U Condominium | Approved | 55, 45 st | 184 m, 158 m | Downtown

[The 'Sauga]

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/stjoseph.htm



Some updates:

The prefered development concept is now for two towers with street-wall buildings north of the church and extension of the open space north of the church.

Development concept includes:

Street-wall Buildings
Three-storey street-wall buildings along Bay Street and St. Mary Street, and a row of townhouses north of Cloverhill Wing. Use of roof for amenity space.
St. Mary Street built form could be more of a domestic feel with raised landscape beds and a few steps up from street to residential units.
Bay Street built form could include non-residential uses and with entrances flush with sidewalk. Materials include stone and wood trim.

Towers
Proposed west tower (45 storeys) south of St. Mary Street.
Proposed east tower (55 storeys) on the Bay Street frontage.
Both towers have 750 square metre floor plates and are set behind street-wall buildings.
East tower could have a high, transparent ground floor to permit views between the park to the south and the proposed courtyard area to the north of the tower as well as from Bay Street.
Towers could be light via the use of glass.

Open Space
Open space extended to the north of Cloverhill Wing. A green wall feature could be incorporated into the base of the east tower’s south elevation.
Opportunity for a green feature along the base of the west tower’s west elevation facing St. Michael’s playing field.
Pedestrian movements through new open spaces and an entrance along the Bay Street frontage.

Access Options
Vehicular access from St. Mary Street to internal courtyard with a high quality ground treatment (e.g. granite).
Access point to St. Joseph Street using the existing ceremonial driveway in front of St. Basil’s Church. This access point could be incorporated into westerly edge of open space to screen it from Bay Street. Conceptual at this point, detailed design not done.

Other interesting points

The proposed towers are approximately 40 metres apart. Tower footprints are off-set to help maintain views from buildings.
Green roofs will be considered in conjunction with the use of the roof space for amenity areas.



http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/rendering_st._michaels_college_tower_1_7234.jpg

http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/rendering_st._michaels_college_tower_1_6403.jpg

http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/rendering_st._michaels_college_tower_1_4150.jpg

http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/rendering_st._michaels_college_tower_1_1574.jpg

[Taller, Better]

Hmm.. thanks for posting. This piece of land has been waiting a long time for development. Selfish, I know, but I would like to just see it as a park.

[phunky]

Wow they are nice. I LOVE the support columns going through the building inside the glass!! That's so awesome.

[Waterloo_Guy]

That is my favorite place in Toronto. Walking through St. Mikes onto Bay has this feel I can't describe. I hope a couple of 500ft towers don't detract from it, but it is Bay street.

[p5archit]

seems like Clewes taking some design clues from SOM's John Hancock Tower in Chicago...looks decent, albeit another aA glass tower project...


p5

[ratoronto]

wow townhouses fronting Bay St?

[VikkyD]

I hated the first proposal.... but I actually like this current one. and I think the Townhouses are a great Idea... I'd live in a Townhouse on Bay Street... its during off-business hours. You're steps to Yorkville/Bloor street.. theres a lot of benefits actually.

these renderings though..... these are not the "official" ones yet.. are they? I read all the info on these buildings, and their shadows... and I think these images are just a preliminary view of what the site might look like...(hopefully)

[Jasperhouse]

Why are Toronto's green spaces being sacrificed to fill the pocket books of developers? Who is allowing it to occur? Bay St. has seen so much development over the last few years that it ought to suffice to fulfill density quotas. The park and parking lot at St. Michael's are really the only open space left on Bay south of Bloor.

[urban 2.0]

I wish I had the money... I would love to buy their parking lot and turn it into a nice quite square - large fountain in the middle... It's about the only place downtown that still gets the late evening sun (at ground level that is).

[urban 2.0]

... Oh and the courtyard sounds nice on paper - but it won't be general public friendly... "high quality ground treatment (e.g. granite)"

... I notice that the entrance to the car garage is noticeably lacking from the proposal ... hmmm... how convenient.

