Toronto Paintbox | ?m | 26s | Daniels | Diamond Schmitt

[ChesterCopperpot]

Pretty sure we can get NGBTect or another board member to confirm - but I'm pretty sure there's an elevator core in each building in RC1.

As for the King Street building comparison - it's a bit early to compare based on one rendering - and I don't mind the King Street project myself.

 

[Solaris]

Yes in RC1, there are 2 elevators in the King building and 1 elevator in the River building.

 

[interchange42]

This is more of the now shelved archiectsAlliance plan for Block 24:

That was a pretty nice plan, but obviously more expensive to build than what they're going with. Cheap doesn't have to be so obvious though!

42

 

[Stupidandshallow]

WOW... talk about downgrade. Thew newer design definitely reads low income housing.

everyone keeps mentioning cost as the main factor here... But really how much more expensive could the previous aA design be?

Also, it's not exactly like the land cost anything here. . .

I would love to know why they have changed the design... I know they have a Design Review Panel.

 

[urbandreamer]

Sad. Looks like TCHC has learned nothing from the past: build more prisons for the low incomers amongst us.

 

[Torontovibe]

It reminds me of St. Jamestown, just in mid-rise form. Those are the St. Jamestown colours and possibly the same materials. What's going on with this change? It's definitely a step down.

 

[TheKingEast]

Disappointing. It looks like low income housing.

 

[salsa]

Some of the hysterics here (based entirely on one crappy rendering) are way over the top. Lets remind ourselves what St. Jamestown looks like.

If anything, the new proposal reminds me of Showcase Lofts, just with different colours.

I don't know if these are even the final colours. There's always a possibility that it won't turn out too well, but it's too early to write this off completely. Personally I wasn't too crazy about the original aA proposal either, especially the U-shaped thingy: one long podium, two short towers at either end, and a wide empty space between the towers. I think the build form of the new proposal is better.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

^^ Great post. I too cannot understand the hysteria, it is not going to become a ghetto just because of the way it looks. Regent park now has private residences and has been re-introduced to the city's street grid (so much so that there are units built up to the sidewalk). I don't hear Yonge and Eglinton ever be referred to as low-income-looking despite the numerous slab apartment buildings that look way more like St. Jamestown buildings on the exterior than this proposal does.

Sustainability is what we should be concerned with. If this new plan, while perhaps not as sexy looking on the exterior, provides for more comfortable and practical living conditions for the residents and/or requires less maintenance than it is definitely the better plan.

 

[modernizt]

If this new plan, while perhaps not as sexy looking on the exterior, provides for more comfortable and practical living conditions for the residents and/or requires less maintenance than it is definitely the better plan.

You can be 99% sure is not the reasoning behind the change in design.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

You can be 99% sure is not the reasoning behind the change in design.

I could imagine heating and air conditioning would be more expensive with those large windows compared to the redesign.

Look, it could totally be a case of not wanting to spend of the poor because their poor. I have no reason to support any injustices made to those in need. However, these are fundamentally NOT condos and I think people may be forgetting that. These building do not need floor to ceiling windows to wow potential buyers or tenants looking to rent a condo unit. As much as public housing was meant to be transitional the reality is many people stay there for a long time and will build families there. The tastes of the creative-class/gentrifyers/millenials when it comes to urban living is not what needs to be satisfied because they are not the ones that are going to be living there. I recall a lecturer once telling us about a community consultation regarding Regent Park and some of the residents not being impressed by the open concept units because they felt smell of their cooking (which relied heavily of spices) would quickly spread throughout the unit.

Cue snarky and catty reply out of nowhere...

 

[TheKingEast]

I could imagine heating and air conditioning would be more expensive with those large windows compared to the redesign.

Look, it could totally be a case of not wanting to spend of the poor because their poor. I have no reason to support any injustices made to those in need. However, these are fundamentally NOT condos and I think people may be forgetting that. These building do not need floor to ceiling windows to wow potential buyers or tenants looking to rent a condo unit. As much as public housing was meant to be transitional the reality is many people stay there for a long time and will build families there. The tastes of the creative-class/gentrifyers/millenials when it comes to urban living is not what needs to be satisfied because they are not the ones that are going to be living there. I recall a lecturer once telling us about a community consultation regarding Regent Park and some of the residents not being impressed by the open concept units because they felt smell of their cooking (which relied heavily of spices) would quickly spread throughout the unit.

Cue snarky and catty reply out of nowhere...

With all that said, low income buildings should still have to look pleasant enough. While the builder is not looking to attract buyers for these kinds of buildings, they are still looking to attract buyers for the other condos that are being proposed. Regent Park is a hard enough sell. I like how the area is turning out but feel that there should be more market rate homes. Or maybe it's more retail. I don't know. I like the redevelopment as a whole but something is missing.

Also, it's not difficult to design a low cost, no-frills building. A lot of the newer low income housing that has been built don't have floor to ceiling, wall to wall windows. This just seems like a very blech design. Low income does not have to look like low cost.

 

[maestro]

Pretty sure we can get NGBTect or another board member to confirm - but I'm pretty sure there's an elevator core in each building in RC1.

As for the King Street building comparison - it's a bit early to compare based on one rendering - and I don't mind the King Street project myself.

Oops. Nevermind then. (on Rivercity)

two buildings connected by a hallway is still cheaper than two separate towers

 

[interchange42]

The idea for Regent Park's revitalization, up to now, has been to design the affordable housing to be indistinguishable from the street from the market housing. It's good for residents of both, most importantly de-stigmatizing the affordable housing, which is a big step forward for social harmony in an area that was long known for the reverse.

42

 

[Stupidandshallow]

Some of the hysterics here (based entirely on one crappy rendering) are way over the top. Lets remind ourselves what St. Jamestown looks like.

If anything, the new proposal reminds me of Showcase Lofts, just with different colours.

I don't know if these are even the final colours. There's always a possibility that it won't turn out too well, but it's too early to write this off completely. Personally I wasn't too crazy about the original aA proposal either, especially the U-shaped thingy: one long podium, two short towers at either end, and a wide empty space between the towers. I think the build form of the new proposal is better.

Actually, this latest rendering reminded me of this building in the middle: