If approved, expect a solid addition to downtown Toronto's skyline!



Developer seeks skyscraping condo towers at old Four Seasons site in Yorkville

Posted: January 31, 2008, 9:54 PM by Rob Roberts

By Kelly Grant, National Post

The Four Seasons Hotel in Yorkville is going to be demolished to make way for a pair of skyscraping condominium towers whose proposed height already has city planners and some nearby residents on edge.

Menkes Development Ltd. has applied to erect two luxury 48-storey and 58-storey towers with as much as 65,000 square feet of retail space on the Four Seasons’ site at 21 Avenue Rd.

The current 31-storey hotel and the desirable land on which it sits are due to be vacated early next decade when the Four Seasons moves to its new flagship location at Bay Street and Yorkville Avenue.

The 21 Avenue application, filed Dec. 21, is important because it ramps up an ongoing tug-of-war over the future of Yorkville and the nearby Annex neighbourhood, two enclaves that boast some of the most expensive real estate in Canada.

“Yorkville is transitioning,” said Kyle Rae, the councillor who has represented this area for 17 years. “It can’t depend on American tourists anymore. It needs to build a base of residents that will support it. The alternative would be to freeze it in time and it will die.”

But even those who acknowledge Yorkville needs to lure more high-density residential buildings fear that a 58-storey tower — which could be more than twice the height of the current hotel — is simply too tall.

“When [the developers] came in, I said to them, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t know how you can justify going to 58 storeys,’ Mr. Rae said. “So I think they know that I have concerns with the height.”

Like Mr. Rae, city planners, the Annex Residents’ Association and Councillor Adam Vaughan, whose ward begins on the west side of Avenue Road, all fear the proposed condos could cast too long a shadow into the abutting residential neighbourhood.
Mr. Vaughan also worries the towers could sully the silhouette of Queen’s Park.
“Is it time in this city that we had a discussion around protecting iconic buildings? Yes,” he said. “Can you imagine building a row of condominiums behind the Eiffel Tower?”

Paul Bain, the acting manager for midtown in the city’s planning department, said that at least at the preliminary stage, the proposal would be rejected because of the height.

But Alan Menkes, the president of Menkes Development Ltd., said it is too premature to discuss ratcheting down the height.

He believes the project, which was designed by top architect Peter Clewes and includes a new public park, is an excellent fit for the area.

“The buildings that we’ve designed are light, slender point towers to really minimize the shadow impacts and maintain the view corridors as much as we possibly can,” Mr. Menkes said.

The proposal envisions 176 units in the 48-storey north tower and 216 units in the 58-storey south tower. The one and two-bedroom condominiums would range in size from 1,500 to 5,000 square-feet, Mr. Menkes said.

The plan also calls for a three-storey retail “podium” that would sit at street level on Avenue Road and wrap around Yorkville Avenue and Cumberland Street.

With Bloor Street West, Canada’s answer to New York City’s Fifth Avenue, immediately to the south, Mr. Menkes expects to attract one or two high-end retailers to the space.

“We want to attract — and we’re negotiating and talking to — international and American landmark retailers that could really put a special store in this location.”

As far as concerns about the height, Mr. Menkes said he is prepared to begin consulting with his future neighbours.

Mimi Fullerton, the vice-chairwoman of the Annex Residents’ Association, said her group is also prepared to talk. But she warns the 21 Avenue proposal cannot be considered in isolation; it needs to be looked at as a potential precedent for the area.

“Nobody’s stepping back and saying, ‘If we keep on producing these [high-rise condos] you’re going to end up with streets in darkness.’”

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee140/laserboy_TO/21_Ave_Rd_base-render.jpg

EDIT^

Two towers will be too close to each other. lacking privacy.

Probably only a few units per floor.. thus the walls facing each other are bedrooms...

This will be the biggest demolition of a toronto skyscraper !!

But the existing Four Seasons Hotel, will need to stay in operation for at least 4 years, so don't expect anything on this one for a while.

when all the current projects for Toronto Downtown are completed the city will have an damn awesome skyline!!

This will be the biggest demolition of a toronto skyscraper !!

But the existing Four Seasons Hotel, will need to stay in operation for at least 4 years, so don't expect anything on this one for a while.

Yeah I know, what's even worst is the Nimbys are under the impression that it's somehow part of the Annex. :bash: I say, you're for it or for sprawl instead.

