CITY OF TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL MINUTES: MEETING 6 June 22, 2018

Transcription

1 CITY OF TORONTO MINUTES: MEETING 6 June 22, 2018 The Design Review Panel met on Friday June 22, 2018, in Committee Room 2, Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, Toronto, at 1:45pm. Members of the Design Review Panel Members Present 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 * 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 *chair of meeting **in conflict for first item 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 May 10, 2018 by . MEETING 6 INDEX i. Woodbine Entertainment 555 Rexdale Blvd (2 nd Review) MINUTES: Meeting 6 June 22,

2 WOODBINE ENTERTAINMENT (GAMING FACILITY) 555 REXDALE BLVD MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS: CITY STAFF DESIGN TEAM VOTE Second Review Rezoning Kathryn Thom, Community Planning; Jack Krubnik, Urban Design CGL Architects 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. Does the proposal create a "sense of place"? 2. Do both the landscape vision and the design vision enforce and recreate natural and heritage features? 3. Does the design illustrate the variety of interdependent proposed uses? Are these uses appropriately and effectively connected to the Grandstand and future Urban Village? Panel Comments The Panel thanked the design team for their presentation. One member thought it was great to see investment in North Etobicoke. Several members noted how much they appreciated the level to which the design team had addressed many of the Panel's comments from the first review. Many members felt that the built form and architectural expression was "more settled". The Panel was pleased to see the investment in landscape and looked forward to seeing the proposal develop. Although the Panel was glad to see additional information included in the drawing package and presentation, they wanted further context and information on the evolution of the design. Many members complimented the design team on their graphic standards and visualizations compared to the first review, but pointed out that the drawings were missing key labelling, scales and dimensions. Many members also wanted to see more information on traffic flows and the number of people using the site. Site Organization & Master Plan Master Plan & Overarching Context The Panel thought the master plan still needed substantive development, with several members noting that they looked forward to seeing how the plan will evolve. The Panel felt that it was MINUTES: Meeting 6 June 22,

3 difficult to evaluate the success of this portion of the proposal with the contextual information missing. Many members thought the current master plan was not very convincing and wanted to see how the portion being reviewed fit into the rest of the proposal, particularly how it connected to the Urban Village and Woodbine Square. In addition to the missing information regarding the master plan, the Panel also noted that having more consistency in the drawing package would help with understanding both the overarching intentions for the site as well as the work done to date. Establish Stronger Connectivity The Panel wanted to better understand how the casino complex connected to the adjacent Urban Village. A few members suggested revisiting the larger plan to address the missing "middle piece". Woodbine Square The Panel was glad to see that the connection between Woodbine Square and the proposed developments had been improved. Several members also appreciated how the design of the Urban Village seemed to have been used to shape the open space around the square. However, the Panel wanted to better understand the relationship between Woodbine Square and the surrounding context. The Panel thought the square was "incredibly critical" both as a focal point in the proposal as well as a heritage destination for the community. They felt that when further development to the gaming complex should include more context including Woodbine Square and all adjacent developments. Sense of Place Some Panel members wondered whether it was possible to develop a "sense of place" given the programmatic elements. One member noted that the proposal was instead creating "really functional experiences" towards an overarching idea of spectacle. They felt that the success of the public realm would rely on the success of the programming. Other members noted that Woodbine and the Queen's Plate track were a place with a "long and great tradition of racing" and were pleased to see that this tradition would be maintained as the core for the site. Landscape Strategy Approach to Landscape & "Canadiana" Expression The Panel appreciated the overarching landscape developments compared to the previous submission, although some members noted that the "Canadiana" aspect seemed to dissipate after being presented in the package. Many Panel members thought the landscape elements were "toothing into" the proposal and felt that the emphasis on green space was very appropriate. A member suggested looking at the "great Canadian landscapes" identified in the drawing package to better negotiate the exterior spaces given the local climate, as well as develop the ideas around "Canadiana" landscapes. Embolden Landscape Design Several Panel members noted that the proposed built form for the performance venue, casino and hotel, was very bold. These members thought the landscape elements should be "equally bold" in MINUTES: Meeting 6 June 22,

