dialogue between the two towers and establishing "a lot more" public space around the bases. A few members advised against "tucking the public realm under the cover of the building" and felt the spaces needed air and access to daylight and sky views. Several members also pointed out that the public realm plan needed to address the surrounding context including Lake Shore Blvd and Lake Ontario. The Panel thought the strip between the Gardiner Expressway and the proposed podium seemed "forgotten" and noted the importance of addressing that corner. Underground Parking The Panel supported locating the parking below grade; however, the members cautioned that the underground access needed careful consideration. One member pointed out that the Windermere Ave intersection was becoming congested due to development north of the underpass. The Panel suggested discouraging left hand turns into the underground parking to prevent further traffic issues at that intersection. Pedestrian Realm The Panel recommended developing an expanded high-quality pedestrian realm, including along the street frontages. Some members thought there was an opportunity to develop a generous plaza and pedestrian realm at the corner of Windermere Ave and Lake Shore Blvd. A few members noted that the sidewalk along Windermere Ave was too narrow as it was also a north-south route to access the Martin Goodman Trail. Built Form (Massing, Height, Articulation (including heritage conservation)) Built Form Massing The Panel did not think the proposed massing was very successful. Looking at the broader context, they recommended redeveloping the slab building as a point tower to help maintain north-south sky views for the people living to the north of the site. Elaborating on the "wall" effect of the slab building, the Panel suggested redistributing the tower massing into elegant two point towers and removing the intermediary podium massing. They felt this would give the geometry more clarity, make the building appear more slender and help create a more potent ground floor at the base of the building. One member noted that locating the towers closer together would also help condense the long corridors and clarify the interior organization. Floorplate Sizes The Panel pointed out that the 750 sm floorplate specified by the Tall Building Guidelines was intended to include the bulk of the building mass.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 4

The members advised maintaining a 750 sm volume for the entirety of both towers, including the balconies. The Panel also recommended decreasing the size of the lower floorplates. Adjust Tower/Podium Proportions The Panel thought the proportions of the towers and podium needed further design development. They suggested shifting the density to the east for a taller elliptical tower and reduce the height and mass of the proposed tower in the west. Various members advised conducting shadow studies to help determine the specific tower placement. Several members thought instead of stepping down the higher buildings to the west, the tower and podium proportions should be further adjusted as two elegant point towers with a low podium. Building Articulation The Panel felt the building articulation should be simplified with one member noting that "signature can mean simplicity". Another member thought that clarifying the design would make the site feel bigger as opposed to overwhelmed by a "large single mass". Many Panel members thought the architectural expression and materiality should better reflect the gateway location of the site. One member suggested the use of a rich facing material such as granite or brick. Landscape Strategy The Panel thought the proposal needed a more developed landscape strategy. The members noted that the proposal could give more "passive" greening elements to the city on the site instead of retail. Looking at the "wonderful trails" adjacent to the site, some members thought the proposal should both develop stronger cycling and pedestrian connections as well as create an open space opening up to the trail at the corner of Lake Shore Blvd and Windermere Ave. A few members thought the Lake Shore frontage should incorporate wide sidewalks as well as a double row of planting. One member suggested additional planting in the median along Lake Shore Blvd. Another member thought a lower podium could be developed as a green roof and "provide a green forest" visible from the Gardiner Expressway.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 1

GOLDEN MILE SECONDARY PLAN STUDY DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW Second Review APPLICATION City Study PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Emily Caldwell, Community

Planning; Sasha Terry, Urban Design

DESIGN TEAM SvN Architects + Planners

VOTE No Vote

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

1. Characters of Districts The draft preferred alternative proposes 4 districts. Please comment on the proposed characters and how they can be achieved.

2. Public Realm Strategy Please provide comments on the following key public realm elements:

a. Victoria Park – Eglinton Parkette (Triangle): With the realignment and extension of O'Connor Dr., what role should the Victoria Park-Eglinton Parkette (Triangle) have as a modified gateway to the Golden Mile? How should it be designed?

b. Eglinton Ave E c. "Golden Mile" Blvd d. West Park, Central Park and East Park, especially the "Green Nodes"

3. Built Form Strategy What are your comments regarding the proposed built form in the gateway, nodes and adjacent to the proposed major parks (West, Central, East and South), especially the "Green Nodes"?

