Toronto CampusOne Student Residence (was University Place) | 79.85m | 25s | Knightstone | Diamond Schmitt

[androiduk]

Application: Partial Permit Status: Not Started

Location: 255 COLLEGE ST
TORONTO ON M5T 1R5

Ward 20: Trinity-Spadina

Application#: 14 198747 SHO 00 PP Accepted Date: Jul 31, 2014

Project: Mixed Use/Res w Non Res Partial Permit - Shoring

Description: Part Permit - Proposal to construct a 25 storey building with mechanical penthouse above, the ground floor will be retail, the second and third floor will have dining halls, the second floor will also office space, and the remainder of the building will be student residences.

 

[unimaginative2]

I’ll never understand the argument that “you don’t need height to achieve density”. I could just as well say “you don’t need lack of height to achieve density”, so what’s wrong with height? And yes, midrise cities can be dense, but highrise equivalents are denser. If Paris’ buildings were taller than they are, they’d be denser. Furthermore, Paris’ (or other dense European cities’) midrise density isn’t feasible here because our roads are way wider, our buildings are further apart, and downtown space is already built up with short, 2-storey buildings. Parisian density would require redevelopment of enormous areas to design narrow streets surrounded by blocks crammed with midrise structures. That can’t happen in most areas of Toronto.

And my eternal question for proponents of midrise/opponents of highrise: What’s wrong with Manhattan? Do you hate Manhattan?

I live in New York and have lived in Manhattan and can tell you that most of Manhattan, including most of the parts that New Yorkers actually choose to spend time in, is mid-rise or even low-rise. If you visit New York occasionally, the towering parts of Midtown are cool, but most of them are pretty sterile and either overrun with tourists or dead after 5pm.

New York is also much, much tougher than Toronto at enforcing strict height limits in its mid-rise neighbourhoods. Unlike Toronto, New York would never allow a tower to be built in the mid-rise/low-rise parts of Soho and the Village.

 

[Lost In The Wilds]

I live in New York and have lived in Manhattan and can tell you that most of Manhattan, including most of the parts that New Yorkers actually choose to spend time in, is mid-rise or even low-rise. If you visit New York occasionally, the towering parts of Midtown are cool, but most of them are pretty sterile and either overrun with tourists or dead after 5pm.

New York is also much, much tougher than Toronto at enforcing strict height limits in its mid-rise neighbourhoods. Unlike Toronto, New York would never allow a tower to be built in the mid-rise/low-rise parts of Soho and the Village.

New York would have more towers in places like Soho, but I believe that is prevented due to the state of the bedrock between midtown and downtown.

 

[unimaginative2]

New York would have more towers in places like Soho, but I believe that is prevented due to the state of the bedrock between midtown and downtown.

No they wouldn't. They have strict height limits and heritage conservation district rules. Sure, it's slightly easier to build towers in midtown because of the level of the bedrock, but you can build skyscrapers on anything these days, including former marshland and even filled-in lake.

 

[CN Tower]

I live in New York and have lived in Manhattan and can tell you that most of Manhattan, including most of the parts that New Yorkers actually choose to spend time in, is mid-rise or even low-rise. If you visit New York occasionally, the towering parts of Midtown are cool, but most of them are pretty sterile and either overrun with tourists or dead after 5pm.

New York is also much, much tougher than Toronto at enforcing strict height limits in its mid-rise neighbourhoods. Unlike Toronto, New York would never allow a tower to be built in the mid-rise/low-rise parts of Soho and the Village.

Do you mind if I cut & paste your salient words into the thread on 1 Yorkville? This is precisely the message I was trying to convey over there.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Do you mind if I cut & paste your salient words into the thread on 1 Yorkville? This is precisely the message I was trying to convey over there.

Actually you've just bitched at how it's 'out of scale,' then complained about 'condescension' when your impotent arguments were overturned with evidence from the reports which were used by both the developer and the planning department about why it's an appropriate fit.

You still haven't responded in that thread by the way...

 

[E.B.]

New York is also much, much tougher than Toronto at enforcing strict height limits in its mid-rise neighbourhoods. Unlike Toronto, New York would never allow a tower to be built in the mid-rise/low-rise parts of Soho and the Village.

I've read that it's the reason why Soho and the Village have sky-high rents compared to other areas. Is that true?

I also read, a couple of days ago, that there is a guy who lives in the Village that is photographing the area for posterity. He's lamenting all the changes and the tripling of rent to small stores. He said the landlords don't want to get locked into long-term leases with small stores & the landlords feel it's more profitable to leave the building empty and to wait for lengthy periods to get the higher rent.

 

[unimaginative2]

I've read that it's the reason why Soho and the Village have sky-high rents compared to other areas. Is that true?

I also read, a couple of days ago, that there is a guy who lives in the Village that is photographing the area for posterity. He's lamenting all the changes and the tripling of rent to small stores. He said the landlords don't want to get locked into long-term leases with small stores & the landlords feel it's more profitable to leave the building empty and to wait for lengthy periods to get the higher rent.

They have sky-high rents because so many people want to live and shop there, which is largely because they're such beautiful intact heritage neighbourhoods. It's a shame that a lot of the older and more reasonably priced businesses are getting pushed out (and I could never imagine being able to afford to live there!), but that's a different kind of challenge.

 

[themarc]

I had heard the Hydrology report on this site hasn't been completed yet - that the start of this project could be quite a ways off.

 

[heytopher]

Demolition for this project has commenced.

 

[greenleaf]

Following OMB decision, s37 monies have been divvied out:

A. A cash contribution of $1,000,000, prior to the issuance of an above-grade building permit, for the following local community improvement initiatives:

i. $500,000 for capital improvements to Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) facilities in Ward 20;

ii. $150,000 for the sensory garden project at Beverley Junior Public School at 64 Baldwin Avenue;

iii. $350,000 for streetscape and parkette improvements on Glasgow Street and in the immediate vicinity of the project, including bicycle facilities.

from: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2015.TE2.24

 

[agoraflaneur]

 

[urbandreamer]

Not a photo update--too tired and wet after my early morning walk from Parkdale--but a possible breaking condo schmooze sighting: noticed a bunch of surveyors standing around the SE & SW corners of Collge and Spadina, pointing their hands at the BK building on the corner. Or maybe related to this project perhaps? Didn't see any TTC logos.

 

[am29]

All four corners of College and Spadina need new developments. I really hope UofT does something nice with the building they have one the NE corner

 

[AlbertC]

The BK building is certainly the most intriguing corner for intensification. If any potential future developer can acquire the rest of those low-rises on College up to the Booster Juice, then they can form a substantial property to work with.

On another note, it's a shame that demolishion during the mid-1900s caused the loss of former historic buildings on the other three corners. From old pictures I've seen, those used to be quite the looker.