salsa
Senior Member
I'd say it's a tie between urbandreamer, Torontovibe, and thedeepend.
Toronto Ivory On Adelaide | ?m | 22s | Plaza | Hariri Pontarini
I'd say it's a tie between urbandreamer, Torontovibe, and thedeepend.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
To me this tower is the type that looks odd when just seeing the design as it seems too jumbled but now it's done it somehow "works". I like it.
urbandreamer
recession proof
I'm an optimist by nature; however, I am known for saying the honest truth how I feel atm. A Context King West style of HP would've looked fantastic here.
Compare the white and glass bands at King Charlotte--looks good--to Ivory--bad--to see how a similar motif can change from good to bad.
Compare the white and glass bands at King Charlotte--looks good--to Ivory--bad--to see how a similar motif can change from good to bad.
justbrowsing
New Member
I really like the look of this place. The podium is striking. The outcome looks way better than the renderings.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
The building looks pretty nice. But I can only imagine what it would have looked like with a developer who would spend the money on quality materials. Can't complain though since they do tend to have some of the lowest pricing out there so I guess good on them for that.
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 19,668
- Reaction score
- 28,224
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
I find it rather odd that Ivory are only now applying to the Committee of Adjustment for TEYCC (on 19 November) to build sub-standard parking spaces! Did someone screw-up? What will they do if the C of A says "no"?
15. 400 ADELAIDE ST E File Number: A0904/14TEY Zoning RA& 1412-2007 (Waiver)
Ward: Toronto Centre-Rosedale (28)
Property Address: 400 ADELAIDE ST E Community: Toronto
Legal Description: PLAN D39 PT BLK A
PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION:
To alter the redevelopment plan for the mixed-used development with a 22-storey residential building with
354 dwelling units and retail space at grade, approved under Site Specific By-law 1412-2007, by decreasing the required dimensions of 47 parking spaces.
REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:
Section 4(17), By-law 438-86
All parking spaces are required to have a minimum width of 2.60 m, a minimum length of 5.60 m and a minimum height of 2.00 m; and where such parking spaces are obstructed on one side, the width of the parking space shall be 2.90 m; and where such parking spaces are obstructed on two sides, the width of the parking space shall be 3.20 m.
In this case there will be 47 "non-standard" parking spaces as follows:
33 parking spaces will be obstructed on one side and will have a width of 2.60 m, a length of 5.60 m and a height of 2.00 m.
1 parking space will be obstructed on both sides and will have a width of 3.15 m, length of 5.60 m and a height of 2.00 m.
5 "small car" parking spaces will have a length of 5.00 m, a width of 2.60 m and a height of 2.00 m.
5 " small car" parking spaces will be obstructed on one side and will have a minimum width of 2.60 m, a length of 5.00 m and a height of 2.00 m.
2 "small car" parking spaces will have a height of 1.53 m, a width of 2.60 m and a length of 5.60 m.
1 "small car" parking space will have a height of 1.97 m, a length of 5.00 m and a width of 5.60 m.
15. 400 ADELAIDE ST E File Number: A0904/14TEY Zoning RA& 1412-2007 (Waiver)
Ward: Toronto Centre-Rosedale (28)
Property Address: 400 ADELAIDE ST E Community: Toronto
Legal Description: PLAN D39 PT BLK A
PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION:
To alter the redevelopment plan for the mixed-used development with a 22-storey residential building with
354 dwelling units and retail space at grade, approved under Site Specific By-law 1412-2007, by decreasing the required dimensions of 47 parking spaces.
REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:
Section 4(17), By-law 438-86
All parking spaces are required to have a minimum width of 2.60 m, a minimum length of 5.60 m and a minimum height of 2.00 m; and where such parking spaces are obstructed on one side, the width of the parking space shall be 2.90 m; and where such parking spaces are obstructed on two sides, the width of the parking space shall be 3.20 m.
In this case there will be 47 "non-standard" parking spaces as follows:
33 parking spaces will be obstructed on one side and will have a width of 2.60 m, a length of 5.60 m and a height of 2.00 m.
1 parking space will be obstructed on both sides and will have a width of 3.15 m, length of 5.60 m and a height of 2.00 m.
5 "small car" parking spaces will have a length of 5.00 m, a width of 2.60 m and a height of 2.00 m.
5 " small car" parking spaces will be obstructed on one side and will have a minimum width of 2.60 m, a length of 5.00 m and a height of 2.00 m.
2 "small car" parking spaces will have a height of 1.53 m, a width of 2.60 m and a length of 5.60 m.
1 "small car" parking space will have a height of 1.97 m, a length of 5.00 m and a width of 5.60 m.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
Seems like a terrible idea indeed. Why the heck do developers still build heavily recessed retail frontages? It makes your store less visible, decreases ambient light in the shops and generally kills the vitality of the street. adding large planters which block entry into the recessed areas is just another pound of foolish design.
They could have used the space occupied by the planters for a couple tables and chairs on a patio or some A-frames for adverts of the shops, OR make the planters lower and provide somewhere to sit. Literally anything was better than high concrete planters which block the view into the shops.
thankfully these aren't structurally significant so in the future there is an opportunity to correct this.
They could have used the space occupied by the planters for a couple tables and chairs on a patio or some A-frames for adverts of the shops, OR make the planters lower and provide somewhere to sit. Literally anything was better than high concrete planters which block the view into the shops.
thankfully these aren't structurally significant so in the future there is an opportunity to correct this.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Those colonnades are "prohibited" by the Downtown Tall Buildings Guidelines. I guess this got approved before they were adopted by council.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
That's one of the reasons this infuriated me.
Correct me if I'm wrong but have the TBG been adopted by council as law or do they still remain voluntary suggestions? I was under the impression they were still working their way into law.
They are not law, no, yet they take some doing to get around. This project is older then they are.
42
42
maestro
Senior Member
Does that even classify as a colonnade as you can't walk around those massive bollards?
Ramako
Moderator
I can't begin to imagine the justifications for such design decisions. You have to actively work hard to be this bad.
