N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
35,942
Reaction score
105,020
New App into the AIC for this.

The location is immediately north of an existing proposal '49 Ontario' for which we have a thread.

1633425598853.png


Aerial pic:

1633425521184.png


Site size: ~ 10075M2/11,500ft2

Streeview:

1633425804714.png

Taken from: youtube (cool house media iguide)

Adjacent development thread: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-49-ontario-street-136-05m-39s-dream-a—a.30533/page-5#post-1688319

Link: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=SqJcY4eZVmZUTPErhIP0DQ==
 
Last edited:
AlbertC said:
Design by A& Architects, just like Lamb's project at 471 Queen East.

Possibly being marketed as the "Berkeley House":

Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center
app.toronto.ca


View attachment 354436View attachment 354437View attachment 354438View attachment 354439View attachment 354440View attachment 354441View attachment 354442
Click to expand...

Albert; did the docs d/l for you properly?

When I went to look at this, they were all d/l as .txt files and wouldn't open.
 
Northern Light said:
Albert; did the docs d/l for you properly?

When I went to look at this, they were all d/l as .txt files and wouldn't open.
Click to expand...

Can't say that I tried downloading everything. But the Architectural Plans and Planning Rational docs worked properly as PDF format. I used Chrome browser if that makes any difference.
 
Some additional images info, from the Planning Rationale Report:

1633766673369.png
 
Ehh, the interior would be pretty dark but it looks like it’s actually a pretty functional unit, plenty of space for clear eating, dining, sleeping, and office spaces .Definitely far worse out there.
 
ProjectEnd said:
8'10" wide unit. Even for a shitkicker like Brad, that's low.

View attachment 356397
Click to expand...
innsertnamehere said:
Ehh, the interior would be pretty dark but it looks like it’s actually a pretty functional unit, plenty of space for clear eating, dining, sleeping, and office spaces .Definitely far worse out there.
Click to expand...

What strikes me............8ft 10, minus 6ft for the bed provides an unobstructed travel path (assuming one didn't obstruct it) of 2ft 10.

In general, an unobstructed travel path for someone in a wheelchair is considered to be 1100mm (or 1.1M) which is 3'4.

While its true that only 15% of new units constructed are required to meet accessibility standards...........and in respect of kitchens or areas a guest might not use, perhaps that's reasonable.

I'm not sure its reasonable that someone in a wheelchair may not be able to visit a resident at all; or be able to used the bathroom, at all, if visiting.

I would argue, at the minimum, this unit width is six inches shy of reasonable.
 
The bed doesn’t need to go end-out, it can be put sideways which creates a wider aisle.

Again, it’s definitely not a great unit, but it’s far from the worst getting built today.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top