Toronto 8 Elm | 218.2m | 69s | Reserve Properties | Arcadis

So not possible to have an 80 storey tower I'm,sure at only 259m. Unless each floor is 6.5 ft and adding the mechanical.
Click to expand...

standard slab to slab heights for residential floors in Toronto range from 2.65m (8 foot ceilings) to 2.95m (9 foot ceilings). 3 X 80 = 240
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
This is an intimidating design. I'm all for the density and the lack of vehicular parking, but the way this beanpole of a condo stands over the street is scary. Highly expect planning to whittle this down.
Click to expand...

Scary? I don't see how. Aura is taller, is your issue the size of the floorplate? Personally I'm tired of towers that take up entire blocks, they stink at street level.
 
I like the slim, square tower the floor plate creates. I know it will probably never happen but I'd love to see a shorter version of this with only one or two units per floor. Giant (by Toronto realestate standards) lofts in the sky!
 
interchange42 said:
Every building going up in Downtown now is getting zoning amendments in regards to parking: no-one is building the required number as condo purchasers are buying parking spots in greatly reduced numbers. Being allowed to build zero spaces though is still a tough sell with Planning.

42
Click to expand...

Some of that has to do with the fact that parking spots cost $30,000 + and have additional maintenance fees as well.
Even these puny condos are becoming unaffordable and this is one area where new buyers can save a few dollars.
 
…plus fewer people living downtown feel that owning a car is a necessity. The high price of owning a car has fostered a lot of reflection about that over the last several years, and many who would not have considered that they could get by without a car are now living happily without them. That said, not everyone is convinced yet, and the City is still quite reluctant to approve zero parking buildings. If you don't provide some parking, you are going to put pressure on other local parking resources. Finding the right balance is the trick.

42
 
Parking spots aren't selling because they cost an arm and a leg. When you consider spots are going for $50K+, why buy one if you work, live, play downtown? Why pay that hefty car payment when you only use it twice a week at most?

When prices are exorbitant, people start thinking a little more...and start making sacrifices.
 
interchange42 said:
…plus fewer people living downtown feel that owning a car is a necessity. The high price of owning a car has fostered a lot of reflection about that over the last several years, and many who would not have considered that they could get by without a car are now living happily without them. That said, not everyone is convinced yet, and the City is still quite reluctant to approve zero parking buildings. If you don't provide some parking, you are going to put pressure on other local parking resources. Finding the right balance is the trick.

42
Click to expand...


I hope the city remains reluctant on approving zero parking buildings. It's a short sighted extreme given the long lifespans of these buildings. The massive amount of small, inflexible units will be a future legacy of what not to do too.
 
I think everyone jinxed this project and that it's now gonna be approved with little revision
 
I love high rises especially when they stand out in the area. But if there going to rise 80 storeys they should look outstanding. And this build needs more character than looking like box in the sky. It's also too close to the neighbouring 86 storey building that going up next to it.
 
cd concept said:
I love high rises especially when they stand out in the area. But if there going to rise 80 storeys they should look outstanding. And this build needs more character than looking like box in the sky. It's also too close to the neighbouring 86 storey building that going up next to it.
Click to expand...

Aura is an unfortunate living testament to there being no teeth-laden process for ensuring great design at great heights.
 
Thrilled to see these 2-3 story Victorians being restored along Yonge. However, I remain ambivalent about this habit of suspending towers above just about any pile of brick. For the most part its been worthwhile. For example - when the old structure is substantial and superior, then a modest sized tower above is ok. But an 80 story tower above a tiny structure is laughable. Are other countries doing this to the same extent? In this case, the tower must be much shorter, or if it's to remain 80 stories then the design must improve and the base should be demolished.
 
buildup said:
when the old structure is substantial and superior, then a modest sized tower above is ok. But an 80 story tower above a tiny structure is laughable. Are other countries doing this to the same extent? In this case, the tower must be much shorter, or if it's to remain 80 stories then the design must improve and the base should be demolished.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I'm sure the developer knows this. Ask for 80 get 60, which I think is a better fit... Or until more land is assembled, we're talking about a complete overhaul.
 
steveve said:
Or until more land is assembled.
Click to expand...

Maybe some of these......
upload_2016-7-22_11-8-51.png


What a mishmash of crap:eek:
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-7-22_11-8-51.png
    upload_2016-7-22_11-8-51.png
    2 MB · Views: 1,000
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top