Register123
Active Member
I like the bench and wall, but couldn't they've have built the wall infront of the metered utilities mess hiding it from street view?
Enbridge has rules about keeping their ugly utilities accessible.
42
42
steveve
Senior Member
Still one of the cooler features I've seen in a condo high-rise:
TheKingEast
Senior Member
Conrad Black
Senior Member
I don't like that this is basically a tower in the park. The podium should have been flush with the street.
Armour
Senior Member
How does a slight setback from the street makes this a tower in the park?
Conrad Black
Senior Member
The building doesn't meet the sidewalk in any way. A couple of trees and some plants make it more of a tower in the park than urban.
Benito
Senior Member
The plantings they did are horrible. They were just boring rows of grass and echinacea that are now full of weeds. I hope the condo corp eventually does something with the planting space in front of the building, it is currently a lost opportunity.
junctionist
Senior Member
Charles Street is relatively narrow, so I appreciate the setback from the street. It means more light and space that could be used for wider sidewalks one day.
TDotTeen
New Member
While I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a tower in a park, this building, and many of the new buildings on Charles Street in general, do not engage very well with the street. They're all separated by each other by driveways, so there is no consistent street-wall, and they are separated from the (relatively narrow) sidewalk by grass/plantings. Overall it's not a very urban experience. It is especially discouraging when one imagines what could have been possible on a street where almost every building is new/renovated.
So Charles Street's vernacular is not one which brings most buildings right up to the sidewalk, but neither is this "tower in the park", not the way that term conjures up images of typical towers in a park, anyway. And, if "urban" is only defined as right-up-to-the-sidewalk, then no the isn't urban.
Given that this is a 47 storey-high building only back 7 or 8 metres from the sidewalk, I'm thinking this (and the rest of the street) is still way more urban than suburban. Maybe compromising on "tower in an insultingly tiny parkette" would be a new term that would be acceptable? …or less facetiously, we need to expand a too-limiting concept of what urban is. Not every street needs to-the-sidewalk buildings to be good urban citizens.
42
Given that this is a 47 storey-high building only back 7 or 8 metres from the sidewalk, I'm thinking this (and the rest of the street) is still way more urban than suburban. Maybe compromising on "tower in an insultingly tiny parkette" would be a new term that would be acceptable? …or less facetiously, we need to expand a too-limiting concept of what urban is. Not every street needs to-the-sidewalk buildings to be good urban citizens.
42
TheKingEast
Senior Member
ileetoa
New Member
Casa and Chaz (I also posted this in the Casa thread.. sorry for the double post if anything)
Benito
Senior Member
SAI77
New Member
I know this thread died a year ago, but this has been bugging me for a year. I live south of the building and the lighting around the rectangle common area has NEVER worked. It started with one section out, which was annoying enough, but now there are a few sections out and some that change colour at different times then the majority of lights. For a new building it is ridiculous and it is an eyesore. If you are going to have a light feature, at least make sure it works or leave it off until you can get it fixed. I'm hoping that Vox is just high enough that it blocks my view of Chaz...