Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
Project Essentials / dataBase detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread  I  Real Estate Thread
Market Wharf
18 Lower Jarvis, Toronto
Developer: Context Development

Login to
post and
upload photos
Page 2 of 96 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1436

Thread: Market Wharf (1-3 Market St., Context, 33s, aA)

  1. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by michaelpfox View Post
    You're going to love this Clewes building, in this context.
    Good pun. "Context".


  2. Default

    A lot of action east of Yonge... 46 is high.
    Created entry for this one here. It made it to my "top 30 by # of floors"...

  3. #18

    Default

    Well, there goes the (St. Lawrence) neighbourhood. (Okay, exaggerating a bit, but this is not good precedent).

    Proving yet again that we forgot how to build dense, yet low to mid rise, mixed income neighbourhoods, and that the city doesn't know what it wants.

  4. Default

    well this is just an 'application' and does not mean that they will get the height they are after!

  5. #20

    Default

    Proving yet again that we forgot how to build dense, yet low to mid rise, mixed income neighbourhoods, and that the city doesn't know what it wants.
    Its an interesting concept but don't you think the St Lawrence area is a tad overrated? - block long drab buildings with pockets of say rich and poor mostly divided by a linear park

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanTrans View Post
    Well, there goes the (St. Lawrence) neighbourhood. (Okay, exaggerating a bit, but this is not good precedent).

    Proving yet again that we forgot how to build dense, yet low to mid rise, mixed income neighbourhoods, and that the city doesn't know what it wants.
    I fail to see how this can set the precedent. It's on one of the few remaining lots in the area. One point tower in a sea of low rise seems fine to me providing the design is right. It appears too many people on here are jumping all over this before we even have a chance to see it's design. It's not as though if this goes through at that height the area can expect to be taken over by even more high rises, there just isn't the available land for that concern anymore. Actually, there really are only 2 or 3 parcels of land left after this one.

    Here is an overview of land availability.
    Legend

    Red - 18 Lower Jarvis
    Yellow- Available Parking lots
    Green - Municiple Works lot



    And a quick mock up, with park thrown in though it would be a great space for a park.




  7. Default

    Thanks, Andrew, very illuminating.

    But criminy, where did the base image for your mockup come from? Is that the Windows Live map view?

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Novelty Fashion View Post
    Thanks, Andrew, very illuminating.

    But criminy, where did the base image for your mockup come from? Is that the Windows Live map view?
    Yes it was. ^^^

    So I went for a bike ride this afternoon and went down to the site. The notice doesn't sound so bad and from what it neighbors I think it can only help this stretch of Jarvis. I really don't think the 147m / 482ft should be what we're worried about here, only the street level.


    Across from one of the worst buildings on Lower Jarvis.

    Another lot to bite the dust.


    What it will block on the west.


    And it's not as though it'll be the only tall building to loom over the Esplanade.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Yonge & Mt.Pleasant
    Posts
    3,824

    Default

    Wow. That is an uninspiring look at St.Lawrence area architecture. The TO Fine Foods building is bad but only slight worse than that two tone brick building with arches in the last pic. It is like someone drew an ugly building on a page and then tried to spruce it up with arches all over the place.

  10. #25

    Default

    that "worst building" isn't too bad--compared to the other crap in those photos. Just rework the base and it could pass for some Dutch-designed loft building.

    I wonder if Context Real Estate Holdings is the company that split from Context the Spire builder? I believe those guys are focusing on small scale projects while their ex-business partner (these guys?) wanted to go highrise. If Aa is involved it's bound to be approved and probably the best building in the neighbourhood.

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanTrans View Post
    Well, there goes the (St. Lawrence) neighbourhood. (Okay, exaggerating a bit, but this is not good precedent).

    Proving yet again that we forgot how to build dense, yet low to mid rise, mixed income neighbourhoods, and that the city doesn't know what it wants.
    The worst part is that St. Lawrence *was* supposed to be exactly that! It was our only attempt at building a European-scaled neighbourhood and, despite the fact that they didn't buildin higher than 12-storeys, they were some of the densest tracts of housing in all of Canada.

