B
bizorky
Guest
They were pressing too hard with the crayon.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
They were pressing too hard with the crayon.
I
interchange42
Guest
You know a condo project isn't going to fair well when even the developer can't get the name of his own project correct.
Whoopsiedoodle!
Sorry Fuzz, but your poke at Harry's spelling doesn't fare well either! (Not that I've ever maid any homonymic errors...)
42
C
caltrane74
Guest
When you despise a project its so easy to agree with babel.
I cant stand this thing. - Lets pray it doesnt get built. ( never liked it in any form. ) As steven segal would say: Pray for Death.
I cant stand this thing. - Lets pray it doesnt get built. ( never liked it in any form. ) As steven segal would say: Pray for Death.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
From the Post:
Sapphire Tower Moves Out Of Shadows; TemperanceStreet; City planners 'Excited' By Stinson's redesign
Peter Kuitenbrouwer, National Post
Published: Thursday, December 14, 2006
Harry Stinson and planners at the City of Toronto have found some common ground in resolving design details of Mr. Stinson's Sapphire Tower, a condo he wants to build on Temperance Street near City Hall.
A previous design of the tower cast a shadow on Nathan Phillips Square, leading councillors to reject it last year.
Since then, Mr. Stinson says he has "lost control" of one component of the plan, a British-owned, nine-storey building at 56 Temperance St.
Mr. Stinson now plans to build a 62-storey tower with two-, three-and four-bedroom condos suitable for families, at 66 Temperance.
On Tuesday, Mr. Stinson and his architect, Peter Turner, had a meeting with city planners "to bring them up speed on how we got to what we are proposing," Mr. Stinson said.
"We are very excited that Mr. Stinson sees the importance of attracting families downtown," said Al Rezowski, the planner on the file.
"We will see the revised drawings and review them and make sure that the services are appropriate.
"The shadowing appears to be addressed through this recent revision."
Mr. Rezowski said he would prefer that all parking be underground and that the building have a connection to the city's underground PATH network.
Mr. Stinson said the PATH connection is "cool with us. I'd be glad to participate."
Pkuitenbrouwer@nationalpost.com
© National Post 2006
AoD
Sapphire Tower Moves Out Of Shadows; TemperanceStreet; City planners 'Excited' By Stinson's redesign
Peter Kuitenbrouwer, National Post
Published: Thursday, December 14, 2006
Harry Stinson and planners at the City of Toronto have found some common ground in resolving design details of Mr. Stinson's Sapphire Tower, a condo he wants to build on Temperance Street near City Hall.
A previous design of the tower cast a shadow on Nathan Phillips Square, leading councillors to reject it last year.
Since then, Mr. Stinson says he has "lost control" of one component of the plan, a British-owned, nine-storey building at 56 Temperance St.
Mr. Stinson now plans to build a 62-storey tower with two-, three-and four-bedroom condos suitable for families, at 66 Temperance.
On Tuesday, Mr. Stinson and his architect, Peter Turner, had a meeting with city planners "to bring them up speed on how we got to what we are proposing," Mr. Stinson said.
"We are very excited that Mr. Stinson sees the importance of attracting families downtown," said Al Rezowski, the planner on the file.
"We will see the revised drawings and review them and make sure that the services are appropriate.
"The shadowing appears to be addressed through this recent revision."
Mr. Rezowski said he would prefer that all parking be underground and that the building have a connection to the city's underground PATH network.
Mr. Stinson said the PATH connection is "cool with us. I'd be glad to participate."
Pkuitenbrouwer@nationalpost.com
© National Post 2006
AoD
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
It's hard to tell much of anything from that sketch. It look likes they asked an artist whip it off the night before.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Maybe the architect wanted to do a Frank Gehry styled sketch?
AoD
AoD
A
Archivistower
Guest
Between Downtown Plaza, First Toronto Tower, and the blue Sapphire, I'm willing to go with this iteration, crayon and all.
It does rather strike me as one of the least family-friendly locations in the GTA, however.
It does rather strike me as one of the least family-friendly locations in the GTA, however.
I
interchange42
Guest
Interesting about connecting Sapphire to PATH.
As is being discussed in another thread right now, PATH is pretty much aimed at the office crowd and not open much beyond regular office hours. With increasing residential connections to the system though, PATH could see an increase in hours, and a gradual shift in the mix of retailers to reflect the needs of permanent residents in the area.
Currently several hotels including the Sheraton, Hilton, and Royal York are connected to PATH. I am not sure how much use visitors make of the system, but I assume it would not be as much as permanent residents would.
Currently the only residential building connected to PATH is Stinson's other condotel, 1 King West. Likely to be connected besides Sapphire are the Ritz-Carlton, Trump, and Shangri-La condotels, Maple Leaf Square, and a future phase of Bay/Adelaide. PATH may just get a little livelier!
