Auraz
Active Member
Just happened last Friday..
Toronto 422 Wellington West | 14.33m | 2s | Allied | ERA Architects
- Thread starter interchange42
- Start date
Just happened last Friday..
SpadinaBus
Active Member
Any further confirmation of cancellation or even new rumours that he has sold the site?
PMT
Senior Member
neuhaus
Senior Member
Sales started way back in April 2016. I had the opportunity to purchase at that time. Even though the building looks great on the outside, the floor plans were horrible because the building is so skinny. I'm sure the building is completely sold by now.
It's really unfortunate that this sort of stuff happens, even with reputable developers. There should be laws against selling something that hasn't been approved.
It's really unfortunate that this sort of stuff happens, even with reputable developers. There should be laws against selling something that hasn't been approved.
Last edited:
TheKingEast
Senior Member
Precisely. Precon is really strange to me these days. It made sense when prices were cheaper than resale but they're now either at the same price or more than resale. How does this make any sense when you are paying for something that may not even get built? It's ridiculous.
AlbertC
Superstar
I liked the exterior aesthetics and architectural elements of this development concept too, but I also would never invest into a unit with such awkward proportions.
mikejb
Active Member
Maybe they will blame this one on Fortress.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
I had this fight with someone on Twitter years ago...
I'm left wondering why you think the units are 'horrible' and 'awkward' since all of them are, by virtue of the buildings exterior dimensions, wide-shallow. Quite the opposite of the bowling alley nonsense we so often see. I thought they were some of the best plans on the market.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Yup - I would take wide-shallow units any day. Too often developers try to extract as much GFA as possible by building deep, useless units.
neuhaus
Senior Member
The large units are very nice as they take up the full width of the building.
The smaller units, though not the dreaded bowling alley units with the interior bedrooms you see a lot of, is a more unique extreme wide shallow type, but it's a shame that the prime corner rooms are taken up by a bedroom that's less than 9 feet with windows on two sides with little space to position a bed (especially with a large column in the way). It would be nice if the living area occupied the corner window area to take advantage of the excellent views, but I understand it's very difficult to arrange units with a footprint this narrow and accommodate a hallway, elevator and stairs in the middle of it and they seem to make the best of it. It's just not my cup of tea.
The smaller units, though not the dreaded bowling alley units with the interior bedrooms you see a lot of, is a more unique extreme wide shallow type, but it's a shame that the prime corner rooms are taken up by a bedroom that's less than 9 feet with windows on two sides with little space to position a bed (especially with a large column in the way). It would be nice if the living area occupied the corner window area to take advantage of the excellent views, but I understand it's very difficult to arrange units with a footprint this narrow and accommodate a hallway, elevator and stairs in the middle of it and they seem to make the best of it. It's just not my cup of tea.
Attachments
grey
Senior Member
I see what you mean. Lamb's bedrooms tend to have relatively generous dimensions, but that's a squeeze (I have a wide-shallow layout myself).
ProjectEnd
Superstar
I'm in a 750sf, wide-shallow, 2 bedroom unit and I couldn't be happier. It seems these bedrooms are just over 100sf where as mine are just under (about 96sf). I don't ever think of anything as a 'squeeze' but maybe it's just personal preference.
In any case, to call the above plans 'awkward' and 'horrible' really is overkill, especially considering the garbage that some developers foist...
In any case, to call the above plans 'awkward' and 'horrible' really is overkill, especially considering the garbage that some developers foist...
neuhaus
Senior Member
True, ProjectEnd, there are much worse layouts out there. Many developers can't envision how furniture is placed in these floor plans.
But these bedrooms less than 9 feet with a column in it forces you to push the bed into the corner with only one side to enter from, and also having a bed against a window wall is odd too. Just like dining tables/rooms are more rare these days as people either dine on the couch or at the kitchen island, having a nice queen-size bed with a pair of nightstands in a bedroom is a real luxury now. I like being able to get around my bed and the ease of making my bed or changing my sheets -- I know, first world problems.
I have a 9'x13' bedroom and I have just a foot and a half of space to walk across the foot of my bed to get to my closet, any smaller would not be practical. My bed is a bit bulkier than the typical queen-sized bed, so I could get a bed with no protruding sides if I wanted to if my bedroom was any smaller.
But these bedrooms less than 9 feet with a column in it forces you to push the bed into the corner with only one side to enter from, and also having a bed against a window wall is odd too. Just like dining tables/rooms are more rare these days as people either dine on the couch or at the kitchen island, having a nice queen-size bed with a pair of nightstands in a bedroom is a real luxury now. I like being able to get around my bed and the ease of making my bed or changing my sheets -- I know, first world problems.
