Bayer said:
You don't even need to be up that far. I lived on the 50th floor of Residences of College Park I for 10 years, as I mentioned several times before. There are 6 elevators for 658 apartments, which would be considered borderline acceptable - but in reality, it absolutely wasn't. Breakdowns were frequent and prolonged, and the inconvenience and, in fact, danger of actually being a prisoner of your apartment or not being able to reach it made me swear to never live on a very high floor ever again.

And as Northern Light mentioned before, water is an issue. My cold water supply in the shower was fluctuating continuously - I learned to get out of the way of scalding hot water at the first sign of pressure change.
Click to expand...
This is why I view midrise as preferential for residential development. From many accounts, once you get beyond the benefit of great views, living in a highrise sounds somewhat miserable.
 
evandyk said:
Is this the guy who is complaining that he can't sign a long-term high-end retail lease on the site because of the One's cement trucks?
Click to expand...

If you mean are the proponents here the one's filing objection to Sam's (1 Bloor West's) ever extended road occupation permit, the one that appears not to comply w/the City's own standards; then yes.
 
interchange42 said:
My take on these being the only renderings is that this is an early salvo, that they know the City will not accept this as submitted, and therefore they don't want to spend more than they have to on renderings until they have a massing agreed to sometime later.
Click to expand...
I suppose they didn't give us a fanciful balloon building rendering is an okay start to the conversation here. But still there's a lot of "What where they thinking?" with this proposal.
 
Also, some interesting context from the UT article, the FSI proposed here at 61.68 times coverage of the lot area is more than double the FSI of The One, which clocks in at 30.1.
 
^It has good proportions. Not too stubby, not too skinny. Years ago, before one was built, I was chuffed by the prospect of those so-called "pencil" towers in Manhattan, but now I think they look, from a distance, unflatteringly like smokestacks.
 
The problem isnt the floorplates size, but the lack of stepbacks and lazy design.

A Stern design would be a beautiful compliment and contrast to The One, but unfortunately Yorkville has turned into a dumping ground for the third rate proposals that look straight out of 2015.

Even a copy of the 83-95 Bloor West proposal would be far preferable to this dumpster fire. Not that it's a bad design, but when 83-95 Bloor West is the best looking proposal in Yorkville, you know we're sorely lacking in quality
 
Last edited:
Lenser said:
I don't mind super-skinny, pencil towers. What I object to is the sacrifices they tend to make for the sake of the teensy footprint - namely, having a sufficient number of elevators.
Click to expand...
Pencil Towers in Hong Kong or NYC are usually only one or two units per floor, so the issue you describe isn't a problem there. 111W57, for example, despite being 435m tall, has only 60 units.

It's a different ball game here, unfortunately.
 
Ugh... thanks for the distinction, of course you're right. But knowing that only makes it worse with this specific case. Still, it seems the issue with these stupidly inept towers that don't make proper accommodations with regards to elevators is coming to a head, becoming more commonly known as a legitimate public concern.There's hope. Meanwhile developers will doubtless continue ramming these tall, ill-planned residential towers into the ground until the building codes catch up with reality.

On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for doing your research before buying into a supertall residential tower hobbled by anemic elevator provisions.
 
Two supertalls on the same freaking block is beyond absurd. The developer of this dystopian scheme has truly crossed into Montgomery Burns cartoon villain mode.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top