Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
Project Essentials / dataBase – detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread  I  Real Estate Thread
oneeleven Condominiums
111 Bathurst St, Toronto
Developer: Harhay Developments, Carttera Private Equities
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 178

Thread: oneeleven (111 Bathurst St at Adelaide, Harhay/Carttera, 17s, Core)

  1. Default

    This one looks great in the renderings, but there probably won't be very much contrast between the glassed sections that jut out and the glass sections that are flush. That's the thing with glass curtain walls - they don't produce a very good perception of depth. When you consider that they protrude out as much as the balconies, and that the balconies will themselves have glass panels, the effect will be the same as having a solid block on top of that brick podium.

    On the plus side, the podium will look good regardless.


  2. #17

    Default

    Awesome! Bathurst south of Queen is going to be a very sharp looking avenue in 10 years.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Towered View Post
    Awesome! Bathurst south of Queen is going to be a very sharp looking avenue in 10 years.
    Yeah, thats if area residents let it...this one at 16-17 storeys might just not fly with them.
    Unfortunately they are more worried about height than design.

  4. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Automation Gallery View Post
    Yeah, thats if area residents let it...this one at 16-17 storeys might just not fly with them.
    Unfortunately they are more worried about height than design.
    The Bathurst building for the Freed-650 King project has 16 storeys so I think 16 or 17 would not be a problem for this site.

  5. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Automation Gallery View Post
    Yeah, thats if area residents let it...this one at 16-17 storeys might just not fly with them.
    Unfortunately they are more worried about height than design.
    Well since you're full of remarks, lets not forget that you would approve a piece of feces - so long its 1000 metres. Since you opted to expose your ignorance, I'll let you know that the local community actually approves of this development and has no issue with 16 floors along Bathurst. The building in question also includes office space and retail, which is good for the community.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gristle View Post
    , lets not forget that you would approve a piece of feces - so long its 1000 metres.
    Thats gross, and your always full of smart remarks towards me.
    Just mentioning that your neighbourhood has a height limit that most residents stand firm on....if this breaks the area hight limit and is OK at 16-17 storeys why is that Bathurst and Front is not good enough for 19-21 floors, a measley 12-15 meters taller.

  7. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Automation Gallery View Post
    Thats gross...
    Boohoo.

    As noted, this development has an office and retail component - which is a plus for the area. The nearby Thompson Hotel has a heritage component to it (although the developer ended up tearing it down and rebuilding it to house the Counter restaurant). As for buildings hitting the 16 floor mark, as I have told you over and over, the city is subject to the dictates of the OMB, and the OMB rules on precedent. Bathurst is an arterial route, and there is some give an take on the heights for that reason (just to show you that your prejudicial views about the people who live here are quite incorrect). The 22 floors and overall massing of the Front and Bathurst proposal is immense and wrong for the neighbourhood. It is very different from 111 Bathurst. That's why your comparison is so way off.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gristle View Post
    Boohoo.

    Bathurst is an arterial route, and there is some give an take on the heights
    The 22 floors and overall massing of the Front and Bathurst proposal is immense and wrong for the neighbourhood. It is very different from 111 Bathurst. That's why your comparison is so way off.
    What Im sorry but you flip flop all over the place....nothing immense about it..it has lots of retail, just might need a tweak or two on the design.
    As a transitional area to CityPlace, that development height at Bathurst/Front is actually more than appropriate for that derelict part of town.

    Ohh yeah, by the way the Minto/Freed development will be a mere 72 meters in height, and regarding that 1000 meter remark..it just makes me wonder if you live in another planet, cause this world has yet to see one.
    And regarding this project at 111 Bathurst..i do like everything about it, just to bad its going to cast a large shadow on my favourite church across the street.
    Last edited by Automation Gallery; 2011-Sep-28 at 07:22.

  9. #24

    Default

    Have you read the secondary plan for the area? No, of course not. The neighbourhood is NOT a transitional area for City Place. This is just your fantasy. And this part of town is not "derelict" as you assert. You simply don't like it because it doesn't match up with your personal obsessive panting for supertalls.

  10. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Automation Gallery View Post
    What Im sorry but you flip flop all over the place....nothing immense about it..it has lots of retail, just might need a tweak or two on the design.
    As a transitional area to CityPlace, that development height at Bathurst/Front is actually more than appropriate for that derelict part of town.

    Ohh yeah, by the way the Minto/Freed development will be a mere 72 meters in height, and regarding that 1000 meter remark..it just makes me wonder if you live in another planet, cause this world has yet to see one.
    And regarding this project at 111 Bathurst..i do like everything about it, just to bad its going to cast a large shadow on my favourite church across the street.

    maybe he means 1000 feet not metres??

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gristle View Post
    Well since you're full of remarks, lets not forget that you would approve a piece of feces - so long its 1000 metres. Since you opted to expose your ignorance, I'll let you know that the local community actually approves of this development and has no issue with 16 floors along Bathurst. The building in question also includes office space and retail, which is good for the community.
    Where are you getting this addiional information? Office space and retail. Other than the rendering on Core Archtects site which doesn't even mention the builder, I haven't seen any other information.

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gristle View Post
    Have you read the secondary plan for the area? No, of course not.
    I have read the secondary plan (and the 2006 secondary plan review), and you are absolutely right that the Minto/Freed project contravenes it. But so does this project in equal measure. And yet, you see no problem with this one, but any support of the Minto/Freed project sends you into a spitting cyber-rage. What's the difference in your opinion?