[Taller, Better]

hmmmm

[Mike in TO]

Why are Toronto's green spaces being sacrificed to fill the pocket books of developers? Who is allowing it to occur? Bay St. has seen so much development over the last few years that it ought to suffice to fulfill density quotas. The park and parking lot at St. Michael's are really the only open space left on Bay south of Bloor.

If you bothered becoming somewhat informed about the development you would learn that the development proposal includes expanding the existing greenspace and investing significant dollars towards enhancing the green space as a high quality park.

[The 'Sauga]

New renderings of revised version of the development:

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6379/stm2ai6.jpg

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/93/stm3vw4.jpg

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4738/stm4fa2.jpg

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7664/stm5sx5.jpg

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9407/stm6db2.jpg

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/1705/stm7pe5.jpg

[monkeyronin]

A much improved park space over what exists now. Towers look pretty good too. The townhouses are awful though, they should have continued with the style used on the towers.

[isaidso]

Disagree, the townhomes are great. I was immediately drawn to them despite the towers easily being amongst the best I've seen.

Glad they resisted the temptation to continue the glass. Stone is a much richer material than glass. It gives the structure a feeling of permanence and strength, warmth, and a successful attempt at blending with some of the other college buildings in the area that feature similar stone work. (and I'm not talking about the old college buildings, but the newer one. I can't remember it's name, but it is absolutely stunning.) Besides, who is going to want to live in a glass box at street level?

All glass can be too clinical and soulless. Street level needs elements of warmth and grandeur, especially in this climate. Something that glass can not do.

Those thick black lines going up the side of the tower look like bare autumn branches. Gorgeous. I hope they are a design element and not just an artists render.

[phunky]

I don't think I like the townhouses either. Not for that location. They're very cold.

The towers though. They're pretty cool. I LOVE the support beams showing on the exterior. So awesome!

[isaidso]

I don't think I like the townhouses either. Not for that location. They're very cold.

Colder than glass? Stone is much richer and warmer than a transparent sheet of glass. Glass is practically the coldest material possible other than steel. I have nothing against glass, but too much can be bland and soulless. Look at Vancouver, or City Place, for that matter.

[Taller, Better]

A much improved park space over what exists now. Towers look pretty good too. The townhouses are awful though, they should have continued with the style used on the towers.

I am a bit confused as to where they are being built, but I am encouraged by this rendering that they are north of the church... I will scout out that area today. The condos are amazing, but I don't want them to interfere with the beautiful 1840's church and university buildings, or the greenspace off Bay.

Later:
OK, mystery solved as I wheeled round there yesterday. The development is going up in a huge parking lot north of the church and university buildings:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/IMGP6376.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/IMGP6378.jpg

It appears that the park space is not affected:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/IMGP6379.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/IMGP6380.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/IMGP6381.jpg

[isaidso]

Thanks for the leg work. I had the same concerns. It would be nice to see alot more retail south of this development, but the condos built there have not allowed for it. It's a lost opportunity. The first 4 floor of all of those condos should have been 20 feet high each with condo towers above it. This would have allowed for restaurants, shops, galleries, gyms, etc. The street's really lifeless.

[b13]

will there be retail at the base?

[isaidso]

They look like town homes, and would not be suitable for retail anyway. Retail, ideally, would have much higher ceilings, and much grander facades. Look at the stores near Bloor and Yonge such as Indigo, Holts, H&M, and Harry Rosen. Modern quality retail design features 20 foot ceilings, massive panes of window, etc.

[valantino]

no retail along bay

[isaidso]

Is it zoning? If so, I think it's a big mistake.

[Northern Lotus]

I saw the site today and on the site, they have a bulletin board indicating their application for re-zoning including 3 towers; besides the two shown in this thread, there is another one around 24 fls. The same sign is shown outside of the parking lot next to the church further south from the large parking lot.
Plus 3 six story buildings. that is also different from the pictures shown above.
If someone can check this out with the building dept.?

[The 'Sauga]

I saw the site today and on the site, they have a bulletin board indicating their application for re-zoning including 3 towers; besides the two shown in this thread, there is another one around 24 fls. The same sign is shown outside of the parking lot next to the church further south from the large parking lot.
Plus 3 six story buildings. that is also different from the pictures shown above.
If someone can check this out with the building dept.?

