Everybody understands the idea of a concept car and few, if any, make the mistake that they might be able to drive around in one in a couple of years. The pattern in Toronto, for the most part, is to promote a flashy design, then value engineer it to death.
Is that not what also happens when a concept car is 'translated' into a production model? In the last decade, maybe only the C-X16 / F-Type has surprised me in how close it came to what was actually put on sale.
Nobu is a good example among many. I've photographed buildings in 55 countries and in over 300 cities.There are beautiful designs that get built in many of those cities and they actually look like the original render. The issue in Toronto is that there are a large group of condo developers who are simply maximizing profits at the expense of quality. Obviously, making money is the whole point and value engineering happens everywhere, but the overall track record here is pretty dismal. Being jaded is simply the result of being disappointed too many times. In my opinion, if a condo developer hires HPA or, to a lesser extent, Aa, we know we will probably be getting a quality design. Commercial buildings here are a different story. Some recent builds and under-construction projects are really terrific. The sad part is that in many cases, non-Toronto architects were hired as the lead designers. Is that simply name branding? Or is it a sign of a deeper issue?
You're not wrong. Outside of a select few, developers in Toronto generally don't see architectural quality as something they're willing to invest in. There are myriad reasons for this, but the unfortunate conclusion is that we end up with a ton of garbage, filled with tiny, shitty, units. Both the development industry, and the City, are to blame here. Just as developers could put more time into projects, so too the City could work to make requirements more straightforward and the path to zoning approval easier. But they don't, and the two fundamentally approach their relationship as antagonists, not partners.
 
I don't see as of right zoning, for example, leading to higher quality projects. That step between a flashy " stand in" during the zoning process and the reality of what will be built during the development permit process will be eliminated. Toronto's process is available for all to see before it has even started. That's not normal procedure.

There's garbage being built everywhere including places that have the time to spend 20 years sculpting a 5000 unit master plan. The focus is always on the city and developers/investors but, in reality, it's the consumers that decide what's good enough and building codes that set the minimums
 
I'd argue better outcomes are pretty easy:
  1. Make the Growing Up Guidelines by-laws
  2. Tie elevators to unit counts (1 per 100)
  3. Regulate retail bay width
  4. Forget about height, FSI, angular planes, etc.
Not perfect, but it's a million times better than the status quo.
I'd be fine with this as long as the minimum unit sizes in Growing Up come down a little bit. They are just a *little* too high right now. Drop them by 10% and you are golden. That, and get rid of the ridiculous extra wide hallway ask which never gets satisfied.
 


Toronto Model 10-14-22 80 Bloor W.png
 
Last edited:
I'd be fine with this as long as the minimum unit sizes in Growing Up come down a little bit. They are just a *little* too high right now. Drop them by 10% and you are golden. That, and get rid of the ridiculous extra wide hallway ask which never gets satisfied.
It's amazing when you see folks like Bobby Fijan post units in the US...700sf 1brs, 900sf 2brs, 1500sf 3brs. Just wild stuff.
 
It's amazing when you see folks like Bobby Fijan post units in the US...700sf 1brs, 900sf 2brs, 1500sf 3brs. Just wild stuff.

Not wild; the word your looking for PE is 'reasonable'; I would also accept 'normal', 'humane', 'passable', 'inoffensive', 'and 'sensible'.

Unit sizes smaller than that I wouldn't call wild; I would call them 'inhumane', 'unreasonable', 'abnormal', 'absurd', and 'offensive'.
 
Not wild; the word your looking for PE is 'reasonable'; I would also accept 'normal', 'humane', 'passable', 'inoffensive', 'and 'sensible'.
Unit sizes smaller than that I wouldn't call wild; I would call them 'inhumane', 'unreasonable', 'abnormal', 'absurd', and 'offensive'.
My opinion on unit sizes:
I'd argue better outcomes are pretty easy:
  1. Make the Growing Up Guidelines by-laws
  2. Tie elevators to unit counts (1 per 100)
  3. Regulate retail bay width
  4. Forget about height, FSI, angular planes, etc.
Not perfect, but it's a million times better than the status quo.
 
I would of look great if the facade with the wave look. Was consistent all around the other tower part as well! I'm not a fan of multiple different facade looks for a building. Very busy looking!
 
This one has an SPA submission in August which we all missed.

Change of Architects; this one is now Arcadis.

Now 78s

AIC Link:


1697847955056.png


1697848018285.png


1697848041920.png


1697848071733.png


1697848095415.png


1697848144525.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1697848484015.png


Current iteration: 1716 units

Parking: 258 Parking Ratio: 0.15

Elevators: 14 (residential, excludes parking and office) Elevator Ratio: 0.815 elevators per 100 units
 
Last edited:
This one received a raise according to the arch. plans. It's now 263.4 metres tall with 79 floors:

View attachment 514527

78 + 2 levels of MPH; we can let '42' sort out how to describe that. Good catch Koops, I have amended my post accordingly,

I wasn't looking for a height change in the SPA, I don't recall it being mentioned in the Cover Letter but I may have overlooked it.
 

Back
Top