Toronto Time and Space Condos | 101.8m | 29s | Pemberton | Wallman Architects

[jje1000]

Have they finally run out of foreign cities to name condos after?

Lots of marketing fluff, but I don't see the actual development taking any homage to the site's history.

 

[DSC]

Have they finally run out of foreign cities to name condos after?

Lots of marketing fluff, but I don't see the actual development taking any homage to the site's history.

Better than Yonge and Rich!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

http://www.timeandspacecondosvip.ca/

Lord the massing is brutal.

AoD

 

[interchange42]

Three new renderings plus detail images have been added to the dataBase file.

42

 

[smably]

I'm confused, though: why didn't the city push back harder against this? I don't have the tall building guidelines in front of me right now, but it sure seems like this development would violate a bunch of them. (And if it doesn't violate them, it really should.)

Like the floor plates -- those must be over 750 sq m? And the podium seems way too high, with almost zero stepback above. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that the city's policies cover?

 

[DSC]

I'm confused, though: why didn't the city push back harder against this? I don't have the tall building guidelines in front of me right now, but it sure seems like this development would violate a bunch of them. (And if it doesn't violate them, it really should.)

Like the floor plates -- those must be over 750 sq m? And the podium seems way too high, with almost zero stepback above. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that the city's policies cover?

It went to OMB - the City were NOT in favour of the proposal (though did sign off on the 'compromise' - probably fearing even worse.

 

[smably]

I know the OMB has a reputation for rubber-stamping anything a developer puts in front of them, but this seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of city policy. If the city can't defend their rules at the OMB, what's the point of even having them? I'm disappointed that the city didn't even try to push back harder beyond this "compromise". It looks to me more like a capitulation.

And it makes me worry about 254 King St E.

 

[DSC]

I know the OMB has a reputation for rubber-stamping anything a developer puts in front of them, but this seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of city policy. If the city can't defend their rules at the OMB, what's the point of even having them? I'm disappointed that the city didn't even try to push back harder beyond this "compromise". It looks to me more like a capitulation.

And it makes me worry about 254 King St E.

Indeed it does - 154/158 Front (just across the street from 177 Front) is another example of a project strongly opposed by the City that was approved by OMB.

 

[interchange42]

I know the OMB has a reputation for rubber-stamping anything a developer puts in front of them, but this seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of city policy. If the city can't defend their rules at the OMB, what's the point of even having them? I'm disappointed that the city didn't even try to push back harder beyond this "compromise". It looks to me more like a capitulation.

And it makes me worry about 254 King St E.

This one ended up the size it did based on the amount of density and height that the OMB had granted 158 Front, kitty corner across the street. The City brought them down substantially from the original proposal, which you can find on page 5 of this thread.

42

 

[chuckles]

Marketing materials are going up on all corners.

 

[DSC]

This one ended up the size it did based on the amount of density and height that the OMB had granted 158 Front, kitty corner across the street. The City brought them down substantially from the original proposal, which you can find on page 5 of this thread.

42

And that is the whole problem. Once one building gets something (height, density) then others want it PLUS more. (Other examples of this are the Spire, where they got height because they gave up plans to develop the site of the Anglican Parish House and Axiom where the building was a View-Terminus.

 

[Christopher Brown]

If City didn't / couldn't push back on 5 lbs of sugar being stuffed in this 2 lbs bag, perhaps the buyer community will. It's not centre ice by any stretch of the imagination. And so to cough up ?? $6-800 per sf for a modern day tenement, perhaps (lack of) demand could cause a decrease in supply.

See Cherokee Tenement, 1912, NYC

 

[Christopher Brown]

It just dawned on me that perhaps this behemoth is designed to be sold as a student housing complex and not a residential community in the usual sense of the description.

 

[DSC]

It just dawned on me that perhaps this behemoth is designed to be sold as a student housing complex and not a residential community in the usual sense of the description.

Not an unreasonable idea but not, apparently, what the developer has in mind!

 

[Christopher Brown]

I misspoke. To market and sell units to local and foreign buyers as defacto student housing, not to sell the project as one complex. The dense floor plan seems to suggest a cookie-cutter units of 400 sf per or slightly more. With George Brown around the corner.....it could evolve into Animal House North.