That was the original plan for the site but they have since revised it and it is now proposed to be two towers @ 45 and 55 Storeys, along with the townhouses.

Overall I find this whole development to be a huge plus for Bay Street. Clewes seems to be getting better and better with his designs. I've always hated that brick-walled parking lot along Bay realizing the great potential it had for future development with its proximity to Bloor/Yorkville and basically being right smack on Bay Street. The neglected looking, sorry excuse to be a park could also use a lot of work. The only beef I have with this would be the lack of retail being zoned for the podium along Bay Street. That entire stretch of Bay Street is basically dullsville when it comes to streetlife and this could of been the project to add some much needed life into that stretch.

Also, that parking lot directly south of St.Mike's, north of that French (?) restaurant could also be prime real estate or a nice square/plaza.

[Taller, Better]

"Also, that parking lot directly south of St.Mike's, north of that French (?) restaurant could also be prime real estate or a nice square/plaza."

Man, I wish they would turn that parking lot into a park... would be a perfect location. I know they won't, though..

[Mollywood]

All residential development on major streets should have retail or some other community use (art gallery/museum) at street level, especially this one. That's what makes a downtown interesting and walkable.

[isaidso]

Strongly agree!

[bigcityboy]

I agree, retail at grade should be a must for any new buildings on major pedestrian-retail thoroughfares. I'm bothered by the "dead space" of buildings that do otherwise. Tridel's building at 123 Eglinton East is a perfect example of that. Nice building that takes up a whole city block right in the middle of a retail area that has community rooms for the condo with whited-out windows at street level. Way to fit into the community.

[valantino]

I'd rather have townhomes with the option of conversion in the future than empty storefronts or another bottom feeding, service-based chain (quite clear we have reached a saturation point as far as shopping is concern)

[isaidso]

Saturation? That's awful if it's true, but I'd be surprised if retail demand downtown flatlines. Besides, it is the main streets not minor streets, where we should have retail at street level. Townhomes are great, but not everywhere. Bay, Yonge, Bloor, Queen, Church, etc. Retail should be encouraged here. Some townhomes would add to the mixed use nature of the street, but retail is more important here.

A townhome converted into retail is never going to look like Bloor betweeen Yonge and Bay unless you spend a massive amount of money completely re-doing the base.

[Mollywood]

With the downtown population growing so fast, I think there will be plenty of demand for more main street retail space. There are many suburban stores that would do very well if they opened a store downtown. (a mini Ikea would be one)

[urban 2.0]

I am a bit confused as to where they are being built, but I am encouraged by this rendering that they are north of the church... I will scout out that area today. The condos are amazing, but I don't want them to interfere with the beautiful 1840's church and university buildings, or the greenspace off Bay.

Later:
OK, mystery solved as I wheeled round there yesterday. The development is going up in a huge parking lot north of the church and university buildings:

It appears that the park space is not affected:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/IMGP6379.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/IMGP6380.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/IMGP6381.jpg


... well that grass will all be dead once the condos are built - all the dog owners will use it as their own public toilet!

[Waterloo_Guy]

Ok, just to be clear: that grass will not be touched?

[Taller, Better]

... well that grass will all be dead once the condos are built - all the dog owners will use it as their own public toilet!


I think it is disgusting to watch a grown dog owner squat and poo on public
spaces. If you see them do it, give them an earful because it sets a bad example for their dogs..

Ok, just to be clear: that grass will not be touched?

From what I can tell, no... other than the aforementioned people.

[Bisonblight]

^LMAO!

I really don't see the need for retail in every building along the street. It's not like there’s none nearby.

I've never considered Bay a "pedestrian-retail thoroughfare" whatever that's supposed to be. Bay is predominantly residential, with the odd convenience store and pub. I think it sad if you can only find retail oriented strips interesting to walk along. There are beautiful parts of the city with no retail at all.

