AlbertC
Superstar
150 STERLING RD
Ward 9: Davenport
Site Plan Approval for a 13-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 1116 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 12,282 square metres.
Toronto 150 Sterling (Block 3B) | 92.74m | 28s | Marlin Spring | Giannone Petricone
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
150 STERLING RD
Ward 9: Davenport
Site Plan Approval for a 13-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 1116 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 12,282 square metres.
smably
Senior Member
Hold on, are we sure this is a T3 building? This sounds like a 13-storey residential building with retail on the ground floor. Could this be House of Assembly 2, Revenge of Marlin Spring?
AlbertC
Superstar
To the joy of everyone I think that could very well be the case!
TwoDogs_39
Active Member
The new site plan application for the residential building is not a T3 building, it is a Marlin Spring development. Hines is only developing the commercial office buildings, and those are the T3s.
ten_eighteen
New Member
If the MoCA is at 158 Sterling, then the address for this application (150 Sterling) puts it just south of the MoCA building -- but isn't one of the T3 buildings already going there?
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
It must be for one of the two "Future Residential" blocks in the site plan below. Probably the eastern of the two given the Steling Road address, just north of MoCA.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Docs are up. It is indeed one of the residential blocks above.
DavidCapizzano
Senior Member
Architect is Giannone Petricone
Northern Light
Superstar
For Marlin Spring, this isn't 1/2 bad. The exact choice of materials will make or break this one
ProjectEnd
Superstar
alklay
Senior Member
It is difficult to tell whether this will turn out to be "not bad" or "my gosh that is bad". Yes, materials and execution will have a lot to do with it.
It just appears to be confused. Open glass on one end of the podium, surrounded by what looks like a painted concrete bunker aesthetic everywhere else on the ground floor. And then a tower portion that does not fit any of what I just described. Design by committee?
Its not coherent and I am not sure the individual parts are even that decent.
Maybe this can be saved by some feedback from the Design Review Panel.
The gallery probably deserves a neighbour that is a little more worthy.
It just appears to be confused. Open glass on one end of the podium, surrounded by what looks like a painted concrete bunker aesthetic everywhere else on the ground floor. And then a tower portion that does not fit any of what I just described. Design by committee?
Its not coherent and I am not sure the individual parts are even that decent.
Maybe this can be saved by some feedback from the Design Review Panel.
The gallery probably deserves a neighbour that is a little more worthy.
neuhaus
Senior Member
I agree, it looks confused and a bit too much going on. There are some interesting design elements but they don’t seem to mesh with each other that well.
I would like to see something more simple and refined, and something that relates to the warehouse buildings nearby.
I would like to see something more simple and refined, and something that relates to the warehouse buildings nearby.
3Dementia
Senior Member
From this angle I actually think this works well with the heritage building (without trying to imitate)... and the tiny slice of T3 in the pic below suggests similar/complementary tones.
artyboy123
Senior Member
New rendering was taken from the architectural plan via the Minor variance application. The total storey count changed from 13 storeys to 14 storeys. Total height changed from 45.00m to 51.00m. The total unit count changed from 185 units to 182 units. Finally, the total parking space changed from 120 parking to 110 parking.
