evandyk said:
The office towers downtown all have them, and it makes a huge difference. But you still need enough elevators to make sure the ones going don’t have to stop at every floor.
Click to expand...
I imagine 8 elevators would be enough for such a system to work efficiently.

The problem is that the OBC doesn't have minimum service standards for elevators so we have no idea if Reserve is going to do such a system or just let the plebes wait 20 minutes for an elevator to their 300sf unit 800 feet in the sky.
 
evandyk said:
The office towers downtown all have them, and it makes a huge difference. But you still need enough elevators to make sure the ones going don’t have to stop at every floor.
Click to expand...
Destination dispatch doesn't make much difference in residential applications for two reasons: one, as you note, we're still hugely lacking in cab availability, and two, unlike with office users, which destination dispatch groups into bunches around close requested floors, most of the time residential users are all over the building making that kind of grouping almost impossible. Developers cutting corners on elevators are doing just that and anyone trying to sell purchasers some bill of goods about 'advanced systems' are just covering their tracks. It's going to suck to have to live here as currently proposed. No way around that.
 
My apologies everyone, i just have to do a brief aside to note how laughable it is to see where our provincial government's priorities currently lie. Our premier thinks that paper bags are 100X more important than mandating developers to get their heads out of their a*** and improve quality of living standard in garbage proposals like 19 Bloor.


Anyways, let's carry on with how much of a gutter trash development this will be.
 
What is Ford going to do over everyone having to turn on their lights at 3PM today? My guess nothing!
 
Mandating developers. That a way to get them to build more.

19 Bloor represents a beast that crosses all political lines and at all political level which they will not approach as it's suicide. Your best opportunity is to find a corner of Canada the beast has yet to add to its territory.
 
maestro said:
Mandating developers. That a way to get them to build more.

19 Bloor represents a beast that crosses all political lines and at all political level which they will not approach as it's suicide. Your best opportunity is to find a corner of Canada the beast has yet to add to its territory.
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
interchange42 said:
This bite out of the south wall to provide more light and privacy between 19 Bloor and The Uptown is…




backgroundfile-243875-39-jpg.553360


…basically the stupidest thing I've seen since the movie Sausage Party. I was warned by friends, but I was still curious, and I paid the price, but now, this?!?!

Actually, it's not the bite that's the problem, it's the overhang above that says "our planning rules are so broken that we'll allow the most awkward looking building imaginable", and of course it's to cram as many people as possible onto the site because, yes, there's a housing shortage, but elevator shortage? Who cares about the residents' quality of life, as we've been too short-sighted to create sufficient protections for that. Argh.

42
Click to expand...
The Alberni in Vancouver is more extreme (and has many unworkable floorplans).
It was carved out to preserve views from the pink tower next door.

giallo;9858980 said:
Click to expand...
 
ProjectEnd said:
Destination dispatch doesn't make much difference in residential applications for two reasons: one, as you note, we're still hugely lacking in cab availability, and two, unlike with office users, which destination dispatch groups into bunches around close requested floors, most of the time residential users are all over the building making that kind of grouping almost impossible. Developers cutting corners on elevators are doing just that and anyone trying to sell purchasers some bill of goods about 'advanced systems' are just covering their tracks. It's going to suck to have to live here as currently proposed. No way around that.
Click to expand...
Also - in an office, people arrive at the same time, have lunch, and leave at the same time. You get huge peaks where clumping people matters and works. In res, people leave for work at different times, and arrive home at different times.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Yep. It's all just a play to distract from the fact that the developer is shirking on providing an adequate living experience for their purchasers in pursuit of a smidge more profit.
Click to expand...
Let the purchasers decide. If you don't want one, then don't buy one. If they cannot sell enough to make the project viable, then they'll have to start over.
 
OakvilleGreg1 said:
Let the purchasers decide. If you don't want one, then don't buy one. If they cannot sell enough to make the project viable, then they'll have to start over.
Click to expand...
Why don't you think adequate living standards are a thing we should consider for everyone, Oakville Greg? Why do you hate the idea that people should be able to live happy lives, unburdened by absurd elevator times, stupidly tiny spaces, insane rental costs, and shoddy build quality, Oakville Greg?
 
ProjectEnd said:
Why don't you think adequate living standards are a thing we should consider for everyone, Oakville Greg? Why do you hate the idea that people should be able to live happy lives, unburdened by absurd elevator times, stupidly tiny spaces, insane rental costs, and shoddy build quality, Oakville Greg?
Click to expand...
For some folks, a "stupid tiny space" is all they can afford. If a "stupid tiny space" lets someone live where they want to live (downtown), rather than far out is suburbia where land is cheaper, then maybe there is market for "stupid tiny spaces". As for "adequate" and "happy lives", who should we appoint to tell people what apartment size will satisfy those needs? Clearly individuals are not capable of determining what will make their lives happy.
 
OakvilleGreg1 said:
For some folks, a "stupid tiny space" is all they can afford. If a "stupid tiny space" lets someone live where they want to live (downtown), rather than far out is suburbia where land is cheaper, then maybe there is market for "stupid tiny spaces". As for "adequate" and "happy lives", who should we appoint to tell people what apartment size will satisfy those needs? Clearly individuals are not capable of determining what will make their lives happy.
Click to expand...
So folks putting down what little money they have on "all they can afford" are buying preconstruction projects at one of the most expensive intersections in the City? And the space allocation dichotomy is just 'downtown' or some nebulous 'suburbia'? It's your opinion that the drive towards smaller and smaller units across the board in the last 10-15 years is because there's a preference for that kind of thing? Not because on a PSF basis, small units sell quicker and for more money so on a given plate the developer will make far more on a project that way? You think Reserve genuinely cares about the lived experience of anyone stupid enough to buy or rent here?
 
officedweller said:
The Alberni in Vancouver is more extreme (and has many unworkable floorplans).
It was carved out to preserve views from the pink tower next door.
Click to expand...
The Alberni has actual design flair to it, curves that have aesthetic qualities. How is that at all parallel to a design with no concerns other than for maximzing the building envelop on a ridiculously constricted site? Because that's the only thing going on here.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top