This proposal is dead on arrival according to the planning department. They aren't even going to dedicate staff resources to review the proposal in detail until the developer comes back with a substantially revised application.

omfg, another one bites the dust...:bash::bash:

omfg, another one bites the dust...:bash::bash:

Well not really, the applicant will have to substantially revise the proposed development before any serious negotiations can take place. A public meeting is scheduled on Feb 21st, more information should be available at that time.

A bit forward isn't it, using this site and keep going on about paintings...........Very American, never shy...........

Well not really, the applicant will have to substantially revise the proposed development before any serious negotiations can take place. A public meeting is scheduled on Feb 21st, more information should be available at that time.

Last I've heard both towers have been scaled down significantly. The heights are very close to those of the twin tower U Condo development. Nevertheless the project's podium will be an incredible improvement over the current Four Seasons hotel (well..glamorous 70's bunker)
Amazing how Menkes seems to have come out of nowhere with so many beautiful ambitious projects.

Do you paint then?.. I'd never have guessed?????????? I'm only kidding really........I do photography, I've had exhibitions, won an award once, and have a series of local scenes greetings cards, which aren't tacky like some I've seen around the place, but nice quality. You can check out my other hobby if you go to scale models and look for 'gregs models', kindly posted for me by Robin, 'Piginapoke'. Good luck with the paintings.X

Thanks gwool. I'll definitely check those out:cheers:

Well not really, the applicant will have to substantially revise the proposed development before any serious negotiations can take place. A public meeting is scheduled on Feb 21st, more information should be available at that time.

How would one find out where and what time the meeting is scheduled? I suppose a height increase isn't in the offing.

Its canсeled?

The height police seem to have argued that anything visible from south of the Legislature is too tall. Where do they think they are, Saskatchewan?

So is this officially dead, or are they re-working it to comply with the height police?

^^ It's not dead. The design's being worked out as we speak. It has been shortened to below skyscraper status though.

Oh man, that would have been so awesome at 225m! But when you say "below skyscraper status" how short does that actually mean?

Oh man, that would have been so awesome at 225m! But when you say "below skyscraper status" how short does that actually mean?

It means much shorter. :( But the view corridor up University Avenue toward Queen's Park is preserved. :)

A lot shorter. Something like 120-140m is the latest proposal, if I recall. Why bother even tearing down Four Seasons for that?:|

As soon as we know the actual height of the new design I'll have it moved.

Too bad they have to resort to this, looking forward to a new rendering.

Jan 2010 plans

40 storey tower, 143 metres
28 storey "slab", 97 metres

more revisions to come

It means much shorter. :( But the view corridor up University Avenue toward Queen's Park is preserved. :)

That's terrible. I was hoping I'd be able to see an urban backdrop behind Queen's Park. I can barely see One Bedford from University Avenue. :(

Too bad they have to resort to this, looking forward to a new rendering.

It's really frustrating. We'll probably have to wait a generation or two before we see the northern terminus of Queen's Park filled in properly. The people in charge of the approval process think they're in Ottawa, Washington, or Venice. The 225m proposal would have been awesome. One would have been able to see it all the way down from the Shangri-La at the other end of University Avenue. What a lost opportunity. :ohno:

They'll retire eventually, and hopefully get replaced with people who have a more big north American city aesthetic bent. :okay:

The 225m proposal would have been awesome.
I loved it too (kind of an ICE Midtown), although I have to admit that such tall towers would have looked out of place in that location. Personally, I find the Queen's Park sightlines irrelevant, but to plop a couple of huge towers down in an area where nothing else is anywhere near their size would have looked a little awkward.

I loved it too (kind of an ICE Midtown), although I have to admit that such tall towers would have looked out of place in that location. Personally, I find the Queen's Park sightlines irrelevant, but to plop a couple of huge towers down in an area where nothing else is anywhere near their size would have looked a little awkward.

Neighbourhoods grow. Put these two 225 m towers there and then a couple years later a 180 m tower, then a 240 m tower, and it wouldn't look out of place. Now if that were 325 m tall, it would probably look over sized for the area for a long time.

The CN Tower is the only building I can think of in the core that was massively out of scale with the surroundings. 35 years later, and the city still hasn't grown up to meet it. This one would have been just about right.

Glad to hear that I'm not alone regarding the Queen's Park sight lines.

It's approved--at 48 and 44s. Good enough. I can see it being launched later this year--after Menkes sells out nearby Pears on the Avenue?

