Well, that looks a bit plain and unambitious… but then I think about Strada, which is practically around the corner, and I'm more than thankful that this has clean lines at least.
42
42
- Thread starter ferusian
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
From the Planning Rationale Report:
AlbertC
Superstar
Not gonna lie, if I was forced to look at Strada for 10 minutes to contemplate its horrible architectural aesthetics, then I'd probably have nothing to complain about in any aspect of life again.
Otherwise, yes I'd take more of 452 Bathurst by BDP Quadrangle for its straightforwardness on a lower profile infill site any day.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...think of it as brain bleach.Not gonna lie, if I was forced to look at Strada for 10 minutes to contemplate its horrible architectural aesthetics, then I'd probably have nothing to complain about in any aspect of life again.
Otherwise, yes I'd take more of 452 Bathurst by BDP Quadrangle for its straightforwardness on a lower profile infill site any day.
AlbertC
Superstar
‘Brain Bleach Merch’ by #PopART Delight
Brain Bleach • Millions of unique designs by independent artists. Find your thing.
www.redbubble.com
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
Northern Light
Superstar
Not that I disagree; but how would you it differently?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Let the truck load in the lane which is basically empty anyway perhaps. The building only has 49 units anyway, barely higher than the 30 unit limit that requires a space.
Northern Light
Superstar
That seems problematic.
Here's the lane in question, at it current width:
If a truck stops here, it's blocking garage access/egress for multiple properties, and completely obstructing the lane for vehicles and quite possibly pedestrians too.
There's the matter of having to roll a large bin out to the truck; as well as potential clearance issues for a truck lifting a big bin (not the wiring, the streetlight (which encroaches over the lane) and various building add-ons.
A smaller, multi-bin system might be plausible, but would take longer to do (additional laneway obstruction time.
That's not to say the proposed layout could not or should not be improved upon; nor that there aren't other options (there are many) but we don't tend to use vacuum systems, or deep, compact storage in Toronto, just to mention two.
**
I would hasten to add, the impacts of obstruction need to be multiplied by the precedent effect. So if you allow this building to load in the laneway; how many more will be built similarly? How many obstructions over what time period are reasonable?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The lane will be widened in front of this project to the full 6 metres obviously, and things like overhead clearance wouldn’t be an issue as it would park on the new build side of the lane clear of the garages and hydro wires.
Many sites also historically had “pull off” areas dedicated to loading that added additional width to the laneway, but the city stopped allowing those and now demands enclosed loading spaces like above which are not only space inefficient but also quite expensive and complicated to design due to the large clear heights required for them. On a 400 unit building it’s not a big deal, but a 49 unit building it’s a bit larger of an issue.
The bigger issue with loading design isn’t this site though, it’s sites without laneways as the city requires trucks to turn around on the site itself. Which with a lot of smaller urban sites these days, that means you end up with roughly half the ground floor dedicated to providing turning space for loading trucks which often times just back onto the street anyway.
Many sites also historically had “pull off” areas dedicated to loading that added additional width to the laneway, but the city stopped allowing those and now demands enclosed loading spaces like above which are not only space inefficient but also quite expensive and complicated to design due to the large clear heights required for them. On a 400 unit building it’s not a big deal, but a 49 unit building it’s a bit larger of an issue.
The bigger issue with loading design isn’t this site though, it’s sites without laneways as the city requires trucks to turn around on the site itself. Which with a lot of smaller urban sites these days, that means you end up with roughly half the ground floor dedicated to providing turning space for loading trucks which often times just back onto the street anyway.
christiesplits
Senior Member
I was just thinking about this when I walked by yesterday.
rdaner
Senior Member
I wonder if this is going to be any closer now that the Beer Store may close? But only after a refining for more density. Lol
Orson
New Member
No doubt it was tested, but perhaps the parking ramp could run E/W and the loading could slide in N/S?
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
Resubmitted with the total residential units increasing from 49 to 61, and total vehicular parking decreasing from 57 to 33.
Northern Light
Superstar
Application Details
Resubmitted with the total residential units increasing from 49 to 61, and total vehicular parking decreasing from 57 to 33.
View attachment 549281
View attachment 549280
View attachment 549279
The top and bottom images have different facade treatments on what seems to be the same elevation.
Am I misreading that? I don't see how, but only one can be right.
***
I get the angular plane at the rear, not sure it needs every single floor tiered back like that though.
***
I don't mind the cut-out on the rear side, but that seems like a fairly expensive way to offer outdoor amenity space.