[isaidso]

With the downtown population growing so fast, I think there will be plenty of demand for more main street retail space. There are many suburban stores that would do very well if they opened a store downtown. (a mini Ikea would be one)

Strongly agree. It's indicative of how large Toronto has grown. Probably inevitable that another major shopping strip downtown will emerge.

Bay was never designed to be a Yonge street, but those that designed it never envisaged Toronto growing to the point that it would need another major retail strip. Bay is the most intriguing and natural progression of Yonge street retailing.

I walked down Bay yesterday, and am seeing signs of Bay moving in the direction I am suggesting. The big Canadian Tire store is the most obvious example.

It would be great to get some retail that doesn't already exist in Toronto such as Simons out of Montreal. Too early for that, but I'd love to see an outlet in the next 20 years. Ikea? Ikea builds in outlying industrial areas where land is cheap. It is part of their business model. A mini Ikea downtown isn't very likely.

[Sawadaa]

Strongly agree. It's indicative of how large Toronto has grown. Probably inevitable that another major shopping strip downtown will emerge.

Bay was never designed to be a Yonge street, but those that designed it never envisaged Toronto growing to the point that it would need another major retail strip. Bay is the most intriguing and natural progression of Yonge street retailing.

I walked down Bay yesterday, and am seeing signs of Bay moving in the direction I am suggesting. The big Canadian Tire store is the most obvious example.

It would be great to get some retail that doesn't already exist in Toronto such as Simons out of Montreal. Too early for that, but I'd love to see an outlet in the next 20 years. Ikea? Ikea builds in outlying industrial areas where land is cheap. It is part of their business model. A mini Ikea downtown isn't very likely.

I actually wouldn't think that a mini Ikea is impossible. They have mini Ikeas in vertical malls in Hong Kong whereas they build upward instead of sprawling big-box stores in North America. As downtown Toronto grows and becomes denser with more people living downtown, I don't think it's impossible that we'll see the same "vertical" concept in Toronto in the future.

[Taller, Better]

^^I have heard rumours on and off about Simons for years now. I am strongly hopeful they come true. My favoured spot would be Sears.

[KGB]

I really don't see the need for retail in every building along the street. It's not like there’s none nearby.


Yea...This upper stretch of Bay has a good arguement to be strictly a residential development area, which fits in better with it's Queen's Park/UofT environment. It acts as a bit of a buffer, while still maintaining the high densities...it wouldn't feel right making this a major commercial street...that is very close by. Ground floor retail amenities for residents is fine....but I wouldn't overdo it.



They have mini Ikeas in vertical malls in Hong Kong whereas they build upward instead of sprawling big-box stores in North America.


I'm not looking for downtown Toronto to be anything like Hong Kong OR suburban big-box retail. Downtown's current model is great...we need to keep applying it.




KGB

[isaidso]

I actually wouldn't think that a mini Ikea is impossible. They have mini Ikeas in vertical malls in Hong Kong whereas they build upward instead of sprawling big-box stores in North America. As downtown Toronto grows and becomes denser with more people living downtown, I don't think it's impossible that we'll see the same "vertical" concept in Toronto in the future.

Wow, I had no idea that IKEA has strayed from their usual model. It makes sense in markets like Hong Kong where there is little low density cheap real estate. I'd love a mini-IKEA store on many levels right downtown. It's so depressing travelling out to those huge swaths of depressing barren areas outside of the city: Sheppard, the Queensway. YUCK!

Unfortunately, Toronto has along way to go to reach Hong Kong densities that would make such a development a good alternative to what exists now. Downtown is still too slow paced and empty for my liking, but we'll get there soon....hopefully another 30 years and another 200,000 people living downtown will solve that.

[KGB]

It's so depressing travelling out to those huge swaths of depressing barren areas outside of the city: Sheppard, the Queensway. YUCK!

Shopping at Ikea is depressing even if they stuck one on Queen West. Ditto for places like Pottery Barn and Pier 1 that ARE located in high density, urban-friendly areas. For less than Ikea prices, I've picked up a vintage Warren McArthur chair, or an Aldo Tura lacqered goatskin ashtray.


