Toronto Residences at The Ritz-Carlton, Toronto | 207.86m | 53s | Graywood | Kohn Pedersen Fox

Dane said:
THANK you... I'm pretty sure I'd heard the same thing.... Bay adelaide is an office building... which means that it doesnt need balconies.... but the "mixed use thing"? Then why does the Four Seasons have balconies? its hotel/condo.... hmmm...

Oh well.... I love the ritz, and think that.... while SOME buildings look apropriate with balconies (eg. Absolut Missauga, One City Hall) but in general I think that buildings are better without balconies.. variety makes the city vibrant... builing all the new projects with balconies has... very little variety..

More and More reasons to love the ritz!
Click to expand...
- There are three Bay-Adelaide buildings. At least one of them is going to be mixed-use.
- Maybe the developers asked the architect to include balconies on Four Seasons.
 
hkric88 said:
Check out the area near college and bay, north-west of ROCP, there is a condo building which almost looks like an office building, but, well it's not. No balconies, just a glass curtain wall. So, there's more of them than you might think. I'd post a pic but I don't know how to do that yet... ><
Click to expand...


1133 Bay Street, it's cool. I like the 2-tone glass!!
 
There are balconies on the Ritz. Not all suites have them (iirc) and they are almost hidden (integrated better?) in the renders/design.
 
3Dementia said:
Never seen these shots of the model before... from Page & Steele.

ritz.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't think there are balconies on this one.
 
caltrane74 said:
I don't think there are balconies on this one.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall a floor plan that had a balcony, a very small one mind you.

Edit: A quick look at the website reveals that there might be only a few suites on the highest (most expensive) floors that have a balcony. You can notice this in the render as well.
 
I'm not a fan of balconies either, which is why I also really like the Ritz. If a condo was to have balconies, then I'm with Caltrane that I prefer them when they're sunken in like X. Wrap-around like the Met and Absolute are second best. Most people like to have a balcony which is why they are on almost every condo anyways. I can understand why because it would be nice to step outside and not have to go down to the lobby for a breath of fresh air (or smoke). But please, do not try to hide the balcony by adding a "linai". It's just a bigger window that slides sideways, not up and down.
 
But please, do not try to hide the balcony by adding a "linai". It's just a bigger window that slides sideways, not up and down.
Click to expand...

*cough* one bloor *cough*

not only from an exterior point of view do balconies detract... but when I'm inside a condo... with a full wall of glass, I want to see a VIEW, not half-view, half-railing/chairs/plants (or whatever else people put on balconies)

Terraces are a different story altogether... so yes... only the Penthouse of the Ritz has.. "terraces" and BOY what a penthouse.... I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable so high up on those terraces though...
 
A quick look at the website reveals that there might be only a few suites on the highest (most expensive) floors that have a balcony. You can notice this in the render as well.
Click to expand...

I doubt it's in the render... but at those prices, I don't doubt the possibility of it (a balcony) being added.
 
Btw, what's with this requirement that all new residential condos be built with balconies? I never realized there was such a thing. It sounds like quite a ridiculous requirement to me.
 
Can someone post a link to the by-law requiring balconies if it exists? The Zoning By-law probably requires common amenity space but that wouldn't mean balconies. What about a building like ROCP that has balconies only halfway up? Why would they be required in some units but not others? Why would they be required on purely residential buildings but not mixed use buildings? I'm pretty skeptical that such a by-law exists.

I think balconies can look great on a condo building. 18 Yorkville and Spire are good examples, even the Cityplace towers wouldn't look any better without them. They reflect the use of the building, people want some outdoor space in their home.
 
rudeboie said:
Btw, what's with this requirement that all new residential condos be built with balconies? I never realized there was such a thing. It sounds like quite a ridiculous requirement to me.
Click to expand...
There is no requirement. Balconies are purely the result of market demand and architect's vision.
 
I could swear that I read on this site even that there was a bylaw requiring so many balconies in each tower. In the 80s, developers used a loophole that created sunrooms instead of balconies, by the 90s this loophole was closed.

Unless I've gone mad, I've read it here.
 
Yeah, I read the same thing. It's something to do with giving each resident a certain amount of outdoor space in one form or another.

I'm pretty sure developers (and architects, who generally hate balconies) are exempt from the balcony rule if they're building mixed-use towers, which would explain a lot of the buildings without balconies in Toronto. Others are probably office conversions. I think this observation holds up pretty well under scrutiny.
 
Isn't a balcony just a cheap way of adding square footage to a condo? Hence a way for the developer to make money?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top