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel appreciates the proponent team sharing its in-progress secondary plan. Given the significance of the reimagining of this area of the city the Panel is very interested in seeing more comprehensive information regarding the preferred alternative, so that full input can be provided. Based on information presented further work is needed in the following areas: Response to Context (including local character and heritage):

• More strongly weave Eglinton Avenue East and broader context into the secondary plan (see Site Plan Design and Landscape Strategy below).

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 2

• Provide a stronger future character study that moves beyond identifying uses and built form to create a unique "There" for Golden Mile (see Comments to City below).

Site Plan Design:

• Extending the Eglinton Crosstown strategy more fully weave Eglinton Avenue East into the Secondary Plan.

• Work beyond the boundaries of the Secondary Plan area to extend more fully into the broader context; especially relative to integration with key existing uses (e.g.: Centennial College), streets that currently stop at edges of Plan area, and pedestrian connectivity.

Pedestrian Realm:

• See Site Plan Design above. Built Form (Massing, Height, Articulation (including heritage conservation)):

• No comments. Landscape Strategy:

• Build upon Secondary Plan's proposed design and make green space a major defining character of the new Golden Mile.

• Develop Eglinton Avenue East as a significant greenway corridor through the Plan; interconnected with Golden Mile Blvd., proposed parks and green nodes.

• Develop north-south streets as greenways to extend green weave throughout the Plan. • Strengthen integration into surrounding existing green spaces.

Sustainable Design:

• Given the size and functional dynamics of this Secondary Plan provide a strategic vision for the highest level of sustainability.

Comments to City:

• Design progress will be more clearly understandable if the submission uses a "before vs. after" approach; structured with an effective connection between 1st Review input and 2nd Review proponent response.

• Coupling a strong Character Study (like the High Park Apartment Neighbourhood process presented February 22, 2018) with the Secondary Plan effort would help create a comprehensive overall strategy. This in turn will help define the "There" currently missing in the Plan.

Panel Commentary The Panel thanked the design team for their presentation. The members appreciated the inclusion of the additional diagrams noting that they helped clarify the submission. They thought there were many good things in the package and felt the Secondary Plan was moving in a good direction. The Panel wanted to see more "before and after" images understand the evolution of the proposal. The members advised focusing on the "why" as a starting point. They felt the Secondary Plan would be strengthened by the inclusion of a character study for the Golden Mile Area.

Response to Context (including local character and heritage) Define the Connector Spine for the Neighbourhood The Panel felt the design team needed to further define the "connector boulevard" for the neighbourhood. The members noted there appeared to be a clash between whether Eglinton Ave E or Golden Mile Blvd was the spine connecting and defining the area.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 3

Many members also noted that Eglinton Ave E lacked character or definition. A member questioned whether Eglinton Ave E was intended to be the heart of the district or the edge. The Panel advised developing Eglinton Ave E as the spine to capitalize on the density opportunities via the future transit nodes. They noted that once Eglinton Ave E develops there will be the potential for Golden Mile Blvd to grow as well. Develop a Future Character Study The Panel thought that while the study area had been clearly defined by the proponents, the document also needed to develop a future character study for the district. One member suggested looking at the recent High Park Apartment Neighbourhood Area Character Study. The Panel felt that the neighbourhood needed its own discrete identity, including a way for people to intuitively understand when they were inside the Golden Mile area. The Panel thought defining the "essence" of the community was key to successfully tying the pieces of the study together.

Site Plan Design Establish Stronger Connections across Eglinton Ave E The Panel thought there was great potential for "creating a truly grand boulevard" across Eglinton Ave E. They advised developing strong connections across Eglinton for bikes, pedestrians and transit infrastructure. The Panel appreciated the decision to build on the existing commercial and educational uses along Eglinton, and supported the provisions made for frontage spill out space. A few members did not think that having retail on both sides of the street was appropriate and a member suggested it was important Eglinton had a mixture of uses. Another member pointed out that Eglinton would be the street used for civic events in the Golden Mile. Transit Nodes & Density The members felt that concentrating the density around the transit nodes was a "great" and a "logical" move; however, the Panel wanted more information regarding how the increased density around the nodes would work. They were concerned with the amount of density shown and questioned how the nodes would connect north/south into the surrounding neighbourhood fabric. A member noted that Option 3 would put pressure on transit, while combining Options 2 and 3 appeared to exacerbate density issues. One member wondered if there could be more bus routes while another member felt that the study should develop the nodes with a finer grain. Consider Broader Context past Secondary Plan Boundaries The Panel advised extending the strategy beyond the Secondary Plan boundaries. The members felt the Golden Mile area was currently shown as "very much an island with large scale use" and recommended interconnecting the study edges into the broader city. A member noted that the proposed north-south streets were dead-ending. Other members suggested improving the connections to Centennial College by bringing it further into the area "hub" or by linking it more directly to Eglinton Ave E to create a more diverse central spine.