4 their response. A member noted that the precedents showing various grasses and the light installation were both bold and graphic moves that could be amplified. One member, building on the idea that the design team had "inverted" the casino typology by developing different exterior courtyards and landscape areas, suggested bringing the "outside in" to also emphasize the importance of the landscape. Strengthen Landscape Hierarchy The Panel thought that although there had been a large amount of "beautiful" landscape development along with some "gorgeous" precedents/references since the last review, the landscape design now felt "lower on the hierarchy". Several members noted this was largely due to a lack of overarching connections between the landscape pieces along with the amount of car access proposed for the site. Many members thought the landscape scheme should be as bold as the architecture. The Panel suggested the design team focus the landscape design on the areas with high use, such as around the "anchor buildings" and allow the other areas/features to become more natural or "softened". One member advised creating "mini destinations" within these key landscape areas through the inclusion of seating, protection from the sun, and pedestrian-friendly elements. Another member pointed out that the maintenance of these landscape features needed to be further considered. Connect the Landscape Areas Many members noted that while there were a lot of fantastic moves toward the landscape they were currently functioning as discrete objects "that are between the car related things". These members wondered if the landscape areas could be connected so that together they read as a "powerful" cohesive and contiguous fabric. One member mentioned LDA Design's work on the "London 2012 Olympic Park" at the London Olympics as a precedent of a large plaza and landscape with "a continuous feeling". Other members noted out that each landscape piece should also be further developed and defined within the landscape fabric. De-emphasize the Car Where Possible The Panel recommended finding ways to de-emphasize the "formality of the car" to instead emphasize the "richness of the green space". A member agreed that the contiguous landscape should "admit cars where they needed to be admitted but then reassert the landscapes' dominance, [ ] connectivity and boldness". Use Architecture to Frame Open Spaces Many members recommended further using the architecture to frame the landscape spaces. The Panel particularly liked how the new buildings in combination with the Grandstand and Woodbine Square framed the entry experience onto the site. One member noted framing along the perimeter of these spaces would help make them feel more welcoming and comfortable. Eastern Parkette & Amphitheater Several Panel members questioned the placement of the proposed amphitheater in the eastern parkette. They noted that the parkette was cut off by a parking structure and located far from the entertainment venues on site. MINUTES: Meeting 6 June 22,

5 The Panel suggested that the area could instead be purely an infrastructural piece for storm water management, with one member commenting that it could become about how water is treated on site and used for track uses etc. Hotel Entry Plaza Several Panel members were concerned that the landscape around the hotel entry plaza felt residual. A few members thought the plaza should have more "formal" landscaping. One member suggested that the grasses in front of the University of Toronto's new Architecture building could be a good precedent, commenting that the field of grass was "just about formality; it is not inviting people to enter that space at all". A member recommended framing these landscape spaces. Another member noted that there were no places in shade along this entrance. One member wondered if the landscape could open to the racetrack in a more effective way. Urban Mews & Loading Some members thought that the Urban Mews behind the proposed retail were not quite working. A member commented that this landscape area was "trying to do too much". This member suggested that the area should be simplified by decking over level 0 to shield loading/servicing at grade. They noted that the upper porch could then be developed as an exterior space for food and beverage. Landscape Should Frame the Main Entrances The Panel felt that the landscape components should be used to better frame and raise awareness to the main points of pedestrian entry into the complex. Several members also advised the design team to develop destinations or "areas of focus" within the landscape spaces. Some members thought the hotel entrances in particular needed further refinement. These members wondered if a more formalized design sequence could be developed from the hotel entrance to the square to the racetrack beyond. Develop Green Roofs Some members suggested taking advantage of the large square footage of roofs in the proposal to "really push the envelope" in terms of developing green roofs and other sustainable measures including biodiversity and habitat as well as solar considerations. Develop Heritage & Wellness Layer One member suggested further linking and expanding the landscape pieces by developing a sitewide circuit focused on physical health, the sustainable functions developed through this project and/or the heritage of the area and racetrack. This member commented that creating another landscape layer would serve the different types of visitors to the site, from people at the casino to families staying in the hotel. Built Form & Articulation Existing Grandstand Some Panel members commented that they would have liked to have seen renderings or drawings of the Grandstand with the hotels to better understand how they would sit together. One member noted that the Grandstand was a very unique structure that would be there "for a very long time". Hotels MINUTES: Meeting 6 June 22,

6 The Panel felt that the form and articulation of the hotels needed further development and consideration. While the Panel appreciated the design team's intent to create a landmark profile on the skyline, they thought the hotel architecture was an outlier and not part of an "urban language" when compared to the built form in the rest of the proposal. Several Panel members thought the hotels and associated greenspace should instead frame the Grandstand and defer to the racetrack. The Panel suggested that the hotel form could instead terrace from the south. Many members noted that reorienting the terracing would reinforce the track and create a visual extension to the Grandstand. The Panel thought it could be wonderful to have a porch overlook condition from the hotels to the racetrack. Some Panel members additionally thought the surrounding hotel greenspace felt a bit residual. They then wondered if there could be a more formal plaza entry to the hotels. Casino Many Panel members noted appreciation for the level to which the design team addressed some of the Panel's comments at the first presentation regarding the form of the casino. A member noted that the way the design team had begun to break the casino building down into smaller components was working well. Performance Venue One member appreciated the move to create an iconic, more sculptural building with the performance venue. A few members thought it worked well having a more prominent performance venue and less visible casino building. MINUTES: Meeting 6 June 22,