Toronto 700 Bay Street | 94.79m | 32s | KingSett Capital | BDP Quadrangle

I wonder how much those concrete/precast vertical details were influenced by the new rules that allow only so much of a tower to be covered in glass. I've seen a lot of people mentioning that this new requirement will mean a lot more spandrel but if it's it turns out developers turn to different materials besides spandrel it could be a good thing.

I believe we will be seeing more spandrel, but no, not everything covering that 60% wall area is going to be spandrel. Here's hoping for more brick and stone and Oko-skin/Fibre C and Corten at ground level… and no doubt there will be a return to more precast too.

42
 
You mean the lack of a podium? Yes, I like that too. I've never been a big fan of podiums myself, preferring the clean look of a tower vertically descending all the way to street level.

Yes, exactly; so much more elegant and urban-looking without a podium.
 
A public meeting will be held on March 3 at 7 pm, at the Eaton Chelsea (3rd floor).
 
Thank the Lawd? LuCliff Place a hot mess? Quite. The city requires new projects to be in the interest of the public by providing, among other things, affordable housing. What exactly is affordable housing these days? The new owners of LuCliff, through their building managers, carry out superficial renovations to existing suites as they become vacant; then they increase the rents by huge amounts. Hiked rents for existing one-bedroom apartments at LuCliff start at approximately $1,700 per month; hiked rents for existing two-bedroom apartments start at approximately $2,400 per month. Proposed ON-SITE construction will diminish existing three-bedroom suites into two-bedrooms with den -- unfortunate news for tenants who have lived in three-bedroom suites for many years. How can those prices possibly be considered affordable? LuCliff is by no means a luxury building. ($6,800 per month would be a minimum salary to comfortably afford the lowest one-bedroom, hiked rents; $9,600 per month, to comfortably afford the lowest two-bedroom, hiked rents). Students come to the rescue. They can afford such high rents, as they double, triple, quadruple and party up, crowding out hard-working, middle salary earners. Will rents in the proposed new tower be even higher? Meanwhile, the current tenants are subjected to lack of adequate hot water, unsatisfactory water pressure, on-going plumbing problems, rattling and leaking windows that are not sound or heat proof, loud individual heating/air conditioning units that do not work properly (actually taped up in an attempt to fix them), elimination of security guards in a downtown area without concomitant rent reductions, asbestos filled ceilings and storage floors. (Stay tuned for that ceiling asbestos to shake out with construction drilling on the site of an old and deteriorating building.) The new owner is a private-equity real-estate limited partnership, the limited partners being undisclosed large funds. One would expect that sound business ethics would motivate private-equity partners to disclose their names, when their actions so profoundly affect the lives of tenants and stakeholders who provide them with their revenue streams. Current LuCliff tenants are already being exposed to unbelievable noise, as drilling projects bolster basement pillars and remove tiles from suites being renovated. Tenants have to leave their suites for hours a day to escape the deafening noise. Drilling reverberates through the concrete, as if it were next door, when it is actually being carried out on floors that are multiple storeys up or down. Imagine, then, the noise that will be generated by a minimum two-year, ON-SITE construction project, not just for adjoining west-wall tenants but for all tenants, as the noise reverberates through the concrete down the old, rickety hallways and suites! Tenants will need to be compensated, big time! Most don't begrudge business growth, but they expect ethics and business growth to go together. It is time for governments to start examining the rippling, detrimental, economic effects of large private-equity consortiums in the real-estate industry.
 
Huge blocks of written text like this are horrible to read, in fact I couldn't read past the first line. Just press 'enter' every few paragraphs and create a lot more white space.
 
Huge blocks of written text like this are horrible to read, in fact I couldn't read past the first line. Just press 'enter' every few paragraphs and create a lot more white space.

Indeed - that's considered a good practice.

I read the first few lines and then gave up. It was too much effort to try to read.

If you want people to actually read what you write, break up the text into reasonable-sized paragraphs.
 
Building owners can increase rents by any amount once an apartment becomes vacant; that's the law. They will ask what the market will bear. Concerns are better directed at the Ontario government.

As for the proposed tower, KWT tweeted yesterday about "mtng concerns incl construction impacts, affordability, Enwave distance, bike prkg, public realm, TTC overcrowding". The last two, frankly, are a bit ridiculous considering the rather dismal streetscape dominated by institutional uses and the enormous amount of development that has already been approved in the neighbourhood.
 
tl;dr: the rent is too damn high.

