City of Toronto

Friday November 13, 2009

Hamish Goodwin Leo Desorcy

Urban Designer Program Manager

Background to the Toronto DRP

• April 2007, Council approval of the Pilot Project

• 2 year pilot period: July 2007 – July 2009

(extended to Nov. 2009)

• The pilot project will help determine the feasibility of a

city-wide design review panel

• The pilot period was an opportunity to determine what

thresholds were appropriate for identifying projects for

review by the panel

Ontario Association of Architects: 6

1. Gordon Stratford (Chair), Sr. Vice President,

Director of Design - HOK Canada

2. Michael Leckman (V/Chair) Principal – Diamond & Schmitt

3. Shirley Blumberg, Principal - KPMB

4. Ralph Giannone, Principal - Giannone Associates

5. David Pontarini, Principal - Hariri Pontarini

6. Sol Wassermuhl, President - Page and Steele / IBI Group

Ontario Association of Landscape Architects: 3

7. Robert Allsopp, Principal - du Toit Allsop Hillier

8. Paul Ferris, Principal - Ferris Associates

9. Janet Rosenberg, Principal - Janet Rosenberg Associates

Ontario Professional Planners Institute: 2

10. Dan Leeming, Partner - The Planning Partnership

11. Eric Turcotte, Senior Associate - Urban Strategies

Professional Engineers Ontario: 1

12. Peter Halsall, President - Halsall Associates

DRP Members

Meeting Procedures

• Monthly meetings

• Public forum, non-participatory

• Members receive info package 1 week prior to the meeting

• 4 projects reviewed / meeting

• Vote is held at end of each review

Types (and #) of Projects Reviewed

Private Development

Condominiums (27)

Townhouses (2)

Office (1)

Religious (1)

Public Projects

Landscape plans for new public parks (3)

Public Infrastructure (bridges) (2)

Transit Projects (3)

Public Policy Documents (2)

Sample Review of Supported Projects

Mixed-use Condominium (Scarborough Centre)

First review – March 2008

Summary: scale, massing, articulation

and materiality is inappropriate within the

neighbourhood context

Outcome: Non-support (0 – 11)

Second review – May 2008

Major revisions Included:

•Lowered bookends

•Use of brick rather than metal cladding

•Finer grain relates better to site context

•Step-backs reduce massing and shadowing on

neighbours

Outcome: Support (5 – 1)

Types of Comments Received

• The Panel appreciates the importance of street trees in their role of greening of the city,

contributing to air quality and enhancing livable communities

• This project presents an excellent opportunity for the TTC to reestablish a progressive

design presence and quality

• short-term financial considerations should not curtail the

opportunity to provide for a meaningful and symbolic civic gesture

• develop maintenance specifications and funding that ensures long term success

• [the City should]… reintroduce its rich history of building fine

public buildings, and fulfill its important role of building urban

landscapes which become true instruments of civic life, identity and

vitality

Pilot Project User Survey….

What do you like about the DRP?

• The Panel provides strong emphasis on the urban design and

architectural merits of a proposal in contrast to more numeric

preoccupations in planning

• It is a very good way to elevate the importance of good design in

the City

• It gives staff the confidence to support high quality projects

• Helps the relation between architect and clients, giving a stronger

voice to design issues

• There is much benefit from comments that come from a broad

spectrum of disciplines

What do you DIS-like about the DRP?

• the majority of comments were not relevant to what was proposed

and certainly not feasible for a project of this size

• Panel input was received far too late in the process

• The panel members did not understand the site context

• Some comments were derogatory and uncalled for

• No opportunity to defend the design presented after comments

received by panel members

• It complicates an already cumbersome approval process rather than

refines it

• There is a great deal of chance in the outcome - it's like asking 5

people what colour to paint your living room and receiving 5

different choices

Suggestions for Improvement?

• Have the Panel involved right at the beginning of the project, when

hand sketches are being reviewed

• Ensure Panel members understand the context of the site and review

information before meeting

• Some responses from the applicant should be allowed and could

prove beneficial to the outcome

• Issues of massing and density should be touched on but should not

be a deciding force in the vote

• A landscape architect should not comment on density, setbacks etc.

• There is no mechanism for correcting the Panel if they have mis-

understood something.

Pre-DRP Commentary

Pilot Project Evaluation

• A Design Review Panel for Toronto is feasible

• Stakeholder feedback has generally been positive

• “blanket” review for all projects is unpractical & unnecessary

• Focus on larger projects with significant public realm components

• only projects which are at the EARLY stage of design-

development should be considered

Recommendations for Public Projects

• All Public capital projects with a significant visual and

physical impact upon the public realm will be reviewed

by the Panel.

• Refer to attachment for additional info

Recommendations for Private Development

• projects with minor public realm impacts, such as

townhouses, will be excluded

• Focus upon “Growth” areas which are experiencing

development pressure (Centres, Avenues, Downtown and

priority transit routes)

Private Development (Existing)

Scarborough CityCentre

St. Lawrence King-Parliament

Humber Bay Shores

North YorkCentre

Etobicoke Centre

Fort York

Private Development (Proposed)

Implementation Points

The Chief Planner will have discretion to add a project for review which

does not meet the thresholds but which is of City-wide significance for one

of the following reasons:

• The proposal is likely to establish the planning, form or architectural

quality for future large-scale development or re-development in an area;

• The proposal is out of the ordinary in its context or setting because

of scale, form, materials or surroundings;

• The proposal is particularly relevant to the quality of everyday life

and contains design features which, if repeated, would offer substantial

benefits for the City or, conversely, detriments; or

• The proposal is a ‘test case’ and would be likely to set precedents for

City building

Lessons Learned

Flexibility. The format needs to be flexible in order to

respond to different project needs or other specific nuances

Consistency in rigour. Standards of design excellence should apply to all projects. This helps maintain credibility of the

Panel, and spread standards of design excellence beyond the

Panel’s realm

Predictable for all stakeholders. Stakeholders should be able to understand the process and know where they fit it.

Design Review should not be used as a tool to stall development

Early Early. The Process is most beneficial when projects

are at the early stages of design development

end