cabbagetowner
Active Member
used to park my pick up in cityplace. wasn't so much a height issue, it was hard to park into those tight little spots. looked like the 50 point turn scene in austin powers.
|
|
|
used to park my pick up in cityplace. wasn't so much a height issue, it was hard to park into those tight little spots. looked like the 50 point turn scene in austin powers.
TOBoy
Active Member
With regards to the garage, does it come with on-wall bicycle racks? My unit does not come with a locker, need a place to put my bike.
Solaris
Senior Member
ProjectEnd.... you mentioned of highrises being proposed by Aa in Block 31 west of WestOne/N, I recall the zoning on Block 31 is limited only to 45 metres though (roughly 15 storeys), does that mean TCHC will be going for rezoning to increase height + density?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
If, of course, those renders represent what is actually envisioned then yes, they will have to go for rezoning. I'll back at City Hall on Thursday so I'll see what I can do about posting something then.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Further proof of my "Block 31 Highrise Rumor" comes from this document which AOD posted back in June 2007.
City of Toronto Affordable Housing Committee West of Spadina Report
On page 6 we have this little tidbit: "In total, nearly 1,000 units of housing can be developed on the 3 sites west of Spadina
Road (31, 32, 36)."
On page 7 the report continues with: "A total of 655 units are proposed for Blocks 32 and 36 incorporating a mix of
affordable rental, affordable ownership and market ownership units"
The remaining 345 units have nowhere to go but Block 31 as it is the only remaining spot owned by TCHC.
City of Toronto Affordable Housing Committee West of Spadina Report
On page 6 we have this little tidbit: "In total, nearly 1,000 units of housing can be developed on the 3 sites west of Spadina
Road (31, 32, 36)."
On page 7 the report continues with: "A total of 655 units are proposed for Blocks 32 and 36 incorporating a mix of
affordable rental, affordable ownership and market ownership units"
The remaining 345 units have nowhere to go but Block 31 as it is the only remaining spot owned by TCHC.
svenglezz
Banned
Glass tinted to meet ASHRAE 90.1
The glass is tinted to meet the code ASHRAE 90.1.
If the glass was not tinted and special gas in the glass then the building would not meet the code....not like some in the city.
So rest assure if you buy into the concord adex development...they meet ASHRAE 90.1. and your energy bills will reflect this.
Kind regards,
Sven
The glass is tinted to meet the code ASHRAE 90.1.
If the glass was not tinted and special gas in the glass then the building would not meet the code....not like some in the city.
So rest assure if you buy into the concord adex development...they meet ASHRAE 90.1. and your energy bills will reflect this.
Kind regards,
Sven
Solaris
Senior Member
Given the future of highrises in Block 31 ... owners of West One + N Tower, watch out~~
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Cityplace from the Manulife Centre:
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Great shot Mike. Luna seems to be making more of an impact from that angle.
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
From Bathurst St.... a vertical panorama made from 3 images:
(full size available here: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2814666470_8a3d8e4550_o.jpg)
p.s., maybe this one is ready to move to Buildings and Architecture?
(full size available here: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2814666470_8a3d8e4550_o.jpg)
p.s., maybe this one is ready to move to Buildings and Architecture?
avatarreb
Active Member
Apparently Concord Adex was looking to put a huge "Concord Cityplace" sign at the top of these buildings. This kind of explains why glass wasn't used on the entire crown of the building.
It was rejected by the Toronto and East York Community Council...
"The condominium building at 2A Spadina is occupied and expected to be registered shortly. Once this happens, the building will no longer be owned by Concord Adex. It is staff’s opinion that permitting this third-party sign on a residential building would have a significant negative visual impact on the present and future residential developments in the area. The approval of this application would set a bad precedent for approval of more third-party signs on residential high rise buildings across the city. The intent of the signage provisions of the Municipal Code is to prevent signage from becoming the
predominant characteristic of residential building facades. A third party sign at this location is inappropriate for a residential building and it would diminish the objectives for quality urban design in this community.
Staff recommends refusal of the application. The variances are major and not within the general intent and purpose of the Municipal Code."
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-14231.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/minutes/2008-07-07-te17-mn.pdf
It was rejected by the Toronto and East York Community Council...
"The condominium building at 2A Spadina is occupied and expected to be registered shortly. Once this happens, the building will no longer be owned by Concord Adex. It is staff’s opinion that permitting this third-party sign on a residential building would have a significant negative visual impact on the present and future residential developments in the area. The approval of this application would set a bad precedent for approval of more third-party signs on residential high rise buildings across the city. The intent of the signage provisions of the Municipal Code is to prevent signage from becoming the
predominant characteristic of residential building facades. A third party sign at this location is inappropriate for a residential building and it would diminish the objectives for quality urban design in this community.
Staff recommends refusal of the application. The variances are major and not within the general intent and purpose of the Municipal Code."
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-14231.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/minutes/2008-07-07-te17-mn.pdf
Rangostar
New Member
If there is only 345 units left assuming there is 10 units per floor, it should be around 35 floors.
Thank goodness I live on the 50th.
A bad thing is that affordable housing will depreciate the value of the west one condo since it is so close to it.
It does make people living there feel they are cheated since we pay good money for these units and expect a great view.
Why does afforable housing tenets get better views than people who work hard for their money.
Who is approving this, I should have voted against them during the last election.
Thank goodness I live on the 50th.
A bad thing is that affordable housing will depreciate the value of the west one condo since it is so close to it.
It does make people living there feel they are cheated since we pay good money for these units and expect a great view.
Why does afforable housing tenets get better views than people who work hard for their money.
Who is approving this, I should have voted against them during the last election.
Last edited:
BobBob
Senior Member
^ Perhaps "expect[ing] a great view" is where you went wrong?
Rangostar
New Member
I was actaully told by my agent that it is going to be a school so I never thought it will be a high rise erected there.
So I "expected" that I should be safe from being blocked especially I am on the 50th.
I don't think the affordable housing should be higher than 40 floors. That is just Waht I am hoping for.
So I "expected" that I should be safe from being blocked especially I am on the 50th.
I don't think the affordable housing should be higher than 40 floors. That is just Waht I am hoping for.
SpadinaBus
Active Member
http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=7564
Check out this thread, 36 stories. Both your view and viewpoints seem to be partially blocked IMO. And always remember, never believe any salesperson on what is going to be built on someone else's land.