gristle said:
I think the number of units is a measure when it jumps from 900 to 1,200. That is bloat and excess density - regardless of it being on a streetcar line. Other buildings on or near Bathurst don't approach this plump item.
Click to expand...

The good thing is, all those new residents are going to help enliven that quiet, dull corner. Density + retail = a vibrant corner. (hopefully)
 
This plot of land and really the general area is under developed (although that is quickly changing with the deluge of proposals there are now). Maybe 1,200 is a lot, but I think overall it's a very well designed project. Is there anything specific you'd want changed, besides less residents of course?

To me, it has good, original architecture, meets the street well with retail and public art at grade, and it's not much taller than neighbours to the north and east. Couldn't ask for much more.
 
gristle said:
I think the number of units is a measure when it jumps from 900 to 1,200. That is bloat and excess density - regardless of it being on a streetcar line. Other buildings on or near Bathurst don't approach this plump item.
Click to expand...

Why is this "bloat and excess density"? Is it more people per square metre than other buildings in the neighbourhood? And how much more? Adjectives are nice and all, but how about some facts to back them up.
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
I don't think the number of units is a measure we should be using to judge the worthiness of a proposal (inadequate infrastructure for that number of residents would be a weak argument what with it being on a streetcar line, a block away from an expressway and really not that far from Union).
Click to expand...

Infrastructure does not refer to only transportation when considering the number of units. Other infrastructure issues that could limit the number of units include, but not limited to, adequate water supply, sanitary capacity, and power supply. I'm assuming that there are no issues with respect to these particular infrastructure systems and the proposed 1200 units, just some food for thought when "inadequate infrastructure for that number of residents" is used as an argument.
 
^Yes of course, but like you said there is no reason to suspect these are big factors. If they are it is much less an issue to expand those by say laying a pipe or upgrading a transformer than it is to widen a road, build a highway or create new high-load public transportation.
 
Torontovibe said:
The good thing is, all those new residents are going to help enliven that quiet, dull corner. Density + retail = a vibrant corner. (hopefully)
Click to expand...

One can only hope. The only retail anchor that has been mentioned so far is Whole Foods, and that isn't absolutely certain. There aren't many more retail opportunities in the building.

Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
This plot of land and really the general area is under developed (although that is quickly changing with the deluge of proposals there are now). Maybe 1,200 is a lot, but I think overall it's a very well designed project. Is there anything specific you'd want changed, besides less residents of course?

To me, it has good, original architecture, meets the street well with retail and public art at grade, and it's not much taller than neighbours to the north and east. Couldn't ask for much more.
Click to expand...

Actually, the plot of land isn't developed. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the general area is "underdeveloped." The locale is one undergoing some of the most intensive redevelopment in the city. While the building's architecture represents a huge improvement over what was first presented, the proposed structure will run about 115 metres along Bathurst, ranging from 50 to 64 metres in height. Generally, two buildings with some reasonable distancing could have easily been situated in the same space. The developers had zero interest in doing that as they were going for the maximum number of units to sell and not for the best use of the 9,000 square metres of land. Again, an opportunity to build an interesting ground plane environment for the area has been lost to the overriding aim of maximizing profit.

alklay said:
Why is this "bloat and excess density"? Is it more people per square metre than other buildings in the neighbourhood? And how much more? Adjectives are nice and all, but how about some facts to back them up.
Click to expand...

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but 1,200 units on 9,000 square metres of land represents a big jump in density for this area - particularly when compared to the other new buildings that have gone up within the last eight years. Sorry if you don't like my adjectives. I would have expected that it was obvious that the word "bloat" doesn't make it's way into technical discussions or rezoning applications. As the usage is subjective and represents my views on the evolution of this project, I reserve the right to express them. I'm sure you won't be curtailing your employment of adjectives when you find something excessive - even if it's a personal feeling. I wouldn't expect you to.
 
There's some demolition occurring at this site, presumably for the sales centre. The building On the corner of front and Bathurst is not being touched, which is probably going to be used for the sales centre.
 
The selling of starter condos begins! At least the transients will be able to enjoy a Whole Foods in their lobby.

Minto.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Minto.jpg
    Minto.jpg
    75.9 KB · Views: 515
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top