Cambridge 32-38 Grand Avenue South | 88m | 29s | Kiah Group | Neo Architecture

[Matt.R]

32, 36 & 38 Grand Avenue South: a 28-storey mixed-use residential and commercial building designed by NEO Architects for Grand Ave. Developments (Cambridge) LP on the southwest corner of Grand Ave S and Hood St (just north of St Andrews St) on the west side of downtown Galt in Cambridge.

328 units are proposed, consisting of 112x bachelor, 126x 1B, 40x 1B+D, and 45x 2B. 168 parking spaces are proposed, consisting of 152 resident, and 16 commercial/ visitor spaces (which, interestingly, are as a result of an off-site parking agreement between the subject property and a commercial establishment across the street) for a ratio of 0.46 spaces per unit… likely a record for Cambridge, as far as I can remember.

Some renderings… first from the interior of the Hood St block:

Now, from just south of the site, along Grand Avenue, approximately from the location of Barnacle Bill’s (the beneficiary of the parking arrangement, I believe):

And my personal favourite (I just really like the weather treatment), from the UW School of Architecture parking lot:

Ground floor plan:

Tower floors from level 8 to 21:

Tower floors from level 22 to 28:

Overall, I think it has the potential to be pretty decent in the right hands. The podium is subjectively nice (considering it’s almost all parking… though the Gaslight District set the bar pretty low for that). It’s a nice spot and will only improve. I’d buy here, depending on the finished product.

Biggest issue is the number of bachelor/ studio units. They’re not moving in the GTA, and will do even worse out this way I suspect. I like the upper tower floor layouts, and would love to see that unit mix applied throughout.

I don’t like the upper floors from the exterior. The floor plate is the same as the lower tower floors, just rotated 180 degrees. Keep the orientation and balcony placement of the lower tower section throughout the whole height, but with the upper tower floors’ internal layout (just replacing the 8 studios with 4 1B+Ds).

I know the guy behind this, and I’m 95% sure he’s re-zoning and flipping. He’s done this a couple times elsewhere, and with smaller-scale projects. I’d love to take it over from him, but I’m way short of the financial means to do that, unfortunately.

 

[christiesplits]

32, 36 & 38 Grand Avenue South: a 28-storey mixed-use residential and commercial building designed by NEO Architects for Grand Ave. Developments (Cambridge) LP on the southwest corner of Grand Ave S and Hood St (just north of St Andrews St) on the west side of downtown Galt in Cambridge.

328 units are proposed, consisting of 112x bachelor, 126x 1B, 40x 1B+D, and 45x 2B. 168 parking spaces are proposed, consisting of 152 resident, and 16 commercial/ visitor spaces (which, interestingly, are as a result of an off-site parking agreement between the subject property and a commercial establishment across the street) for a ratio of 0.46 spaces per unit… likely a record for Cambridge, as far as I can remember.

Some renderings… first from the interior of the Hood St block:
View attachment 656988


Now, from just south of the site, along Grand Avenue, approximately from the location of Barnacle Bill’s (the beneficiary of the parking arrangement, I believe):
View attachment 656989


And my personal favourite (I just really like the weather treatment), from the UW School of Architecture parking lot:
View attachment 656991


Ground floor plan:
View attachment 656992


Tower floors from level 8 to 21:
View attachment 656993


Tower floors from level 22 to 28:



Overall, I think it has the potential to be pretty decent in the right hands. The podium is subjectively nice (considering it’s almost all parking… though the Gaslight District set the bar pretty low for that). It’s a nice spot and will only improve. I’d buy here, depending on the finished product.

Biggest issue is the number of bachelor/ studio units. They’re not moving in the GTA, and will do even worse out this way I suspect. I like the upper tower floor layouts, and would love to see that unit mix applied throughout.

I don’t like the upper floors from the exterior. The floor plate is the same as the lower tower floors, just rotated 180 degrees. Keep the orientation and balcony placement of the lower tower section throughout the whole height, but with the upper tower floors’ internal layout (just replacing the 8 studios with 4 1B+Ds).

I know the guy behind this, and I’m 95% sure he’s re-zoning and flipping. He’s done this a couple times elsewhere, and with smaller-scale projects. I’d love to take it over from him, but I’m way short of the financial means to do that, unfortunately.

Great analysis. I've been underwhelmed by high-rise residential design and quality in KWC, so I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

 

[Northern Light]

Architecturally, there are some nice elements, particularly the podium finish that's most prominent in the top image of post number 1.
But there are way too many architectural expressions here. Lets pick the better expression for the podium and make that universal for the podium at least.

I don't really like either expression for the tower. We have one that's essentially all balcony and another that's none at all stacked on top of one another. It really looks quite odd.
From a tenant/owner appeal point of view, I think balconies are desirable, but an un-ending horizontal expression is just too much of a good thing.

I agree about the unit mix above, I'd cut the Bachelor Studios entirely, I think a few 3brm units would be desirable as well.

The site as it is today:

Starting from 32:

Then 36/38

The latter 2 don't seem like a loss, but that first one has some character to it.......... I'm not sure there's a sensible way to incorporate it, but seems a shame to lose it.

 

[interchange42]

We have a front page story up on this here, and this needs to be highlighted from it:

Only two elevators are proposed, or one for every 164 units, which would require unusually high-speed motors to ensure reasonable wait times and service efficiency when both elevators are operating.​

I'll add here that the implication is that one elevator can be down (or booked for moving purposes) and then there's only one left to serve everyone. Having, from time to time, only one elevator to serve 328 units, is pathetic, and governments should be given the resources to throw plans like this straight into the garbage, where they belong. The only requirement currently for any building of 4 storeys or more in this province is that there's one elevator required for firefighting purposes, and anything beyond that is up to the developer. That needs to change.

42

 

[Matt.R]

This one was appealed to the OLT after the City failed to make a decision in time.

'Twas not popular at the public meeting - with both the public and Council. Staff report recommended refusal as well, so should be an interesting battle.

This is also the first development to come forward since the City started coming down on building in the floodplain downtown.... which is basically all of downtown. There was a similar battle in Waterloo that was resolved a few months ago, though that was a nearly 2 year process from what I've heard. I've been privy to a bit of pre-consultation stuff in the area, so there's eyes on how this one shakes out.