(Thanks NMK for sharing your situation as a resident. Unfortunately your story is a common one as buildings undergo changes).

Thank the Lawd? LuCliff Place a hot mess? Quite.

The city requires new projects to be in the interest of the public by providing, among other things, affordable housing. What exactly is affordable housing these days? The new owners of LuCliff, through their building managers, carry out superficial renovations to existing suites as they become vacant; then they increase the rents by huge amounts.

Hiked rents for existing one-bedroom apartments at LuCliff start at approximately $1,700 per month; hiked rents for existing two-bedroom apartments start at approximately $2,400 per month. Proposed ON-SITE construction will diminish existing three-bedroom suites into two-bedrooms with den -- unfortunate news for tenants who have lived in three-bedroom suites for many years. How can those prices possibly be considered affordable?

LuCliff is by no means a luxury building. ($6,800 per month would be a minimum salary to comfortably afford the lowest one-bedroom, hiked rents; $9,600 per month, to comfortably afford the lowest two-bedroom, hiked rents).

Students come to the rescue. They can afford such high rents, as they double, triple, quadruple and party up, crowding out hard-working, middle salary earners. Will rents in the proposed new tower be even higher?

Meanwhile, the current tenants are subjected to lack of adequate hot water, unsatisfactory water pressure, on-going plumbing problems, rattling and leaking windows that are not sound or heat proof, loud individual heating/air conditioning units that do not work properly (actually taped up in an attempt to fix them), elimination of security guards in a downtown area without concomitant rent reductions, asbestos filled ceilings and storage floors. (Stay tuned for that ceiling asbestos to shake out with construction drilling on the site of an old and deteriorating building.)

The new owner is a private-equity real-estate limited partnership, the limited partners being undisclosed large funds. One would expect that sound business ethics would motivate private-equity partners to disclose their names, when their actions so profoundly affect the lives of tenants and stakeholders who provide them with their revenue streams.

Current LuCliff tenants are already being exposed to unbelievable noise, as drilling projects bolster basement pillars and remove tiles from suites being renovated. Tenants have to leave their suites for hours a day to escape the deafening noise. Drilling reverberates through the concrete, as if it were next door, when it is actually being carried out on floors that are multiple storeys up or down. Imagine, then, the noise that will be generated by a minimum two-year, ON-SITE construction project, not just for adjoining west-wall tenants but for all tenants, as the noise reverberates through the concrete down the old, rickety hallways and suites!

Tenants will need to be compensated, big time! Most don't begrudge business growth, but they expect ethics and business growth to go together. It is time for governments to start examining the rippling, detrimental, economic effects of large private-equity consortiums in the real-estate industry.
 
Front page story here includes more info on the proposal, while a newly published dataBase file linked at the top of this page includes very high-res renderings. Click once on the thumbnails to enlarge to your screen size, click on the X to enlarge to full-size.

42
 
a simple yet hugely effective design idea... I'd take dozens of buildings like this over the all glass boxes of aA any day! I am a bit disappointed though if the vertical elements are to be just precast. with the way the lighting was depicted in the renders I had visions of stainless steel reflecting the light. I think the slanted roofline works here with the vertical elements tapering down across that same angle.

VYhShhF.jpg
 

Attachments

  • VYhShhF.jpg
    VYhShhF.jpg
    93.6 KB · Views: 1,661
Last edited:
In a September 4 decision, OMB Vice-cChair Jan de Pencier Seaborn approved a settlement between KS 700 Bay Street and the City of Toronto regarding two site-specific zoning by-law amendments for the property at 700 Bay Street and 77 Gerrard Street West. KS 700 Bay originally proposed a 45-storey residential tower addition which would blend into the existing 24-storey, mixed-use building on the site. Following discussions with the city the proposal was significantly amended to reduce the maximum height of the addition to 31 storeys, add an eight-storey office on the east side and include a four-storey multi-residential dwelling in the mid portion of the existing building. (See OMB Case No. PL150428.)
 
Following discussions with the city the proposal was significantly amended to reduce the maximum height of the addition to 31 storeys, add an eight-storey office on the east side and include a four-storey multi-residential dwelling in the mid portion of the existing building. (See OMB Case No. PL150428.)

So the office building will be eight storeys taller, the existing apartments will get another four storeys, and there will be a new 31s condo portion? This will be a true Frankenstein building!
 

Back
Top