    I would call you a cynic but I'm even more jaded. I've seen these new towers and, drama in the sky aside, they offer f__k-all in terms of street-level improvements. Normally, they have a huge porte cochere and laneway for cars to turn around in and a gaping garage door entranceway to the underground parking. At the expense of sounding like a NIMBY I'm going to say that our streetscapes are increasingly turning into industrial-sized garages thanks to the condo boom. Just look at Bay street.

  12. #27

    Default

    i agree with that hipster (how hip are you really?) duck

    all those parking garages suck and are no different than those suburban homes with huge garages out front. Anti social and anti urban is what they are. Do buildings in manhattan have huge underground garages eating away at prime retail space?

    Developers and city hall: stop pandering to suburbanites who want to still keep their silly cars. If they want cars--why not build huge multistory's (with artistic flair) at key transit nodes or along the gardiner where they park n ride?

  13. Default

    ^If that duck wasn't a CGI rendered in MS Paint, he'd be managing the American Apparel store on Queen and DJing a New Wave night at The Boat.

    ---

    The stupid thing about those parking garages is that many of them are, at most, half full because many condo owners don't own cars at all. I think there is a silly rule that there must be a parking space for every unit. I wonder how much quicker condos could be built, how much cheaper they would be to build and how much condo fees could be reduced if we weren't forced to provide parking.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Downtown Toronto
    Posts
    2,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by urbandreamer View Post
    Developers and city hall: stop pandering to suburbanites who want to still keep their silly cars. If they want cars--why not build huge multistory's (with artistic flair) at key transit nodes or along the gardiner where they park n ride?
    I suppose that developers should also place the loading docks/garbage pick-up and recycling pickup somewhere offsite as well? That would be really easy to manage - maybe in a garbage node along the gardiner or something like that.

    While some developments manage to incorporate loading/parking facilities well and others do terribly - it is something that has to be worked into virtually all developments regardless of whether they are located in Milton or Manhattan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipster Duck View Post
    The stupid thing about those parking garages is that many of them are, at most, half full because many condo owners don't own cars at all. I think there is a silly rule that there must be a parking space for every unit. I wonder how much quicker condos could be built, how much cheaper they would be to build and how much condo fees could be reduced if we weren't forced to provide parking.
    There are many existing condos that only use portions of the underground parking mandated by the city. The capital and operating costs (wasting 24/7 lights for security) are very expensive. It may surprise you that developers are still often taking a loss even after they charge $30,000 for a parking space. The city, consumers and developers would all be better off if minimum parking requirements were eliminated - let the market dictate demand for parking rather then the city forcing developers to build these 7 level deep parking garages on tight downtown sites.
    UT Member Since February 2002

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Yonge & Mt.Pleasant
    Posts
    3,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipster Duck View Post
    I would call you a cynic but I'm even more jaded. I've seen these new towers and, drama in the sky aside, they offer f__k-all in terms of street-level improvements. Normally, they have a huge porte cochere and laneway for cars to turn around in and a gaping garage door entranceway to the underground parking. At the expense of sounding like a NIMBY I'm going to say that our streetscapes are increasingly turning into industrial-sized garages thanks to the condo boom. Just look at Bay street.
    The street-level improvements aren't dictated by height though. A six storey building can be equally uninspiring at street level as a high-rise. Without creating back alleys with garage and service entrances and having rules on how buildings meet the street I don't think it matters how tall buildings are. The low rise dense neighbourhoods in Brussels and Paris that I have seen are nice at street level because of architecture and design (both of the buildings and the street and its landscaping and furniture), not because of the height of the building. In Toronto many new buildings meet the street poorly and the streets are poorly landscaped, thin sidewalks, and asphalt patches are everywhere.

Page 2 of 96 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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