just a terrible project all around. Literally looks like a massing model that they decided to build.

Not every building needs to be an architectural masterpiece, and there is actually a lot of value in "background" buildings, but even those should manage to be thoughtfully detailed and have appropriate material selections.
 
just a terrible project all around. Literally looks like a massing model that they decided to build.

Not every building needs to be an architectural masterpiece, and there is actually a lot of value in "background" buildings, but even those should manage to be thoughtfully detailed and have appropriate material selections.
It's the inset balconies set behind gratuitous spandrel that really does it for me.
 
_MG_0396.jpg


 
There is sufficient coverage here - 8 cabs for 769 units. Shows you how much havoc taking one (or two?) out of general service can wreak...
 
There is sufficient coverage here - 8 cabs for 769 units. Shows you how much havoc taking one (or two?) out of general service can wreak...

What's the unit mix?

I do think we need to sort out the idea that its not really 1 elevator per 100 units that's a great standard.

That may be an acceptable average (subject to a minimum of 2 elevators); but it really depends on how many people are in each household/unit.

****

This got me thinking, is their a consensus standard out there?

This site says 1 elevator per 90 rooms/units:


This site says 1 elevator per 50-60 units


BC Housing has a set of standards:

1690988603773.png



****

Having scanned a raft of sites; the consistent elevators per unit range is 60-90 per elevator.

A small number of government and elevator-related resources use performance standards as shown above, and some also use a per ft2 calculation, presumably as a proxy for total population demand.

I think population demand is key, both in total numbers and in composition.

One has to know what percentage of residents are likely to need an elevator at the same time (school/work); and how many total residents.
 
Holdout property sold for $2.65m, over a million more than asking. The listing pushed a) parkland possibility and b) possibility of 4-storey apartment building. Curious who bought it and what it will be used for.
 
Yep. I took this after I saw your reply in this thread.
View attachment 505596

How sad does this look.....🤦

The grass used to be nice and green now it's lacking any sunlight well duh the neighbouring 34-storey tower essentially blocked any possible view or lights on 3 sides of the existing holdout property! 😠😠😠

The listing boasted the house as “a hold-out property beaming with endless possibilities,” adding that current zoning for the 32-by-90-foot lot with a garage already allows for a detached house, semi-detached home, townhouse, duplex, triplex, fourplex and an apartment building.

Another option listed was turning the property into off-site parkland, since developers are required to spend 10 per cent of their land value on park space. With a zoning by-law amendment, Kutyan said the property could also swap over to commercial use for a professional office, retail or restaurant space.
 

Back
Top