    I could see an objection that's based on a strict-faith interpretation of the Spadina-King planning regimen. It has worked very well over the last 15 years in creating an interesting and desirable neighbourhood west of Spadina. But that's not the argument you've been making. You vary on a case-by-case basis.

    It seems to me at this point that both projects could be workable and valuable additions to the neighbourhood, and that, if anything, this project would be the more problematic of the two due to its proximity to a landmark church. The Minto/Freed one is in a location that has 'gateway' potential right at the very corner of the secondary plan, and is only overly tall right the intersection. The rest of the building fits in with the street wall established by other recent projects (Reve, Sixty Bathurst, that Core project right to the north, etc.). So why the different stances?

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gristle View Post
    Have you read the secondary plan for the area? No, of course not. The neighbourhood is NOT a transitional area for City Place. This is just your fantasy. And this part of town is not "derelict" as you assert. You simply don't like it because it doesn't match up with your personal obsessive panting for supertalls.
    Ahh come on, i hope we end it here
    Like i said before you must live in another planet...let me clarify, the world does not have no 1000 meter buildings and Toronto sure does not have any supertalls.
    And yes i do like tall buildings, but where they belong, and to me i can just be as happy with a 50, 150, or 250 meter structure, which is a lot more than you can.
    You and your colleagues better get out of that fantasy where you think that one side of street should be treated different from the other...man, thats not cool anymore
    ..You seem to trash me through-out various threads everytime i mention a taller height or taller building...which i find really strange in a city of skyscrapers.
    Meanwhile your posts are all about everything having to be shorter..
    and everyone should have to listen to Mr.gristle and company and be perfectly OK with that. Please

    I do have intrests in a restaurant in the area and walk through that neighbourhood every second/third day and once leaving Queen and Portland area through King to Bathurst down to Front is like going to........ you fill in the blank.

  14. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bengaijin View Post
    I have read the secondary plan (and the 2006 secondary plan review), and you are absolutely right that the Minto/Freed project contravenes it. But so does this project in equal measure. And yet, you see no problem with this one, but any support of the Minto/Freed project sends you into a spitting cyber-rage. What's the difference in your opinion?
    The total height of this project will be approximately 54 metres. The southeast Minto-Freed tower will be 72 metres, the southwest tower will be 81 metres. Much of the remaining u-shaped structure will be over 50 metres in height. I think this shows quite clearly that there is no "equal measure" involved here whatsoever.

    I could see an objection that's based on a strict-faith interpretation of the Spadina-King planning regimen. It has worked very well over the last 15 years in creating an interesting and desirable neighbourhood west of Spadina. But that's not the argument you've been making. You vary on a case-by-case basis.
    It has worked reasonably well, but less and less so with every addition in building height. Like all plans (and as stated within the K-S Secondary), there is always room for variability. But as I have noted on this forum in other places, the risk is in how planning proposals end up being executed. Developers rely heavily on the OMB (or the threat of going to the OMB), and the OMB all too often takes the view that precedent is a clear indicator on what should be allowed. Had Minto-Freed come in with a proposal for corner towers in or just below the 50 metre range, they could have claimed a precedent set by 650 King. At the same time, they are offering no historic preservation/restoration as with 55 Stewart, and there is no tall building of equal height across Bathurst to draw a comparison with in respect to 650 King. In short, OMB rulings have enabled and reinforced height creep that has exceeded the secondary plan - and continues to do so. Exceptions become the rule. Just look across Spadina.

    It seems to me at this point that both projects could be workable and valuable additions to the neighbourhood, and that, if anything, this project would be the more problematic of the two due to its proximity to a landmark church. The Minto/Freed one is in a location that has 'gateway' potential right at the very corner of the secondary plan, and is only overly tall right the intersection.
    Regarding Front and Bathurst, again, it is simply too large. You need only to compare the two proposals side by side. The 111 Bathurst proposal is for a far smaller building that brings refreshed retail and office space to that area. It occupies a much smaller area that the F-B proposal. Is is higher than what the secondary plan allows? Yes. Does it exceed what is in the vicinity? Yes, but there are precedents. The Front and Bathurst proposal runs roughshod over the secondary plan. It's way out of proportion to what is in the area.

    Both developers could do much better with respect to creating buildings that are sympathetic with the neighbourhood. But Minto-Freed is clearly aiming at selling units.

    Finally, regarding a gateway, there is already an excellent gateway to the area: the Bathurst Street bridge.
    Last edited by gristle; 2011-Sep-29 at 23:07.

  15. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gristle View Post
    Finally, regarding a gateway, there is already an excellent gateway to the area: the Bathurst Street bridge.
    Come-on lol...Away from the old Bathurst street steel bridge being historical and symbolic in the area, there is no merit there of it being a gateway to that upper neighbourhood.
    If anything, any bragging rights to that bridge deserves to go to the Fort York/CityPlace neighbourhood...like i said before you flip-flop all over the place, arent you the one that all along has said, that the area south of Front street is another neighbourhood.

    Also strange, cause when i was a little guy living in the area we thought vise-versa... that looking south on Bathurst street was the gateway to the Rail-Lands/Fort York-Lake Ontario.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •