Toronto 365 Church Condos | 102.1m | 31s | Menkes | Wallman Architects

It's not awful in the way Aura is awful. I see a simple glass box (yawn) with a strong likelihood of grey spandrel like on Garrison at the Yards or Charlie. Conservative modernism. The proportions are decent and overall, it's not terrible. Not as exciting as a NimbyTect proposal...but very mainstream Toronto contemporary.
 
I don't think it is that bad but my question will be, how does it match up with the development directly to its south at 355 Church? If they are substantially different, they'll end up accentuating each others flaws. I will also be curious to see how large of a set back from the street this development will have. Hopefully more than the current buildings.
 
What I wish for as a furthering of this forum is the crystallization of alternatives rather than the repetition of complaints. Let us contribute ideas as well as criticisms. I have certainly seen far worse proposed in this city - not that I love this design.
 
I also think Lumiere is a great building, and I still don't think this is terrible.
More micro units, not surprised given the area - I don't even see a dishwasher in the kitchen rendering shown. These rooftop party areas are a huge liability, not smart IMO. Something Adam Vaughan pushes for and Wong-Tam doesn't are more family sized units, like perhaps 10% of the building.
 
It's gonna be filled with students based on the designs. Small studios, and dens that are obviously going to be used as second bedrooms.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Something Adam Vaughan pushes for and Wong-Tam doesn't are more family sized units, like perhaps 10% of the building.
Click to expand...

I feel we strongly need family units but to play devil's advocate, what families can actually afford a family-sized downtown condo? The costs are exorbitant.
 
From the pdf link:

church_zps7a5fa973.jpg


It looks marginally better in this rendering, but that's not saying a lot. The floorplans are atrocious if any kind of long-term living is implied. I guess they studied their demographics and put their bets on Ryerson. I don't think a building that's part glorified student housing is going to be attractive to those looking for a slower and more lived-in kind of investment. Some of those 300-and-a-bit square footers look downright inhuman.

Difficult plans in a truly mediocre building. I certainly had hoped for more. Actually, looking at the rendering again, I'm thinking it might look even worse than the previous one. (sigh)
 
But that's the thing. They know people are going to buy the units, just to sell them to Ryerson students! It's not a bad idea at all! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CanadianNational said:
Difficult plans in a truly mediocre building. I certainly had hoped for more. Actually, looking at the rendering again, I'm thinking it might look even worse than the previous one. (sigh)
Click to expand...

Holy Smoke! stuff like this isnt good enough for the hood
In todays market, we should be so lucky that we have developers here in town willing to invest and build in these derilict areas:eek:
 
Automation Gallery said:
Holy Smoke! stuff like this isnt good enough for the hood
In todays market, we should be so lucky that we have developers here in town willing to invest and build in these derilict areas:eek:
Click to expand...

What the???? Serious??? The real estate market has been booming at an insane speed in Toronto the past 10 years. Developers are willing to build when there is an incentive, such as a crapton of profit, and that's it. You think they would build here if it was as undesirable and derelict as you believe it is??? They wouldn't build here if there weren't takers....a lot of takers. The fact is we should be asking for better design in areas that are getting denser specifically as they already have character unto themselves and strong site specific design can only add to that specific character of those areas. A bland unoriginal forgetful design does nothing for the nbhd's people or this city, aside from save the developers some cost, while dropping in another forgettable building. Not saying this one is, but I expect more than this from what I have seen from Wallman's previously tbh.
 
SP!RE said:
I feel we strongly need family units but to play devil's advocate, what families can actually afford a family-sized downtown condo? The costs are exorbitant.
Click to expand...

Family sized units in new buildings are very expensive to be sure but still less expensive than a starter townhouse or semi-detatched 2/3 bedroom downtown that start at $800K and only go up from there. There's also a good stock of large existing condos to raise a family that start around $450K built in the 80's & 90's, but we still need more of those to keep pace with demand.

Automation Gallery said:
Holy Smoke! stuff like this isnt good enough for the hood
In todays market, we should be so lucky that we have developers here in town willing to invest and build in these derilict areas:eek:
Click to expand...

How in the world do you figure that this is a derelict area? Church Street south of Carlton is a five minute walk to the subway, a one minute walk to the streetcar, 10 minutes to the Eaton Centre, five minutes to Allan Gardens yada... yada. This is a primo spot to be developing and I'm sure the value of the land doesn't come close to the overpriced, street wrecking rubbish coming to Yonge Street.
 
I just think we need a way for there to be more affordable family housing downtown. We're already creating a monoculture downtown (young, single people from well-off families or who are upwardly mobile themselves) and I don't want all the families in the core to become a monoculture as well. (i.e. rich families only).
 
Thernan said:
I don't think it is that bad but my question will be, how does it match up with the development directly to its south at 355 Church? If they are substantially different, they'll end up accentuating each others flaws. I will also be curious to see how large of a set back from the street this development will have. Hopefully more than the current buildings.
Click to expand...

Actually, based on the elevation drawings we've seen of 355 Church I think these two designs may end up complementing each other.

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/06/new-34-storey-mixed-use-tower-proposed-355-church-street
 
SP!RE said:
I just think we need a way for there to be more affordable family housing downtown. We're already creating a monoculture downtown (young, single people from well-off families or who are upwardly mobile themselves) and I don't want all the families in the core to become a monoculture as well. (i.e. rich families only).
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree, and while on the topic I really like the idea of adding two or three floors of affordable rental units in buildings of, say, 35 storeys or higher even better, co-operatives perhaps as part exchange for section 37 funding.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top