Toronto INDX Condos | 178.6m | 54s | Lifetime | P + S / IBI

Hey guys, I found another rendering of INDX Condos:


urbantoronto-2522-7099.jpg

From UT


Oh wait, that's Dream Tower at Emerald City. For a second there, I confused our downtown financial core with Don Mills and Sheppard. I guess P+S did too.
 
Mr.Tang said:
What is to be done with the heritage property at the corner of the street?
Click to expand...
You might want to try looking at the renders of the building before asking questions like that
 
I really like this, however, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's mentioned this (or at least thought about it) but I wish the base matched up slightly better with the AUG Signals building. I suppose that kind of architecture is hard to duplicate nowadays.
 
saw them promoting INDX launch today at Bay and Adelaide while i was taking photos of trump so i decided to check it out....
nice tent, saw the model, pretty cool.
 
Not sure what all the commotion is about. The building is handsome and has aesthetically pleasing dimensions. Sure, it is not the greatest piece of architecture in the city, but one can't expect condos to pull off such a feat. The best thing anyone has done with condos is interesting cladding (a la Aqua in Chicago, and Beekman Tower in NYC) which we've easily replicated (and in my opinion, surpassed) with Shangri La and Ritz Carlton. As long as this building brings decent retail to the street, and has acceptable cladding, then I think we can all be happy.

While the complainers on this thread definitely do have an argument (as I said, this isn't the best piece of architecture in the city), look at cities like Chicago that are begging for 20s proposals before complaining. In a decade (at the very most), this boom will be over, and we will all be begging for developments half as good as this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ahmad.m.atiya said:
Not sure what all the commotion is about. The building is handsome and has aesthetically pleasing dimensions. Sure, it is not the greatest piece of architecture in the city, but one can't expect condos to pull off such a feat. The best thing anyone has done with condos is interesting cladding (a la Aqua in Chicago, and Beekman Tower in NYC) which we've easily replicated (and in my opinion, surpassed) with Shangri La and Ritz Carlton. As long as this building brings decent retail to the street, and has acceptable cladding, then I think we can all be happy.

While the complainers on this thread definitely do have an argument (as I said, this isn't the best piece of architecture in the city), look at cities like Chicago that are begging for 20s proposals before complaining. In a decade (at the very most), this boom will be over, and we will all be begging for developments half as good as this one.
Click to expand...

If you are right and this boom is going to be over in a decade, isn't that even more of a reason to demand better architecture and be a little more critical? If we don't get a few great buildings now, we might not have another chance for a very long time. We should take advantage of the boom we have right now and put some serious pressure on developers to give Toronto some top quality towers and maybe a super-tall. (or two)
 
Last edited:
think there will be strong end user demand for this building once completed?
the area is pretty boring aside from being close to work.
 
70 TEMPERANCE ST
File Number: A0031/12TEY Zoning CR T12.0 C8.0 R11.7 (PPR/WAIVER) Ward: Toronto Centre-Rosedale
Property Address: 70 TEMPERANCE ST Community: Legal Description: PT TOWN LTS 5 & 6 S/S RICHMOND ST W
PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION:
To construct a 54-storey mixed-use building with ground floor retail, four levels of below grade parking, and 798 residential dwelling units.
REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

1. Section 2, By-law 149-2002
The maximum permitted combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area on
Parcel B is 38,620 m².
The building located on Parcel B will have 51,000 m² of combined non-residential gross floor area and
residential gross floor area.

2. Section 2, By-law 149-2002
The maximum permitted residential gross floor area is 38,420 m².
The residential gross floor area of the building will be 50,855 m².

3. Section 2, By-law 149-2002
A minimum of 265 parking spaces are required to be provided on the lot.
There will be 80 parking spaces provided on the lot.

4. Section 2, By-law 149-2002
A maximum of 79 parking spaces are permitted to be less than the minimum required size.
In this case, there will be 80 undersized parking spaces provided with a minimum size of 2.9 m by 5.2 m.

5. Section 4, By-law 438-86
One loading space Type G with a size of 3.5 m by 13 m with a vertical clearance of at least 4 m is
required.
In this case, no loading space Type G will be provided.
In this case, one loading space Type B with a size of 3.5 m by 11 m with a vertical clearance of 4.5 m
will be provided.

6. Section 2 By-law 149-2002
The maximum permitted building height is 158m
The building will have a height of 178.75 m.

7. Section 2 By-law 149-2002
There shall be 245 m² of outdoor residential amenity space provided.
There will be 134 m² of outdoor residential amenity space provided
.
8. Section 2, By-law 149-2002, & Section 8 Part II 1(A)(II), By-law 438-86
Windows of dwelling units shall be set back a minimum of 5.5 m from a lot line that is not a street line
or from a wall of a building.
The windows of the building will be set back 1.70 m from the north lot line and 5.0 m from the east lot
line.
 
Last edited:
HHC said:
Don't like it.. the historical podium deserves better
Click to expand...


i'm not sure if you're confused but this building is completely new construction from the ground up.
the graphic arts building on richmond is not part of this project.
 
The design of the roof is not very interesting. Buildings that effect the central skyline should have to pay more attention to their roofs. A nice crown, with good lighting, would have added some appeal.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top