I have a 9'x13' bedroom and I have just a foot and a half of space to walk across the foot of my bed to get to my closet, any smaller would not be practical. My bed is a bit bulkier than the typical queen-sized bed, so I could get a bed with no protruding sides if I wanted to if my bedroom was any smaller.
400WellingtonGuy
Active Member
The OMB appeal hearing started yesterday for this project and is open to the public (655 Bay Street, 16th floor, check the monitor on the 16th floor for hearing room, 10am-5pm). It is expected to last until next Monday or Tuesday. At yesterday's kickoff, there was opening statements and then Peter Clewes gave his testimony. His cross-examination by the City began in the afternoon. An interesting tidbit in his cross-examination with the City's lawyer is that he openly trashed Westbank/BIG's design at King Toronto and called it a "lost opportunity" and implied that he would have preferred more verticality (as found in his Wellington House design) in a series of buildings along King Street. He defended his "toast" massing (I prefer "cereal box" if we are using breakfast metaphors) of Wellington House by stating that his design would have been more appropriate for the King Toronto site than BIG's mountains. He later implied that for his design submission in the original RFP for the Well, he had also designed the buildings on the south side of Wellington Street in a similar "toast" massing.
Anyways, this is a precedent OMB case for Wellington Street West, so if you are interested, stay tuned here and I will try to give you updates on when the good parts of the hearing are coming up. This morning at 10am was the start of the cross-examination of Peter Clewes by the Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association's (WPNA) lawyer and then it will probably be a day and a half of Lamb's planning consultant testimony and cross by the City and WPNA. Not exciting stuff as policy references are tedious to sit through in a hearing. The hearing will then see testimony by the City's planner and urban designer. That will be followed by testimony by Paul Bedford (former chief planner of the City of Toronto) as a WPNA witness, on the intent of the two King's planning policy introduced in the late 90's (he led the effort at the time) and how that relates to Wellington Street West between Spadina and Portland. The Bedford testimony is expected to heavily attended as this is a rare appearance as a witness for Bedford.
As well, below is a physical model that Clewes built for the hearing (photo is looking east on Wellington Street West). Shows the Well, Portland Commons, King Toronto, the proposed Wellington House and the two approved buildings (one on Spadina and the one in behind) not yet constructed. The rear setback from Wellington House's podium onto King Toronto's heritage building (currently at 1.7m from building faces) with the secret garden and smokestack on the southeast corner of their site was a topic of concern in the hearing yesterday by the City. Upon cross-examination, Clewes admitted that his current design needed improvement by expanding it to "something between 1.7m and 5.5m" (the minimum required). His testimony on this matter did not show a great deal of thought had gone into this rear setback or even providing an opportunity for a pedestrian connection to King Toronto's eastern site. It may have been neglected on purpose to be used as a negotiating point with the City, but still disappointing that these games are being played by such an experienced architect in our City.
Anyways, this is a precedent OMB case for Wellington Street West, so if you are interested, stay tuned here and I will try to give you updates on when the good parts of the hearing are coming up. This morning at 10am was the start of the cross-examination of Peter Clewes by the Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association's (WPNA) lawyer and then it will probably be a day and a half of Lamb's planning consultant testimony and cross by the City and WPNA. Not exciting stuff as policy references are tedious to sit through in a hearing. The hearing will then see testimony by the City's planner and urban designer. That will be followed by testimony by Paul Bedford (former chief planner of the City of Toronto) as a WPNA witness, on the intent of the two King's planning policy introduced in the late 90's (he led the effort at the time) and how that relates to Wellington Street West between Spadina and Portland. The Bedford testimony is expected to heavily attended as this is a rare appearance as a witness for Bedford.
As well, below is a physical model that Clewes built for the hearing (photo is looking east on Wellington Street West). Shows the Well, Portland Commons, King Toronto, the proposed Wellington House and the two approved buildings (one on Spadina and the one in behind) not yet constructed. The rear setback from Wellington House's podium onto King Toronto's heritage building (currently at 1.7m from building faces) with the secret garden and smokestack on the southeast corner of their site was a topic of concern in the hearing yesterday by the City. Upon cross-examination, Clewes admitted that his current design needed improvement by expanding it to "something between 1.7m and 5.5m" (the minimum required). His testimony on this matter did not show a great deal of thought had gone into this rear setback or even providing an opportunity for a pedestrian connection to King Toronto's eastern site. It may have been neglected on purpose to be used as a negotiating point with the City, but still disappointing that these games are being played by such an experienced architect in our City.
Attachments
RonThom
Active Member
The massing shown for The Well is not accurate. Come on aA.