Pedestrian Realm The Panel thought the Secondary Plan needed further pedestrian connectivity throughout the Golden Mile and into the broader context.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 4

Some members thought Golden Mile Blvd could additionally become a strong pedestrian back of house space. Another member thought the Eglinton Parkette Triangle could be developed as an entry feature and pedestrian space related to nearby retail/plaza space and LRT stop.

Landscape Strategy "Green Nodes" as a Primary Structuring Element The Panel thought green nodes should be developed as a primary structuring element for the Secondary Plan. Many members suggested developing the north-south streets as green connections linking the Meadoway, Ashtonbee Reservoir Park and the proposed new parks to Eglinton Ave E. The Panel felt that by using green space as a structuring element an interesting language would begin to emerge for the area. However, the Panel cautioned that how green spaces connect to their surroundings required careful consideration to ensure that both typologies were functioning properly. As an example, a member noted that there are often issues when retail faces onto a park. Develop Eglinton Ave E as a Green Corridor The Panel additionally suggested developing Eglinton Ave E as a green corridor for the City. Referencing the proposed Green Line along Eglinton at Yonge St, one member wondered whether something similar could be developed within the Golden Mile. When looking at the landscape strategy for Eglinton, the members advised defining the massing setbacks early on. They felt the setbacks needed to consider both adequate spill out spaces for retail as well as enable "generous promenades" and space for trees/other landscape elements.

Sustainable Design The Panel wanted to see a strategic vision for sustainability as a part of the Secondary Plan.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 1

15-21 HOLMES AVENUE DESIGN REVIEW PANEL DESIGN RE VIE W PANE L MIN UTES

DESIGN REVIEW First Review APPLICATION Site Plan Approval, OPA &

Rezoning PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF Jenny Choi, Community Planning;

Joanna Chludzinska, Urban Design DESIGN TEAM IBI Group

VOTE No Vote

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

1. Public Realm and Connection: • Opportunity for public laneway as a multi-functional street • Treatment of pedestrian mid-block connection (POPS) to park and a possible

connection from Yonge Street • Appropriate treatment and activation of building frontages along Holmes Ave and

the park

2. Built Form and Site Organization: • Massing and articulation of the proposed building in terms of shadow impact,

proportions framing the street, contextual fit and visual interest • Location of drop-off area and main entrance • Location of site servicing area

3. Growing Up Guidelines: • Does the indoor amenity space provide for family's daily needs? • Does the indoor amenity uses relate to the outdoor amenity space and the park?

Chair's Summary of Key Points The Panel would like to thank the proponent for sharing their design; which offers thoughtful site planning potential, consideration towards family-oriented living and sensitivity to existing future context beyond the site's boundaries. To fully realise the design's potential work is needed in the following areas: Response to Context (including local character and heritage):

• Create a master plan that outlines how the proposed design will relate to existing context west of the site, and then transitions to the future condition already identified.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 2

Site Plan Design: • Further develop public/private transition along east and north edges of the site (including

compressed relation between private amenity and outdoor terrace, and public sidewalk along Holmes).

• Clarify strategy for creating a safe public vs private space between POPS walkway and adjacent private residential units/patios.

Pedestrian Realm:

• See Site Plan Design above. Built Form (Massing, Height, Articulation (including heritage conservation)):

• Comply within the Tall Building Guidelines 750 sm point tower built form. • Rethink jarring design character disconnect between tower and street building /

townhouses. Landscape Strategy:

• No comments. Sustainable Design:

• Provide highest sustainability. Comments to City:

• No comments.

Panel Comments The Panel thanked the design team for their presentation, commenting that it was "really nice to get a package with so much information in it". Several members felt the project was on an interesting site with interesting adjacencies. The Panel complimented the design team for looking beyond the boundaries of the property to address evolving relationships. The members noted they thought there was a lot of potential and encouraged the design team to continue to develop their proposal.

Response to Context (including local character and heritage) The Panel appreciated that this project was looking beyond the boundaries of the site when developing the design proposal. The members suggested developing "before and after" views to demonstrate how the incremental development in the broader area would occur. The Panel felt that these drawings would help with design development and future built form relationships, such as along the west edge of the property. To anticipate future development at the church site in the north, the Panel suggested moving the proposed tower slightly south.

