Toronto Adagio | 85m | 26s | Menkes | Giannone Petricone

The separation distance between this property and HBC is about 17 meters, while the Tall Buildings Design Guideline asks for 20 m. Is that really a big difference?
Also, I am surprised the other two properties or at least the neighbouring property wasn't bought out for this. 771 Yonge is around 35mX14m.

I think it was the 217 Adelaide proposal that got the boot for it being too small of a plot of land for what the asking height was. They proposed 179m, so in any case, this may potentially be the slimmest tower proposed in the City (likely smaller than 179m) if they can get passed approvals sometime down the road.
 
TBG asks for 25 meters.

Also, I have a feeling city hall will try and get the developer to buy up the missing property here, that is now essentially undevelopable.
 
/\

ProjectEnd said:
There are a number of ways this could go.

Despite what the City's AIC says, it can't be 771 alone since that property includes 769 and 773 as well (totaling +/- 756sm). Given that the listed GFA is 23,636sm, you can't achieve an FSI of 24.8; it comes closer to 31.2. When both 767 and 765 are included, the FSI goes down to 18.6. It seems, therefore, that it includes 767 but not 765 (resulting in an FSI of +/-24.59). If we triple the lot area for a podium (+/- 961sm x 3 = 2883sm) and subtract from the total GFA, you end up with +/- 20,753sm for the tower alone. Divide that by a few hypothetical floor plates (750sm for regular efficiency and tall building guidelines, 539 for a reduced size covering only 769 to 773, etc) you find that the numbers come between 27 and 38 floors. Discount the silly ones (eg. a full 750sm) and you can safely assume that you'll be getting between 34 and 38 floors for the tower and 37-41 for the total structure here.

I too love tiny little floorplates @G.L.17 since they keep the rhythm and cadence of the street intact while piling on huge amounts of density above. It's why parts of Mid-Levels and Mong Kok are my favourite in the world.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
That's more in line with what I've been expecting here; a sliver, to deal with tower separation requirements. I'm actually surprised it's not taller.

The 49 storeys works out to an average of 482 square metres per floor, of 5664 square feet per floor, and as the heritage floors are 756 square metres, they have to be smaller than that.

Looking forward to more info coming in on this one.

42
 
In NYC they will laugh at us saying this is a small lot.

9rpsDdb.jpg
 
Half the floor space of that HK building is vertical circulation. It could be cut to a third if the lot were large enough for two units per floor. Not that I know anything about that particular building and its context, but that strikes me as rather inefficient use of the lot not to have bought out the adjoining lot before building that one. Rather fascinating though! Got a link to this building's web presence, and/or pics?

42
 
That particular building is called the ACTS Rednaxela. It's part of a fascinating typology which is unique to Hong Kong called the 'pencil tower.' In this case, the adjacent lots weren't for sale as both of them had been developed with towers of their own.

1.jpg
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-2-29_19-56-50.png
    upload_2016-2-29_19-56-50.png
    146.8 KB · Views: 1,434
  • upload_2016-2-29_19-57-25.png
    upload_2016-2-29_19-57-25.png
    204.3 KB · Views: 1,428
  • upload_2016-2-29_19-58-18.png
    upload_2016-2-29_19-58-18.png
    127.2 KB · Views: 1,591
I think this is an overall win. The restoration of the entire historic building is a rarity in this city. The north facing facade will also help to reduce the overall dumpy feeling of Asquith Ave. I think the podium could be a tad higher - to match the roofline of the historic property. It'll also be interesting to see how the city deals with the relatively small tower adjacencies - this looks like it's less than 10 meters - cough, OMB, cough.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top