Do you have any info on the new height?

I'd assume somewhere between 160-185m?

Has this street or area got height restrictions?

I'd assume somewhere between 160-185m?

Has this street or area got height restrictions?

Very severe height restrictions are in force here. To the west is an area called the Annex. It's a very old established leafy residential neighbourhood. What's more problematic to a certain group of Torontonians who currently hold sway at the municipal board is view corridors up University Avenue.

University Avenue 'terminates' at the Ontario Legislature then carries on north of it to Bloor. North of Bloor the street is called Avenue Road. 21 Avenue Road would sit just a block north of Avenue/Bloor and sits directly along the view corridor.

The current opinion is that the view corridor must feature sky as a bookend, not buildings. Any building built north of the Legislature must not be visible from south of the Legislature. This limits buildings to about 140 m.

Judging from discussions on here and urbantoronto, opinions seem rather split on whether sky is a suitable bookend for University Avenue. I'm of the opinion that a big north American city like Toronto should have it's grand boulevards bookended by large imposing buildings, not sky.

At 48 and 44 floors, they seem to have come to some middle ground which doesn't make sense either. At this height, these buildings will be visible from the south. If they're visible, why not do it properly and approve the original height of 225 m?

Now, neither side is happy. Sky as a bookend won't be maintained, but using adequately scaled buildings to bookend the view corridor isn't accomplished either. :nuts:

Meh... I think all this hoopla about view corridors is nonsense. This isn't an overwhelmingly low-rise European city, where a highrise could very well seem out of place in a particular view. The view in any other direction from University south of College is full of highrises! I really don't understand what motivates people to try to preserve these views... so that we can have a few places with "postcard" views where we can pretend, for some reason, that the city isn't predominantly high-rise?

I would much prefer a backdrop of (well designed) buildings framing a view in the context of this city for the same reason as someone in a European city might, for example, want the opposite: just as a highrise would seem out of place in an older city, a lack of highrises seems out of place in Toronto.

With that said, the problem, really, is when just one building dominates the view, especially if that building sucks or is captured from its most unflattering angle (or both in the case of ROCP). The solution, in my mind, is more skyscrapers in the view.

Anyway... all this talk about preserving the views along University are pretty silly, considering how much of a mess the view going south is, and how thoroughly halfassed that whole visual terminus is.

Very severe height restrictions are in force here. To the west is an area called the Annex. It's a very old established leafy residential neighbourhood. What's more problematic to a certain group of Torontonians who currently hold sway at the municipal board is view corridors up University Avenue.

University Avenue 'terminates' at the Ontario Legislature then carries on north of it to Bloor. North of Bloor the street is called Avenue Road. 21 Avenue Road would sit just a block north of Avenue/Bloor and sits directly along the view corridor.

The current opinion is that the view corridor must feature sky as a bookend, not buildings. Any building built north of the Legislature must not be visible from south of the Legislature. This limits buildings to about 140 m.

Judging from discussions on here and urbantoronto, opinions seem rather split on whether sky is a suitable bookend for University Avenue. I'm of the opinion that a big north American city like Toronto should have it's grand boulevards bookended by large imposing buildings, not sky.

At 48 and 44 floors, they seem to have come to some middle ground which doesn't make sense either. At this height, these buildings will be visible from the south. If they're visible, why not do it properly and approve the original height of 225 m?

Now, neither side is happy. Sky as a bookend won't be maintained, but using adequately scaled buildings to bookend the view corridor isn't accomplished either. :nuts:

After much thought and consideration, I agree with you to an extent about the backdrop.

If a cluster of skyscrapers can be built behind Queen's Park, I believe it probably could look better than sky. The key word, in my opinion at least, is cluster. Not one sitting on the right of University College like One Bedford, not a single building effectively and singlehandingly dwarfing the landmark like the Met Life Building in New York, but a cluster of buildings so there's a feeling that your in an urban center but its not overdoing it.

My opinion at least, for what its worth...

I agree with that. I don't think it's realistic or even preferable for a big growing city like Toronto to be stifled in this fashion. The city can respect view corridors, and accommodate its growth at the same time. It will just need to do so in a more imposing way than might have been imagined 100 years ago. One of the appealing qualities of Toronto's built form are the urban canyons and monolithic structures all over the downtown core. It's these juxtapositions that I find invigorating, not sky blue vistas.

Even the Champs Élysées is being book ended by a cluster at La Defense.