Site Plan Design Develop Interface to Private Amenity Spaces Although they appreciated that both the lobby and amenity spaces were looking onto the street and thus supporting an activated frontage as well as eyes on the street, the Panel thought the exterior amenity spaces needed further design development. Looking at the interior amenity spaces, the members suggested realigning and reducing the size of the party room. They felt that the spaces as shown were too narrow to function as desired.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 3

Looking at the orientation of the lobby, the Panel felt that there would be a problem with the back of house area. They were concerned that the large setback would result in a "very different character from what the lobby is trying to exude". A member also noted that the plans didn't appear to match the elevations, such as on pg. 24 where the amenity area looked privatized and closed off from the street versus on the renderings where the spaces looked more open and accessible. Laneway & Vehicular Access The Panel thought that it was good that the proposal was getting vehicle access of the street. They advised developing a transportation master plan for the site and surrounding context. The members suggested looking at the lane treatment as a new nodal space for the surrounding area. They pointed out that the future tower on Yonge St will have the same issues around layby access and loading. Some members noted that the lane treatment could also inform the laneway and entry to the church on the north side of Holmes Ave.

Built Form (Massing, Height, Articulation (including heritage conservation)) Tower Massing & Height The Panel strongly felt that the tower footprint should comply with the 750 sm specified by the Tall Buildings Guidelines. The members additionally noted that the 750 sm should refer to the overall bulk of the tower including the balconies. Various members commented that the design: was "stretching the limits"; was "bulky"; and "could go on a diet". Podium Articulation The Panel thought there was a disconnect between the podium architecture and the tower architecture, and felt the podium architecture was the less successful of the two. They advised developing a stronger interrelationship between the two in terms of articulation and materiality. The members suggested bringing the articulation from the top of the building down through the podium. They thought the tower was developing an interesting aesthetic of solid forms and voids and felt this "distinctive sinuous language" should be what is developed throughout the proposal. Some members, looking at the 2nd floor patio/terrace space, thought it would be interesting to take that dark band across to build on the "sinuous" built form articulation. Many members also noted that they supported the idea of the perforated screens. Podium Massing Looking at the massing of the podium, some members thought there could be an issue with the massing distribution. They brought up 1 Bloor St East as an example of a building where the separation of the penthouse to the portion of the building below had resulted in bulky massing. Existing & New Townhouses The Panel thought the townhouses had been scaled appropriately and "could be lovely". Several members questioned why all the townhouses were not being built from new to avoid the cladding issues. Otherwise the Panel felt there should be new brick on the existing townhouses as well. The Panel felt that while the townhouses did not have to mirror the sinuous articulation, they were concerned that the townhouses were developing a foreign language from the rest of the proposal. They advised further design development to understand how the townhouses would tie into the rest of the project.

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

MINUTES: Meeting 9 – October 4, 2018 4

Landscape Strategy Proposed POPS & Increased Connectivity The Panel complimented the design team on their intention to integrate the POPS on the site, with a member commenting that it was great that the triangular park was going to be inhabitable. Some members additionally wondered whether there was a more creative way of framing the entrance to the POPS other than a gate where it was unclear if the space was publically accessible. While the Panel liked the integration of the POPS, they were concerned that the space wouldn't work until the site was fully built out. They thought the space should have more porosity, although they were concerned about safety. The Panel suggested integrating the POPS with the entrances to the townhouses as well as the main lobby. They pointed out that for pedestrians these entrances felt isolated. A member suggested varying the heights of the raised planters so that they didn't enclose the area as much. Another member advised having high quality materiality for the space including "quality pavement and unique lighting elements". They suggested increasing the width to 4 m. Landscape Strategy for the Exterior Amenity Spaces The Panel thought the children's amenity area would be better oriented towards the future park. They noted that the children's area needed more space than what has been provided, and felt that this reorientation would alleviate the pressure to put a fence on the north side of the building. Members also pointed out that it was important for children to have a connection to nature via the park. A member additional suggested rotating the play area so the outdoor space would receive more sun throughout the day. The Panel was skeptical that the exterior amenity space to the north of the building would be used. They questioned the accessible doors, openings and other connections to this space shown as arrows on the plan. They noted that direct connections were unlikely for security reasons. The members pointed out that the fence would then create a physical boundary to the sidewalk.

Sustainable Design The Panel wanted to see more information on the sustainability strategy. They felt the proposal should be pursuing a high degree of sustainable measures.