Toronto Charlie Condos | 122.83m | 36s | Great Gulf | Diamond Schmitt

Rather than blaming the architect, maybe it's the land owner who wanted the structure built right to the property line.
 
From the looks of the building, it seems to be tinted all tinted glass through out !...Can anybody confim this ? Nice looking building however !
 
gristle said:
Rather than blaming the architect, maybe it's the land owner who wanted the structure built right to the property line.
Click to expand...

That may be so, but it is then the architect's duty to inform them of the fenestral conundrum before them and present alternate schemes which do not place concrete walls mere inches from existing windows. I believe it was Great Gulf who also developed the Hudson in the first place, with D+S as architects, so there's no sense in ameliorating either party since they are both equally culpable.

Let's just hope they exercise more foresight up at Bloor and Yonge.
 
It's just a rendering though . I'm pretty sure code doesn't allow a wall within inches of existing windows
 
sam1025 said:
From the looks of the building, it seems to be tinted all tinted glass through out !...Can anybody confim this ? Nice looking building however !
Click to expand...

Never trust a rendering re: glass treatment.

The tinted glass you're seeing is the artist's impression of light hitting what will probably be clear glass or slightly blue glass (also notice the sun incorrectly rising or setting from the south). But it's hard to say. They might not have even chosen the glass yet.
 
ProjectEnd said:
That may be so, but it is then the architect's duty to inform them of the fenestral conundrum before them and present alternate schemes which do not place concrete walls mere inches from existing windows. I believe it was Great Gulf who also developed the Hudson in the first place, with D+S as architects, so there's no sense in ameliorating either party since they are both equally culpable.

Let's just hope they exercise more foresight up at Bloor and Yonge.
Click to expand...

Still, the architect is just hired and does not control the project. The final call always goes to the developer and not the architect - unless the the developer allows otherwise.

maestro said:
It's just a rendering though . I'm pretty sure code doesn't allow a wall within inches of existing windows
Click to expand...

You are probably right. Unless someone has any decision from the Committee of Adjustments, there is no way to know if all that is being seen is the eye candy render showing off the building.
 
I'm quite certain that Building Code requirement (re: building separation distance to wall openings) are not subject to any variances from the Committee of Adjustment
 
Solaris said:
I'm quite certain that Building Code requirement (re: building separation distance to wall openings) are not subject to any variances from the Committee of Adjustment
Click to expand...

Correct. There are no zoning requirements that require setbacks from side lot lines in RA districts (such as King/Spadina) for the "front" part of a building (beyond a certain length the building has to set back).

Any building, such as Hudson, that chooses to put windows on a lot line is obligated under the Ontario Building Code to ensure that the openings are sprinklered as a fire-protection measure. This sprinklering is quite common in a number of the new infill buildings in King/Spadina.

From a design point-of-view, Hudson could have been designed with a blank wall on the east wall of the podium. Instead, a choice was made to add windows into secondary rooms, such as dens and second bedrooms, as well as some of the rooms within the second floor amenity space.

To set back Charlie to the extent necessary to "preserve" the views from these secondary windows would have been a mistake urbanistically by breaking up the retail continuity and by creating a potentially dangerous, unneeded through-block connection to the back lane.

The terraced podium is already quite sophisticated in the way the height drops from King Street as it turns the corner onto Charlotte, reflecting the different scale of each street. This massing goes way beyond the King/Spadina Urban Design Guidelines in terms of sensitivity and which most likely would have led to a mirror image of Hudson's podium, at 11-13 storeys on both King and Charlotte.
 
Last edited:
thecharioteer said:
From a design point-of-view, Hudson could have been designed with a blank wall on the east wall of the podium. Instead, a choice was made to add windows into secondary rooms, such as dens and second bedrooms, as well as some of the rooms within the second floor amenity space.

To set back Charlie to the extent necessary to "preserve" the views from these secondary windows would have been a mistake urbanistically by breaking up the retail continuity and by creating a potentially dangerous, unneeded through-block connection to the back lane.

The terraced podium is already quite sophisticated in the way the height drops from King Street as it turns the corner onto Charlotte, reflecting the different scale of each street. This massing goes way beyond the King/Spadina Urban Design Guidelines in terms of sensitivity and which most likely would have led to a mirror image of Hudson's podium, at 11-13 storeys on both King and Charlotte.
Click to expand...

You're right to note that 'they' could have designed Hudson with a blank, east-facing wall, but 'they' didn't, and I think that gesture deserves a little respect. To suggest that creating a small, mid-block mews or pedestrian alleyway would be "dangerous" and "unneeded" is ridiculous since little, if any, danger would arise from the connection itself. Furthermore, stating that this would 'break up the retail continuity' has a rather ominous tone as it implies we are all lambs being led around by our 'corporate masters,' and that breaking the 'retail continuity' would cause people to loose control and meander into the street. I also question what kind of continuity we can expect here since the only 'connection' being made is to a bank branch (Royal Bank) to the west.

