Toronto The Bond | 138.68m | 42s | Lifetime | Core Architects COMPLETE

[condovo]

They didn't paint the undersides of the balconies?

 

[ProjectEnd]

 

[interchange42]

Looks like street front retail of the neo-Neapolitan eatery variety.

42

 

[ProjectEnd]

I do wish we could regulate retail bay width...

 

[maestro]

This space is probably quite shallow given the condo servicing area for the tower. Narrow storefronts would be too small to lease. I kinda of like having retail of different sizes. Just about everyone would design to the maximum widths making our streets look like shopping malls or podiums with multiple CRUs.

This space isn't that wide either. It's about the width of a popular neighbourhood store that has grown beyond its space and expanding into the building next to it. would they be regulated too from creating double wide stores across two buildings as you see all along Toronto's (streetcar) avenues?

 

[ProjectEnd]

It's not huge - 2,227sf and fairly shallow.

Everyone currently does design to maximum widths which is precisely why I'd like to see regulation. It wouldn't have affected this project since it replaced a single restaurant but in other places where 4, 5, 6+ storefronts are collapsed into 1 or 2, it's a huge problem. I would advocate for some sort of legislation which says that if you're going to replace x number of storefronts, you have to provide that same number back. The issue is that with parking ramps, lobbies, circulation, loading etc., ground floors easily get eaten up and retail is 'left over' space.

It's tough to be sure but the way we're doing it now isn't really working.

 

[Yegger]

I agree with the above. However, I’m not very hopeful as we can barely regulate the use of materials (bait & switch) or even the way above ground parking impacts a bustling district (see Noir condo podium).

 

[ProjectEnd]

Tenant outfitting progressing (not necessarily the construction equipment pictured though):

 

[innsertnamehere]

there is some big utility cut getting done in front of Hooters right now, which is what the equipment is for. Tenant outfit is entirely indoors.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Signage is up. For hire signs in the window:

 

[ponyboy]

tonight. Nothing against hooters, but I hope the corner gets re-developed soon --

--

 

[holographic plastic]

Exactly, that Hooters looks extremely out of place in this area, not to mention it’s pretty trashy.

 

[ADRM]

Don't imagine the Hooters is ever going to be a high-rise, as I doubt the site is big enough to accommodate a 25m separation distance (I really do hate that restriction, well intentioned though it is).

 

[ProjectEnd]

Lots of conflicting policy and interpretation going on there. Technically it's 12.5m on your property (adding to a total of 25m on two) so you could argue that because The Bond didn't respect that, your property was put at a disadvantage and you've suffered damages by not being able to develop it to its fullest extent. That said, the Clergy Rule would say that because The Bond was developed before the Tall Building Guidelines came into force in 2013, it wouldn't be subject to that and the above claim is spurious.

Respecting a 12.5m west setback and 3m on all other sides, you still get an approximate tower floorplate of 715sm. Not the full 750 developers like, but definitely big enough to be profitable.

 

[WislaHD]

Lots of conflicting policy and interpretation going on there. Technically it's 12.5m on your property (adding to a total of 25m on two) so you could argue that because The Bond didn't respect that, your property was put at a disadvantage and you've suffered damages by not being able to develop it to its fullest extent. That said, the Clergy Rule would say that because The Bond was developed before the Tall Building Guidelines came into force in 2013, it wouldn't be subject to that and the above claim is spurious.

Respecting a 12.5m west setback and 3m on all other sides, you still get an approximate tower floorplate of 715sm. Not the full 750 developers like, but definitely big enough to be profitable.

So what you are saying is, that there is a chance!