Toronto 141 Roehampton | 186.3m | 58s | Lifetime | Wallman Architects

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
32,032
Reaction score
90,035
Location
Toronto/EY
New application into the AIC for this one:

1658300037044.png


Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center
app.toronto.ca

Streetview of site as it is today:

1658300102665.png


Oh, and * Docs are Up *

Proponent is : Lifetime 141 Roehampton Inc.

Architect is Wallman:

1658300197589.png


Below: (View from West)

1658300283399.png


Below (View from east)

1658300331343.png


1658300695081.png


1658300418630.png


1658300741420.png
 
innsertnamehere said:
I have to say that I am appreciating the instant file upload that has been occurring on the AIC lately..
Click to expand...

LOL, it's not so much instant. Look at the upload date; it's June 28th. What used to happen is that as soon as Planning received any files electronically the application could be seen on the public facing side of the AIC. The docs would generally be made public when a) A Planner was assigned; b) when all the docs were uploaded.

Now what's happening is that the entire application is invisible on the public-facing side until conditions A and B have been met.

So, in the past, I would (or @ferusian ) most likely, would have posted the app here on June 28th, just over 3 weeks ago; then the docs today. Instead you get both as a bundle.
 
I always liked that building. The replacement looks very bland, almost as bad as E2 Condos, but if I were to say I'm surprised something is proposed here would be a lie. That being said, Roehampton will be a very different street after all this construction.
 
I like the original building too, but my objection to the replacement is its scale. I can't say I've ever understood the appeal of these monstrously large skyscrapers. It would've been more appealing if it was half its height. The old building is nice, human scale.

I should head over and take some pictures before it gets demolished.
 
It's the height required to make the financials viable for the dev. Nothing to do with aesthetics.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Love 2 stick 614 units with 5 elevators. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Adding one elevator would presumably cost one unit per floor on average (assuming one would not wish to shrink average unit size), does that sound right? If so, does the project still look 'economically' viable at that level to you?

I'm not sold on this project regardless; I'm just curious about the number-crunching here. I'm assuming it would depend on what was paid for the site, which I don't recall, if I ever knew.
 
Northern Light said:
Adding one elevator would presumably cost one unit per floor on average (assuming one would not wish to shrink average unit size), does that sound right? If so, does the project still look 'economically' viable at that level to you?

I'm not sold on this project regardless; I'm just curious about the number-crunching here. I'm assuming it would depend on what was paid for the site, which I don't recall, if I ever knew.
Click to expand...
No transaction yet but it's not far off of what you might expect for a site like this (DM me, I dunno).
 
I have no issue with the massing/height, as I'm all for density, but it would be so much easier to be a YIMBY in this city if the developers weren't replacing nice brick buildings with so many dreary glass and grey towers. I'm convinced NIMBYs would still NIMBY, but being a YIMBY would feel like a more honorable calling if all the architects in this town didn't have such an aversion to color and texture
 
Love to see these new projects with limited car parking an plenty of bike parking. Built for the future where 60% of people bike everyday, like in Amsterdam. ;)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top