innsertnamehere said:
Pace, core, dundas square gardens, 365 church, and now that new tridel building on church are all essentially student buildings. They just don't want people to know. I'm kind of doubtful that there are thousands upon thousands of students who can afford to pay $1,200 a month for a 1 bedroom though..
Click to expand...

I think you are being too pessimistic.
being small and near Ryerson doesn't mean they are student condos. Most new condos between Spadina and Jarvis north of Dundas are within walking distance to UofT or Ryerson, and most units are small.

And also, if the demand is there, there is nothing wrong with building student oriented condos - I am a bit confused here, every time a rental apartment is built, everyone cheers saying "that's exactly what we need", what's the difference about a condo mostly for renters? People will live there, and detail demand will follow. Better than empty lots for cars I'd say.

I'd add that most students would share a one bedroom with a roommate, who lives in the livingroom. So the cost is only $600.
 
Last edited:
yyzer said:
There is a townhouse complex at 666 Constellation Drive in Mississauga, and they have never had any troublle selling...
Click to expand...

Who bought it, Saaatan?

btw, my original post had an LOL at the end.
 
Last edited:
IMG_3703.jpg


Scaffolding is going up for the sales sign.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3703.jpg
    IMG_3703.jpg
    96.7 KB · Views: 1,471
Waterloo_Guy said:
The listed height for this building is wrong. This building was approved at 197m. The City documents clearly show a total approved height of 197m, or 646 feet.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-60942.pdf
Click to expand...

Page 23:

e) No portion of the building or structure on the lot shall have a greater height, in metres above grade, than the height limit in meters above grade specified by the numbers following the symbol ‘H’, on the attached Map 2 except that:

i. A stair tower, elevator shaft, chimney stack or other heating, cooling or ventilation equipment or window washing equipment on the roof of the building or a fence, wall, decorative feature or structure enclosing such elements may exceed the height limits on the attached Map 2 by no more than 10.0 metres provided that such elements or enclosures are within the mechanical area lines shown on Map 2;

ii. a structure on the roof of the building, used for outside or open air recreation, landscaping, architectural purposes, privacy, safety or wind protection may exceed the height limits shown on the attached Map 2 by no more than 3.0 metres;

iii. notwithstanding the provisions of By-law 438-86, as amended, ornamental and architectural elements, which are permitted on the may exceed the height limits shown on the attached map 2 by no more than 10 metres.
 
Ramako said:
Page 23:

e) No portion of the building or structure on the lot shall have a greater height, in metres above grade, than the height limit in meters above grade specified by the numbers following the symbol ‘H’, on the attached Map 2 except that:

i. A stair tower, elevator shaft, chimney stack or other heating, cooling or ventilation equipment or window washing equipment on the roof of the building or a fence, wall, decorative feature or structure enclosing such elements may exceed the height limits on the attached Map 2 by no more than 10.0 metres provided that such elements or enclosures are within the mechanical area lines shown on Map 2;

ii. a structure on the roof of the building, used for outside or open air recreation, landscaping, architectural purposes, privacy, safety or wind protection may exceed the height limits shown on the attached Map 2 by no more than 3.0 metres;

iii. notwithstanding the provisions of By-law 438-86, as amended, ornamental and architectural elements, which are permitted on the may exceed the height limits shown on the attached map 2 by no more than 10 metres.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize it worked this way. But is the proposal to actually build this extra 10m or is this just what they are allowed?
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
I didn't realize it worked this way. But is the proposal to actually build this extra 10m or is this just what they are allowed?
Click to expand...

I don't think they would have provided for the additional 10 metres unless there was an intent for it to be used. It's not something that's automatically included in every application.

Edit: Also if you go to page 18 in the application and zoom in, you can see that the difference in roof height above sea level (301.43 metres) and height of grade above sea level (94.43 metres) equals 207 metres.
 
Last edited:
Ramako said:
I don't think they would have provided for the additional 10 metres unless there was an intent for it to be used. It's not something that's automatically included in every application.

Edit: Also if you go to page 18 in the application and zoom in, you can see that the difference in roof height above sea level (301.43 metres) and height of grade above sea level (94.43 metres) equals 207 metres.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not very experienced with reading these reports.
 
Frenzy of work today.

488 Uni.jpg
2014-08-05 14.04.51.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 2014-08-05 14.04.51.jpg
    2014-08-05 14.04.51.jpg
    83.8 KB · Views: 1,094
  • 488 Uni.jpg
    488 Uni.jpg
    92.2 KB · Views: 1,074
This is a great way to refurbish our existing stock of office buildings. There are lots of small to mid-sized office buildings in great locations that badly need this kind of treatment. I hope this becomes a trend. This is probably what should be done at 80 Bloor West.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
This is a great way to refurbish our existing stock of office buildings. There are lots of small to mid-sized office buildings in great locations that badly need this kind of treatment. I hope this becomes a trend. This is probably what should be done at 80 Bloor West.
Click to expand...

If they're going to butcher old office buildings beyond recognition, I'd much rather they just demolish them wholesale and design a new tower on a blank slate rather than be forced to work within the confines of an existing structure.
 
Ramako said:
If they're going to butcher old office buildings beyond recognition, I'd much rather they just demolish them wholesale and design a new tower on a blank slate rather than be forced to work within the confines of an existing structure.
Click to expand...

True, but I doubt they would have included an office component in a new build. As butchering goes, it does offer the substantial benefit of a new TTC entrance.

AoD
 
It's also important to note the amount of construction waste that will not be headed to a landfill by electing to keep much of the existing tower. Whether or not this was a factor in their decision, I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top