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

[College Park]

I lived in crappy houses and residences while in school, where my rooms were ~ 8x5 in a good year. Small these units might be, but for a student at UofT or Ryerson, these are right-sized spaces, and this building is in the campus!

The student population is good for this area: the flow of Ryerson students north into MLG has added vitality to this slightly barren section of Church. I live in a condo down the street, and the high student population (while transient) are good neighbours, given that management helps train these proto-citizens on basic civil behaviour.

 

[balenciaga]

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.

Being close to subways and Eaton center doesn't make an area not derelict. All the mentioned criteria applies to Queen/Sherbourne or Dundas/Sherbourne too, but those are nevertheless largely derelict and attract much development attention.

 

[balenciaga]

Some of those 300-and-a-bit square footers look downright inhuman.

As small as they, we'd better get used to compact living. 300 something sf condos are actually quite normal in expensive cities like New York, Paris or London. We are not such elite cities of course but what's true is that 300-400sf studios aren't a crazy idea and they WILL sell and last.

Believe it or not, Toronto is not gonna get any cheaper and living space not getting any bigger. The kind of space we feel entitled to in the 90s is largely outdated. Anyone who wishes there will be a major price correction is delusional and the era when a 28 year old average person can afford a good sized 3 bedroom house not far from the core is gone, forever. . Wanna live closer to the city, get used to smaller and smaller space.

Chance is, we can only afford to keep the space when use every day. All those "nice to have" extra bedrooms and rooms of various function that get used once a month are becoming increasingly a luxury than reality unless you make 6 digit salaries.

 

[intervention]

True, but not much different than 80% of the condo towers built in the past 6 years. Boutique, Pinnacle, Lumiere, Maple Leaf Square, Festival Tower, Charlie, this one, etc. This is very typical Toronto condo tower design. Honestly, I gave up complaining about it a few years back.

Yet, we have some good ones - Radio City (where I lived and where the flood plans were both sensible and well proportioned); Chaz and some of the ones you mentioned were certainly better than this. I'd throw in Couture on the "crap list."

I especially despise the entire siding in spandrel on the portion facing the THC building and the lack of transition (with balcony overhangs, no less!) to the east. Drop your cigarette butt off your balcony and it lands square in the middle of someone's backyard.

 

[intervention]

As small as they, we'd better get used to compact living. 300 something sf condos are actually quite normal in expensive cities like New York, Paris or London. We are not such elite cities of course but what's true is that 300-400sf studios aren't a crazy idea and they WILL sell and last.

Things are certainly getting more expensive. I know first hand, buying into the low rise stock downtown.

That being said, the 300 square foot condos that are becoming more common are certainly outrageous. Sure, compact living should be promoted but 300 square feet? Though I love Toronto and thinks it's a great city, it not New York, it's not Paris and it's not London in size, density, transit or amenity so this micro-living environment that these condos are promoting are just beyond reason.

 

[ThomasJ]

I lived in crappy houses and residences while in school, where my rooms were ~ 8x5 in a good year. Small these units might be, but for a student at UofT or Ryerson, these are right-sized spaces, and this building is in the campus!

The student population is good for this area: the flow of Ryerson students north into MLG has added vitality to this slightly barren section of Church. I live in a condo down the street, and the high student population (while transient) are good neighbours, given that management helps train these proto-citizens on basic civil behaviour.

this is a really good point. catering to the audience...

 

[Edward]

People are buying the small units so why disparage that? I'm looking forward to 365 Church adding to the neighbourhood in a very positive manner.

 

[balenciaga]

People are buying the small units so why disparage that? I'm looking forward to 365 Church adding to the neighbourhood in a very positive manner.

Agree. Developers made small units because it is small units people will buy. I don't understand the obsession with "family sized" units. What's a family sized condo in Toronto standard? I am sure with a median income of $60K a family sized two bedroom condo (with double sink, large open concept kitchen, separate dining/room area, walk-in closet etc most "families" seem to have to have) won't be affordable. It would require 900sf at least at a price of 600/sf, which gives $550k, plus $500 per month condo fees. any takers, families here?

It is easy to say "we need family sized condos". If they are indeed built, at the market price, how many of the supporters will consider buying a unit?

365 Church will definitely be a positive factor for the area. I am waiting for multiple similar projects down the street to Dundas/Church and Queen/Church too.

 

[Thernan]

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

It might be but I would need to see teh actualy renderings. Colour will make a big difference. If one looks like Lumiere and the other like X, then there are problems.

I'd also be surprised if the "family condos" end up being anything other than rented out to groups of students who will split the rent. The student population in those buildings will be huge and loud, so I don't know if you would get families living there. It will just be a high-end Neill-Wycik.

 

[intervention]

I certainly don't think that requiring design measures (such as 45 degree angular plane, transition to established and low-rise development and requiring screening of loading areas through thoughtful site design etc) is ridiculous and unnecessary (to your point of "ignorant generalizations.") These measures are supposed to make intensification more palatable. Bringing this back from Vaughan and to this site, the board's ruling on this cherry picked a little bit from this document, a little bit from this policy and selectively heard what different parties had to say to the effect of basically saying: "it's Downtown so it's appropriate." Which, frankly, is not what the intent of any of the Growth Plan, OP policies or design guidelines was. That's what's bothersome to me personally, as someone who digests these decisions and lives in the area.

Oh well. Cheap spandrel, here's looking at you!

 

[interchange42]

Eight posts were deleted starting with an inappropriate comment. Don't post in the conversation that follows an obvious breach of the rules if you don't want to be caught up in the clean-up.

42

 

[Edward Skira]

I'd also be surprised if the "family condos" end up being anything other than rented out to groups of students who will split the rent. The student population in those buildings will be huge and loud, so I don't know if you would get families living there. It will just be a high-end Neill-Wycik.

Well these are condos. The developer can only build the units, they certainly can't control how they are used once they are gone from the scene.

 

[androiduk]

 

[Sunny Batra]

I lived in crappy houses and residences while in school, where my rooms were ~ 8x5 in a good year. Small these units might be, but for a student at UofT or Ryerson, these are right-sized spaces, and this building is in the campus!

The student population is good for this area: the flow of Ryerson students north into MLG has added vitality to this slightly barren section of Church. I live in a condo down the street, and the high student population (while transient) are good neighbours, given that management helps train these proto-citizens on basic civil behaviour.

I am in complete agreement with you @CollegePark. A new mixed-use Ryerson building that will be constructed on Church Street, just north of Dundas Street, and a state of the art new Ryerson building that is under construction on Yonge St is expected to be completed in the winter of 2014. Both of these new buildings will add thousands of of new students. You can take a guess as to what it means for investors buying at 365 Church.

I personally see great potential for Investors investing in 365 Church Condos.

 

[interchange42]

A number of posts were moved to a new thread created for this project in the Real Estate forum. You will find the posts here.

42