Toronto Pinnacle Lakeside (Phase 1) | 174.86m | 54s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

It looks like the towers will have wraparound balconies - so that means the towers will have window wall
(which will sit on the slab set back from the slab edge).
The midrise isn't the star of the show, so there's no reason they would go with more expensive curtain wall on the midrise.
When I look at the rendering now, I’m actually surprised they positioned the midrise on the north side of the block and the high rises to the southwest and east sides. How many more lakeview units could they have if they built if the high rise was where the mid rise is and shortened the standalone tower in the southwest corner?

Also, how dark and drafty is it going to be between those buildings?
 
A reminder the cladding is here:

View attachment 693407

This is the affordable housing component and the renderings never made it look good. Let see how the main towers are handled before passing judgement - particularly the balcony glass.
Yep, a reminder that they basically designed a "poor people" building attached to the actual towers. Cus Toronto.
 
When I look at the rendering now, I’m actually surprised they positioned the midrise on the north side of the block and the high rises to the southwest and east sides. How many more lakeview units could they have if they built if the high rise was where the mid rise is and shortened the standalone tower in the southwest corner?

Also, how dark and drafty is it going to be between those buildings?
It's because the midrise is on the undesirable Lake Shore Blvd, and the midrise is the affordable housing component. So you put the affordable units there as no one with money wants to live on Lake Shore as it is basically a highway. If Lake Shore wasn't a highway, and the Gardiner didn't run above it, what you're saying would 100% be correct, but instead we get a situation where affordable units are a buffer against Lake Shore and the Gardiner so the more affluent units can be further away.
 
It's because the midrise is on the undesirable Lake Shore Blvd, and the midrise is the affordable housing component. So you put the affordable units there as no one with money wants to live on Lake Shore as it is basically a highway. If Lake Shore wasn't a highway, and the Gardiner didn't run above it, what you're saying would 100% be correct, but instead we get a situation where affordable units are a buffer against Lake Shore and the Gardiner so the more affluent units can be further away.
Yeah but there was a way to position all the affordable rental on the north side of the mid rise and make it taller with condos on the south side with lake views. Or spread the affordable between north side against the Gardiner and on the lower floors of the southwest high rise on the north and east sides as they are essentially looking at other units. Ultimately, there had to be a better way is my point.
 
From a couple of days ago:

PXL_20251104_185801497.jpg
 
Yeah but there was a way to position all the affordable rental on the north side of the mid rise and make it taller with condos on the south side with lake views. Or spread the affordable between north side against the Gardiner and on the lower floors of the southwest high rise on the north and east sides as they are essentially looking at other units. Ultimately, there had to be a better way is my point.
That's probably more complicated from an operational perspective.
Apart from condo owners possibly sharing the same lobby with the affordable renters or creating a separate lobby eating up space in a small tower floorplate and decried as a "poor door", the rental housing would be owned by an entity that is not the condo corporation. Having the two entities governing the same building means they'd need to cooperate and share operating costs and capital costs in future like elevator repairs. i..e. there probably isn't a mixed use project with condos and hotel that doesn't have a cost-sharing lawsuit. It's much easier to keep the two operations separate and having separate structures creates a natural division.
 
That's probably more complicated from an operational perspective.
Apart from condo owners possibly sharing the same lobby with the affordable renters or creating a separate lobby eating up space in a small tower floorplate and decried as a "poor door", the rental housing would be owned by an entity that is not the condo corporation. Having the two entities governing the same building means they'd need to cooperate and share operating costs and capital costs in future like elevator repairs. i..e. there probably isn't a mixed use project with condos and hotel that doesn't have a cost-sharing lawsuit. It's much easier to keep the two operations separate and having separate structures creates a natural division.
Separate lobbies already happening at Aquavista across the street and same lobby with market rental with cost sharing happening at Quayside. If there's a will there's a way.
 
Most of the trench has been filled in. They did a lot more work here than I thought they would..

View attachment 694242

View attachment 694243

View attachment 694244

View attachment 694245

View attachment 694246

View attachment 694247

And you can really see the curve of the building very clearly now.

View attachment 694248
Yes, they put in the conduits and pipes and now they COULD actually finish the road surface. Will they do it this year? I guess they could just about have time but maybe not until 2026. We shall find out soon enough.
 

Back
Top