The 3B market unit layouts here are garbage. Clearly "investor unit layout" thinking went into what is supposed to be a rental building - that is, desirable to end users.

I am completely puzzled, as an architect familiar with the challenges of unit layouts, how a rational rectangular unit of "sufficient" floor area can be turned into such a garbage layout. I'm also at a loss wrt the structure. Instead of demising or bedroom walls carrying the structure, multiple bedrooms in a row in the same unit will have huge columns offset completely from the walls that make the entire bedroom unusable. These buildings don't have any crazy setbacks so I'm not sure what the rationale was. Ironically I wonder if they put the affordable units below and so they created disruptions to the structural grid instead of just keeping them consistently stacked as opposed to all put into one area of the building with a "poor door".

In any case, I don't expect to see those 3B rentals being snapped up and many seem to be sitting unrented so far. (Deservedly so!)
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
They ultimately have no legislative authority to regulate interior building layouts. They can ask nicely but really when it comes down to it can't enforce it.
Click to expand...

I would also add to this that the City has demonstrated less than no interest in regulating unit layouts.

I have tried on numerous occasions to get Staff to care about unit layouts as a way to understand some of our “asks” related to the form of the building (sculpting, setbacks, stepbacks, floorplate size, building orientation, loading location, to name a few), and they have been uniformly uninterested in those arguments.

Though I absolutely grant that Staff genuinely think they are doing the right thing from a public interest perspective, it is also objectively true that they care more about how a building is perceived by a passerby on the street than they do about how a building functions for its inhabitants.
 
ADRM said:
I have tried on numerous occasions to get Staff to care about unit layouts as a way to understand some of our “asks” related to the form of the building (sculpting, setbacks, stepbacks, floorplate size, building orientation, loading location, to name a few), and they have been uniformly uninterested in those arguments.

Though I absolutely grant that Staff genuinely think they are doing the right thing from a public interest perspective, it is also objectively true that they care more about how a building is perceived by a passerby on the street than they do about how a building functions for its inhabitants.
Click to expand...

100% this. Same boat here. There is an idea of a building's shape and form as a piece of urban furniture and then complete disregard for the liveability of the spaces inside. And those two are deeply interrelated most of the time.
 
Towered said:
...and Markham Street is STILL NOT DONE 😆
Click to expand...
Could the weather be a factor in the slow outdoor progress? Meanwhile I have only ever seen one guy working inside the BestCo space, I think he was installing the drywall. Hot off the heels of completing the other location on Peter St, this should be straightforward like almost identical twin.
 
unrealestate said:
I was expecting to see a third world slum. The entitlement lol
Click to expand...
...that's an interesting statement in light of the concept of adequate living where everyone gets the same quality units regardless of their class or income. And the only dispute would be creating a lottery system of sorts of which renter gets the best views. There's nothing really entitled about that, IMO.
 
As a project consultant, I can confirm that Mirvish Village does not have any separate entrances for any of its rental buildings – all residents use the same entrance. Further, there is no difference in finishings for the affordable homes – all homes in each building were purposely designed with the same quality and standard of finishings. The ceilings are designed to be open, loft-style, with exposed piping and a concrete finish, and this is standard across all homes. Further, the affordable homes are scattered throughout the rental buildings, they are not confined to any one area within them. Some 3 Bedroom Affordable homes are on the building corners and some have windows facing certain views but this is not because they are affordable – 3 bedroom homes are typically placed on the corners due to their size and layout. I encourage anyone interested to contact the project’s leasing team directly to receive accurate information about Mirvish Village. You can do so via the Mirvish Village website: www.mirvish-village.com.
 
Project Consultant said:
As a project consultant, I can confirm that Mirvish Village does not have any separate entrances for any of its rental buildings – all residents use the same entrance. Further, there is no difference in finishings for the affordable homes – all homes in each building were purposely designed with the same quality and standard of finishings. The ceilings are designed to be open, loft-style, with exposed piping and a concrete finish, and this is standard across all homes. Further, the affordable homes are scattered throughout the rental buildings, they are not confined to any one area within them. Some 3 Bedroom Affordable homes are on the building corners and some have windows facing certain views but this is not because they are affordable – 3 bedroom homes are typically placed on the corners due to their size and layout. I encourage anyone interested to contact the project’s leasing team directly to receive accurate information about Mirvish Village. You can do so via the Mirvish Village website: www.mirvish-village.com.
Click to expand...

Well, this is interesting, two new members, in two days, expressing completely opposite 'facts' about the exact same development.

@Haledyne is tagged so at to elicit his reply to the above.

@citylights has also chipped in to express that the post that began this tangent has at least one penitent fact wrong.

I await some resolution here, I may go look up the drawings here myself, though I suspect there's enough of you here who can do that, that someone can post these before me.
 
Haledyne said:
I received an offer for an “affordable” 3 bedroom unit here, but ultimately decided not to take it. The way the so-called “affordable” units are designed and segregated is unacceptable. All affordable units are placed in one corner of the building with a separate entrance, and the living room view faces the backside of the building. The ceilings are exposed, the units look half-finished, and overall it feels like an afterthought.

When you compare these units to the private (non-affordable) ones, the difference is obvious. The private units have finished ceilings, covered spaces, balconies, and far more care put into the design. The affordable units feel neglected. There were also reports of rat infestation and mold due to halted construction and poor maintenance, which is extremely concerning.

There is absolutely no sense of community here. The segregation is obvious and uncomfortable.

The architects did a very poor job. I understand the intention behind an “industrial” aesthetic, but exposed pipes, unfinished ceilings, and bare walls without even an attempt to balance the design is not architecture…… it’s cost-cutting disguised as style.

If I compare this to West Don Lands’ affordable housing or Sugar Wharf’s Lido apartments, the difference is night and day. Those projects were thoughtfully designed. At Lido, even though affordable units have a separate entrance, the balconies are large, water-facing, and the units are spacious. There is no visible divide between affordable and private units…..both lifestyles were considered and respected.

At Mirvish Village, the bedrooms were tiny, the third bedroom looked more like a closet, the living room faced another building with barely any sunlight, ceilings were low, closets unfinished, and the fridge was far too small for a three-bedroom unit. There was no balcony, unlike the private units. The only real pro was having two washrooms.

People often say, “They’re affordable units, of course the quality is lower because rent is cheaper.” What those people forget is that the City of Toronto subsidizes these units. Developers are still making money…..just from the city instead of directly from tenants. Lower rent should not mean lower dignity.

I’m honestly disturbed by Mirvish Village. Is this really what Honest Ed’s was demolished for? To create a visibly divided, resentful community that isolates low-income families? It’s shameful.

The lobby feels depressing, the rooms lack sunlight, living room - the most used space barely has sun light. No balconies. Such depressing spaces, this is whats supposed to be considered a “lottery” for the average low- middle income person.

Westbank Developers and the architects responsible should be ashamed of creating these tin-box units with so little consideration for the people who are meant to live in them.

Photo 1: Living Room / Kitchen
View attachment 710109
Photo #2: Master Bedroom

View attachment 710110
View attachment 710111
Click to expand...
Not to my taste on the ceilings but i believe the whole building is the same. Bathroom and floors look virtually the same quality as all condos in the $700K to $1 million range.
 
Value engineered to save your units money by not bothering to finish your ceilings...
 
thaivic said:
Not to my taste on the ceilings but i believe the whole building is the same. Bathroom and floors look virtually the same quality as all condos in the $700K to $1 million range.
Click to expand...
To boot — this somewhat odd exchange has reminded me that I took a leasing tour of the market units in May of last year.

Pics of those units below. I toured 5 or 6 different units, both with and without exposed ceilings. Finishes look to be broadly the same as in the affordable units apparently provided earlier in this thread (despite the fact the City actually does not mandate such).

IMG_6682.jpeg
IMG_6685.jpeg
IMG_6688.jpeg
IMG_6710.jpeg
IMG_6711.jpeg
IMG_6715.jpeg
 
ADRM said:
To boot — this somewhat odd exchange has reminded me that I took a leasing tour of the market units in May of last year.

Pics of those units below. I toured 5 or 6 different units, both with and without exposed ceilings. Finishes look to be broadly the same as in the affordable units apparently provided earlier in this thread (despite the fact the City actually does not mandate such).

View attachment 710420
Click to expand...

The ceiling finish is poor, it does not connote 'loft' it connotes 'unfinished' Ugh.

Speaking of ugh, that tiny thing being passed off as a kitchen is not only non-functional as far as I'm concerned (far too little counter space and cupboard space) but its damned ugly.

The faux walnut laminate cupboards are straight out of the Consumers Distributing Catalogue circa 1986, and the solid black on the uppers with black backsplash and counters would get you a fail in a community college interior decorating course!

Egads that's bad.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top