MichaelZ said:
Even the curved balcony glass without railings as shown are probably ~$5k-$10k each since their curvature would have to be custom to fit smoothly in.

The half dome windows, at least that's what I think they are in the photos, would of course be much more.

The cladding could maybe get done for $2 million per floor at the minimum so $60 million for cladding alone.

Factoring in sales taxes, development fees, a 15% profit margin, etc., the cladding could easily add $300k to the price of even a 1 bedroom unit, or $600k to a 3 bed.
Click to expand...

Hard to say whether those are half-domes are just exterior dead space (there seems to be a floor and a rear wall).
HOLvBRJ.png
 
MichaelZ said:
Although for that matter I've never seen any residential building in Toronto with glass as clear as what high end retail stores use, such as Apple store glass for example, so it might not be something that's even seriously considered by developers here.

For reference the cost of glass for Apple stores is way more than $2000 CAD/m2 of glass. And then start adding curves...
Click to expand...

There's a reason why only one company uses $18,000/m2 glass for their projects.
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
There's a reason why only one company uses $18,000/m2 glass for their projects.
Click to expand...
Well the Hermes and Tiffany stores have very nice glass too. Even the reflections at an angle are mostly coherent which indicates there are no invisible distortions, which is a hallmark of high quality.

It's possible if quality is smartly cut back a much cheaper window could still be indistinguishable from a 100 feet away in ideal conditions on a bright sunny day.
 
Last edited:
The application for this one is now public in the AIC.

1664434980015.png



From the Docs:

A render we have not seen above:

1664436272712.png


1664436366206.png


1664435037096.png


1664435105162.png

1664435138662.png

Interesting tidbit:

As it relates to water supply, “the existing 150mm watermain within Elm Street does not have sufficient pressure
to support the proposed fire demands. It is therefore anticipated that the 150mm watermain be
upsized to a 300mm watermain between Yonge and Bay Street”

This will require a material excavation of Elm; not clear to me if the developer is proposing to absorb the associated cost for reconstruction.

***

In respect of the Sick Kids flight path:

1664435688895.png

****

Interesting to note this proponent will be looking for lots of exceptions to the pro forma guidelines for tall buildings and assorted other policies.

(Separation distance and setbacks notably); they seem to be relying on the quality of the architectural expression justifying this in large degree; and presumably the adjacent land owners accepting encroachment into any potential development envelope.

To wit:

1664435874624.png


****

Landscape Plan:

Good: Interlock paving proposed for adjacent laneways.

Bad: No street trees proposed on Elm at all; this is a net reduction of three trees vs current conditions.

The existing trees aren't amazing some are in pretty decent shape. I understand, though lack enthusiasm for their removal, I'm unclear on the reason for no replacements in the Landscape Plan.

I think the City should push back on this, as I feel the absence of trees entirely will really diminish the character of Elm. Insofar as planting space is an issue; two thoughts:

1) Removal of parking and narrowing of all or portions of Elm should be considered.

2) Replacement of the Watermain will require significant excavation, the opportunity may exist to relocation some services to better accommodate landscaping.

(below from Arborist Report)

1664437143077.png


1664437177129.png


1664437205647.png


****

Ok, with much discussion of the renders, the Material Palate may be discussion worthy:

1664437689300.png

1664437747081.png


On heritage, the nicer of the two existing buildings, 15 Elm does have serious condition issues. That said, it does date from ~1870.

The exterior has been well documented already, and the interior at the grade and second levels has been altered such that any heritage features are either lost or currently covered.

But the basement.....reveals a foundation........that if you ignore the sagging floor above it..........has some nice character to its walls:

1664438604244.png
 
Wow. This is very interesting.

Hopefully the proposal remains mostly intact.
 
I smell a big disappointment with this one...as that's unlikely the building that will go up there if they ever decide to actually build something there. /sigh
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I smell a big disappointment with this one...as that's unlikely the building that will go up there if they ever decide to actually build something there. /sigh
Click to expand...
You mean because there is no planning case and it's by a developer who has never built anything? I hear you.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top