innsertnamehere said:
It's basically because of the floorplate shape that it's needed, the hallway is simply placed inside the unit instead of being a common hall as it only services the singular unit.

Still, the buyer will pay for that useless space. A discounted price typically, but the unit would still be more expensive than the exact same unit without the hallway would have been.
Click to expand...
Plus they'll be paying monthly maintenance based on the increased unit size too. Unit 8: Philanthropists needed.

Meanwhile, what's the chance of Toronto supporting the proposed 23 and 20 metre separation distances to adjacent buildings?

42
 
Ya, I was thinking about the maintenance costs, instead of just making it a common area, they're having someone pay for essentially useless space instead of combining the two units. Some people will probably end up buying both units to combine.
 
Gonna need to see full definition renderings to have a better understanding of the design. But from the elevation drawings, it reminds me of King Charlotte but with a larger podium.

Interesting to see MOD Developments move into the midtown market, and carve up their piece of the pie.
 
A few views from today for the record books
0S6A4632.JPG
0S6A4636.JPG
 
Not necessarily in the best shape, but it's a nice looking apartment building. There are nice little details like the size and spacing of the vertical windows and symmetrical design. Natural light in the units might be limited, however.
 
Can't help but feel that the unit sizes that will replace the units here will be unfortunate, and a net-loss for family-sized units in the neighbourhood.

(Though I haven't actually checked the architectural plans to verify)
 
WislaHD said:
I just don't agree that a pair of single-detached house has more value to the city than an existing 12-storey apartment building, but these are the outcomes that our present planning framework delivers. Maybe this is the wrong thread to stand on the proverbial pedestal and voice my discontent, but this development project already seems like an egregious instance of our wacky priorities as a city, and we haven't even seen the docs yet.
Click to expand...

Well said. This is crazy. And this development pattern is entirely the city’s doing.
 
WislaHD said:
Can't help but feel that the unit sizes that will replace the units here will be unfortunate, and a net-loss for family-sized units in the neighbourhood.

(Though I haven't actually checked the architectural plans to verify)
Click to expand...
AFAIK, rental replacement units are required to be of the same size and composition (number of bedrooms—not the same layout though) as the ones that are coming down, along with being rent controlled for 20 years. Any new units beyond the replacement number can be smaller.

42
 
WislaHD said:
Can't help but feel that the unit sizes that will replace the units here will be unfortunate, and a net-loss for family-sized units in the neighbourhood.

(Though I haven't actually checked the architectural plans to verify)
Click to expand...

interchange42 said:
AFAIK, rental replacement units are required to be of the same size and composition (number of bedrooms—not the same layout though) as the ones that are coming down, along with being rent controlled for 20 years. Any new units beyond the replacement number can be smaller.

42
Click to expand...

Factor in regulations on new buildings required to have modern HVAC systems and better thermal performance, and the new units are objectively better.
I would still really miss the current building.
 
Looking at the building stats - there are 34 1 bed and 12 2-bed rental units in the new building - averaging 550sf for a 1bed and 900sf for a 2 bed
 
interchange42 said:
AFAIK, rental replacement units are required to be of the same size and composition (number of bedrooms—not the same layout though) as the ones that are coming down, along with being rent controlled for 20 years. Any new units beyond the replacement number can be smaller.

42
Click to expand...
I actually wasn't aware of that stipulation of the rental replacement units policy. Do you know if the same size is defined by number of bedrooms or by sq.ft.?

I grew up in a 2 bedroom unit in the area that was ~900sq.ft. Nowadays developers would squeeze 3 bedrooms in that floorplate in new condos.

If it is as @ChesterCopperpot reports then perhaps I worried for no reason. :)
 
Chester is correct. Size is defined and both the area and the number of bedrooms.

42
 
Just a quick back of the napkin calculation - I could be wrong, hope not though :)

calc.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top