Charlie's terraced podium is a good alternative to the somewhat overbearing massing of Hudson's since it breaks up the bulk between the two buildings and allows much sunlight to filter into Glas to the north. It is however, neither sophisticated nor advanced since it so blatantly and callously turns its back on a neighbor who only wanted to let more light and air into its units. The fact that GG nor D+S would not have caught and rectified this error is the real 'mistake' here.

'Dangerous connection...' And how.
 
ProjectEnd said:
You're right to note that 'they' could have designed Hudson with a blank, east-facing wall, but 'they' didn't, and I think that gesture deserves a little respect. To suggest that creating a small, mid-block mews or pedestrian alleyway would be "dangerous" and "unneeded" is ridiculous since little, if any, danger would arise from the connection itself. Furthermore, stating that this would 'break up the retail continuity' has a rather ominous tone as it implies we are all lambs being led around by our 'corporate masters,' and that breaking the 'retail continuity' would cause people to loose control and meander into the street. I also question what kind of continuity we can expect here since the only 'connection' being made is to a bank branch (Royal Bank) to the west.

Charlie's terraced podium is a good alternative to the somewhat overbearing massing of Hudson's since it breaks up the bulk between the two buildings and allows much sunlight to filter into Glas to the north. It is however, neither sophisticated nor advanced since it so blatantly and callously turns its back on a neighbor who only wanted to let more light and air into its units. The fact that GG nor D+S would not have caught and rectified this error is the real 'mistake' here.

'Dangerous connection...' And how.
Click to expand...


Or perhaps the real 'mistake' was for GGH to pay for these windows in the first place knowing they would subsequently be in the way of the adjacent development. Conversely, those who bought these units would have been silly not to recognize that those views were not going to be around for long. That they have windows on the side of the building is a small miracle, and if they end up with Manhattan-lite (pardon the pun) light wells once Charlie is built then they are still ahead of similar units almost everywhere else in the city.
 
verlander said:
Or perhaps the real 'mistake' was for GGH to pay for these windows in the first place knowing they would subsequently be in the way of the adjacent development. Conversely, those who bought these units would have been silly not to recognize that those views were not going to be around for long. That they have windows on the side of the building is a small miracle, and if they end up with Manhattan-lite (pardon the pun) light wells once Charlie is built then they are still ahead of similar units almost everywhere else in the city.
Click to expand...

A development which they would also be in control of? Instead of seeing these windows as a mistake, why would GG not see them as a way to separate themselves from 'the pack?' After all, as you rightly note, most buildings to adhere to the 'windows at the front, cinderblock on the sides' formula and by putting windows where there traditionally were none, GG was making a statement. Unfortunately a lonely yelp it will remain for in lieu of continuing this conversation, they chose to mute it and cover their tracks with bricks.

More importantly, I find it interesting that so many are taking issue with what I feel is a no-brainer here. It seems then many feel developers should be free to treat buildings as stand-alone objects which bear little if any relation to the surrounding structures and streetscape (the 'context'), as evidenced by GG's apathetic willingness to compromise a structure which they created, marketed and built. D+S are equally guilty here for it seems that they could have walked the 100ft or so south from their Fortress of Solitude at 384 Adelaide to the site itself, just to see whether Chuck's sizable keister might be intruding.
 
ProjectEnd said:
A development which they would also be in control of? Instead of seeing these windows as a mistake, why would GG not see them as a way to separate themselves from 'the pack?' After all, as you rightly note, most buildings to adhere to the 'windows at the front, cinderblock on the sides' formula and by putting windows where there traditionally were none, GG was making a statement. Unfortunately a lonely yelp it will remain for in lieu of continuing this conversation, they chose to mute it and cover their tracks with bricks.

More importantly, I find it interesting that so many are taking issue with what I feel is a no-brainer here. It seems then many feel developers should be free to treat buildings as stand-alone objects which bear little if any relation to the surrounding structures and streetscape (the 'context'), as evidenced by GG's apathetic willingness to compromise a structure which they created, marketed and built. D+S are equally guilty here for it seems that they could have walked the 100ft or so south from their Fortress of Solitude at 384 Adelaide to the site itself, just to see whether Chuck's sizable keister might be intruding.
Click to expand...


TheCharioteer rather eloquently summed up the urbanistic merits of maintaining a strong street wall along the north side of King St and avoiding the absurdity of a block consisting of only two buildings that is chopped up by a mid-block lane or alley or reveal.

In the end, I believe the urban merits of the continuous frontage trump the rather small benefits to the few owners of the units in question who would gain some small views to the SE from floors 2 to about 7.
 
I drove by the Charlie site this mornign ! It seems that construction is well under way !.........I'm sure its anyday now before they start digging and removing earth !
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top