Bauhaus Condos | 100.88m | 32s | Lamb Development | a—A

ChesterCopperpot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
3,923
Reaction score
5,695
Location
Toronto
This property switched hands in the second half of last year. Lamb Development bought it.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,787
Reaction score
12,233
Wellington House, the multiple buildings on Richmond, etc.

That said, something like has been done on Richmond probably wouldn't be all that bad here, maybe a couple floors shorter though.
 

torontologist

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
544
Reaction score
444
Location
King East
Because it will probably overpower the surrounding buildings and not fit into the neighbourhood. The SAS building fits well, the G & M fits well, will a Brad Lamb building? I am prepared to be surprised, but I am not hopeful.

That's funny. I have never associated Brad Lamb with projects that overpower their surrounding context. I can think of a few worse.
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
11,356
Reaction score
20,004
Because it will probably overpower the surrounding buildings and not fit into the neighbourhood. The SAS building fits well, the G & M fits well, will a Brad Lamb building? I am prepared to be surprised, but I am not hopeful.

'Overpower' is an interesting word to use. Are there examples of Lamb buildings doing this elsewhere? I can't think of any.

And you bring up the scale of the context - with G&M across the street and 25 Ontario just to the north, to me the 'context' is already denser and taller than you're giving credit for.
 

ChesterCopperpot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
3,923
Reaction score
5,695
Location
Toronto
There's a Lamb building literally a stone's throw from the site - is that overpowering?
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,787
Reaction score
12,233
So the examples in your first paragraph are of things going wrong? I'm still a little lost as to why @DSC (and presumably yourself) seems to think that a higher FSI is an immediate disqualifier.

Wellington House squeezes a tower onto a site that is essentially a single family home lot, especially in terms of width. It relies on adjacent sites to provide sufficient sunlight for side facing units.

The Richmond buildings have large amounts of density on small sites for sure, but they are more appropriate.

Lamb pushes high density for sure, luckily he hires a good architect who can usually make it work. It's always pushing the boundary really though.
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
11,356
Reaction score
20,004
When you say 'Richmond buildings' I assume you mean Harlowe and James? I think your last sentence is the most accurate since it acknowledges that while Brad's 'asks' are certainly aggressive, the resulting projects are always excellent architecturally and leave areas better than they were.

With regard to Wellington House, it is a different building than we normally see, but the slab form is generating some of the best, wide-shallow unit layouts we've seen in ages.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,787
Reaction score
12,233
Regardless of the layout, if they look out at another building 3m away, it's still not that nice of a building. The shape of the building isn't the issue, it's setbacks.

And yes, I mean James and Harlowe. Usually, the buildings work, albeit barely. A lot of them end up with some pretty limited units in terms of sunlight - the north facing units in the Harlowe and James, the one at Adelaide and Brant will be the same looking directly into the new hotel building getting built to the north, etc.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
24,851
Reaction score
25,048
Location
by the Humber
Wellington House isn't approved yet, so we'll see if it ends up as large as proposed. No-one else has proposed something of that height on that street, so I don't think it's guaranteed. Here on King Street, @ProjectEnd is right: the new context is already fairly more substantial than the old one, and with the 17-storey Globe and Mail Centre right across the street, I would not be surprised to see something of a height proposed for this location.

42
 

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
13,546
Reaction score
11,362
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
Wellington House isn't approved yet, so we'll see if it ends up as large as proposed. No-one else has proposed something of that height on that street, so I don't think it's guaranteed. Here on King Street, @ProjectEnd is right: the new context is already fairly more substantial than the old one, and with the 17-storey Globe and Mail Centre right across the street, I would not be surprised to see something of a height proposed for this location.

42
I may be unduly jaded but I think 17 storeys would be VERY much less than hoped for. Brad just got 25 floors approved at 53 Ontario thanks to the OMB - the City thought that was too tall. Height is certainly not everything but it cannot be ignored.
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,202
Reaction score
2,113
Because it will probably overpower the surrounding buildings and not fit into the neighbourhood. The SAS building fits well, the G & M fits well, will a Brad Lamb building? I am prepared to be surprised, but I am not hopeful.

It would be tough to find another building as overpowering as the Globe and Mail building currently is on its surroundings. It's a small site. A skinny point tower of 25 storeys would be barely noticeable as it would also be lower than Globe and Mail building. IIRC, G+M is 85 metres. 25 storeys is less than 80.
 

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
5,439
Reaction score
15,459
It would be tough to find another building as overpowering as the Globe and Mail building currently is on its surroundings. It's a small site. A skinny point tower of 25 storeys would be barely noticeable as it would also be lower than Globe and Mail building. IIRC, G+M is 85 metres. 25 storeys is less than 80.

This is interesting; I don't necessarily agree that G+M feels like a gross over-development, but it raises I think an under-discussed point in Toronto development. A chunk of our current Planning regime assumes that the podium-and-point tower is the preferred form from an urban design (and amenities) standpoint, but that's not a tenet I particularly (or at least uniformly) agree with. Give me a skinny but well-designed, 40-storey tower that meets the ground well over a fat, uninspiring podium with a 20-foot glass wall at-grade, any day of the week. Right now, in many instances, our Planning regime favours the latter.

That's a little bit of an oversimplification, but I think it's important to continually challenge various assumptions on which other decisions are based, especially as certain parts of our city fills out.
 

Top