Also interesting is that Sapphire is not contiguous with the existing system, so some lengthy under-street connection would be likely: possibly north under Sheppard Street to the Sheraton Centre (where some retial would likely be lost to make the new connection), or west under Sheppard to an expanded PATH offering at 85 Richmond West, or east under Temperance and Bay to the U/C Bay-Adelaide Centre, or finally, south under Sheppard past the future Concourse Bldg redevelopment, and under Adelaide to First Canadian Place. None of those look to be the obvious choice, or particularly easy. I wonder which is the most likely to win out? B/A?
42
As is being discussed in another thread right now, PATH is pretty much aimed at the office crowd and not open much beyond regular office hours. With increasing residential connections to the system though, PATH could see an increase in hours, and a gradual shift in the mix of retailers to reflect the needs of permanent residents in the area.
Currently several hotels including the Sheraton, Hilton, and Royal York are connected to PATH. I am not sure how much use visitors make of the system, but I assume it would not be as much as permanent residents would.
Currently the only residential building connected to PATH is Stinson's other condotel, 1 King West. Likely to be connected besides Sapphire are the Ritz-Carlton, Trump, and Shangri-La condotels, Maple Leaf Square, and a future phase of Bay/Adelaide. PATH may just get a little livelier!
Also interesting is that Sapphire is not contiguous with the existing system, so some lengthy under-street connection would be likely: possibly north under Sheppard Street to the Sheraton Centre (where some retial would likely be lost to make the new connection), or west under Sheppard to an expanded PATH offering at 85 Richmond West, or east under Temperance and Bay to the U/C Bay-Adelaide Centre, or finally, south under Sheppard past the future Concourse Bldg redevelopment, and under Adelaide to First Canadian Place. None of those look to be the obvious choice, or particularly easy. I wonder which is the most likely to win out? B/A?
42
C
cassiusa
Guest
The renderings on the website barely seem to resemble the tower design. Lots of artistic license, imo.
D
dougbennion
Guest
I love the concept. It is a little too downtownish for me to seriously consider, but hmmmmmmmm. I’m in a very large house in Riverdale and ready to downsize. Condos generally don’t give me the space I want, or if they do, the price per square foot starts getting too expensive for me. Smaller to mid-size condos seem to price in the $350 to $400 per square foot range, but if you want, say, 2500 square feet, that is usually penthouse zone and the price per square foot seems to zoom towards $600 plus.
I’ve looked at combining, say, two 1200 square foot adjoining units (each at $350 square foot or so), but that seems like a lot of work. So I love the concept if the price is right. They are starting at $600K with a minimum 2 bedroom and den, I think, so that might not be too far from $400 per square foot.
The floor plans are difficult to follow … they display the entire building plan, separately for top floor and bottom, but some of them look nicely thought out. I like the idea of a separate floor for bedrooms, although stairways do take up some space. Interesting that your top floor and bottom floors don’t have to be the same size. The elevators stop on every second floor and zoom right through some residents’ top floors … sure hope they are quiet.
I’ve looked at combining, say, two 1200 square foot adjoining units (each at $350 square foot or so), but that seems like a lot of work. So I love the concept if the price is right. They are starting at $600K with a minimum 2 bedroom and den, I think, so that might not be too far from $400 per square foot.
The floor plans are difficult to follow … they display the entire building plan, separately for top floor and bottom, but some of them look nicely thought out. I like the idea of a separate floor for bedrooms, although stairways do take up some space. Interesting that your top floor and bottom floors don’t have to be the same size. The elevators stop on every second floor and zoom right through some residents’ top floors … sure hope they are quiet.
3
3Dementia
Guest
Cass, I'm leavin' town but before I go... the crayola drawing looks exactly like what you "scribbled'' long ago... no?
Designed and developed by Stinson. Not something one hears often.
Let me guess.. you didn't get paid (properly)?!
Designed and developed by Stinson. Not something one hears often.
Let me guess.. you didn't get paid (properly)?!
C
cassiusa
Guest
3D,
More or less. Some small changes but the overall shape has remained similar. Since the adjacent building is no longer part of the plan, the tower will appear much thinner when being viewed from either the north or south.
In answer to your other question, if 100 was 1, I'd be owed 140 >: ( I've been paid up-front for the work I'm doing at the moment with the historical balance to come later.
More or less. Some small changes but the overall shape has remained similar. Since the adjacent building is no longer part of the plan, the tower will appear much thinner when being viewed from either the north or south.
In answer to your other question, if 100 was 1, I'd be owed 140 >: ( I've been paid up-front for the work I'm doing at the moment with the historical balance to come later.
B
building babel
Guest
Legally, you own copyright to your work, even when it is commissioned, once it is paid for by the client. Works of the imagination, such as illustrations, are your intellectual property and it is illegal to reproduce them for profit without your permission. This permission can include a written contract to pay you for reproducing your work.
R
roch5220
Guest
I too like the concept, 2-4 bedroom multi level units. Very smashing idea. For Harry, when this gets built, having two tall buildings downtown to his name will definately be iconic for both the Stintson brand, and him as an individual.
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
Along with the Trump Tower it will be nice to see a couple of peaks on the skyline in the coming years.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.