Unfortunately, Toronto has along way to go to reach Hong Kong densities that would make such a development a good alternative to what exists now. Downtown is still too slow paced and empty for my liking

Downtown Toronto is already light years ahead of Hong Kong (which doesn't really have a downtown). "More" density is not the point....BETTER density is.





KGB

[sl64]

I've always found IKEA to be interesting from a business perspective, in the sense that they've been so successful building a brand image that they can get away with charging prices that would often be considered high for pre-assembled furniture... for furniture that you have to assemble yourself. Essentially, they're cutting out almost the entire manufacturing process (besides manufacturing/buying the parts themselves) and yet keeping the price difference for themselves as pure profit. Shows you what a good marketing campaign can do.

[Taller, Better]

Do people really want downtown Toronto to be as crowded as Hong Kong, or Tokyo? Is ultra high density considered to be our goal? To me, quality of life means having ample green space... places like Riverdale Park. I want the density of downtown to increase, but with definite limits.... I also don't fancy being physically shoved into a subway car like a cow into a corral. There are places where the density of population is so high that if you stand at a bar, you are expected to spend a great deal of money because you are basically renting that spot. Give me a quiet pub where I can sprawl out and read my newspaper. Also, what perplexes me is if people want high density populations like Hong Kong, why is there such visceral opposition to City Place?

If someone lives in a crowded city like London, they will understand how overcrowding can make people cranky and irritated, and give them a tendency to be a bit rude to strangers. Same thing happens to mice if you overload their colonies.

[Sawadaa]

Sorry but my arguement was never about wanting downtown Toronto to be as dense as Hong Kong's, it's simply not possible or feasible. Different cities will have their attractive qualities, and IMO it is HK's dense and bustling streetlife, whereas for Toronto, it's the liveability and the vibrant neighbourhoods. What I was trying to say was that as more and more people move back into downtown with all these new condo developments, there will probably be need and demand for stores and amenities to offer to the downtown residents. Sometimes even meaning typical suburban big-box stores such as Shoppers Drug Mart, Staples, or even Ikea as mentioned. I don't exactly love these stores but they would add to the convenience of living downtown. And my reference of HK wasn't to admire its density but was to state that an interesting way to incorporate retail was through vertical malls, which can be part of podiums of such projects as RoCP III, and One Bloor East. Example from HK would be the Langham Place, which seriously puts Metropolis to shame: http://www.globalphotos.org/hk-langham.htm

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=510340

I also found this interesting project in Vancouver whereas they incorporate a YMCA into being part of the project. I would love to see a future TO development have this concept with community centres being needed with more people moving downtown, possibly the Sam's site or a YMCA along Church street? ;)

[Taller, Better]

Ah... that makes good sense. I think most people welcome a higher population downtown, and a smarter utilisation of space. Like KGB says, ""More" density is not the point....BETTER density is.".

[KGB]

Sorry but my arguement was never about wanting downtown Toronto to be as dense as Hong Kong's, it's simply not possible or feasible.

Well, Toronto DOES do the super dense thang...sometimes more so than the Hong Kongs and Londons of the world (find me something as dense as MINT in those places). But we aren't forced to that EVERYWHERE....we have a nice blend of densities.

Do we really want the densities split up into nothing but high densities? Do we really want to live in things like the "New Towns" they have in HK...I don't think so...half the people there live in government housing, and the other half lives in ridiculously over-priced apartments.

What we have in Toronto, is the envy of large cities...affordability along with all the trappings of a large, diverse, thoroughly cosmopolitan city.



And my reference of HK wasn't to admire its density but was to state that an interesting way to incorporate retail was through vertical malls

But you forget why they are FORCED to do this...land is too expensive. Not to mention rent. Hong Kong used to have vertical factories too. Unless you want to pay even more for your throwaway garbage from Ikea?



I also found this interesting project in Vancouver whereas they incorporate a YMCA into being part of the project. I would love to see a future TO development have this concept with community centres being needed with more people moving downtown, possibly the Sam's site or a YMCA along Church street?


We already do a lot of that...with direct subway access thrown in for good measure, which is something you don't find in most cities either. Sorry, but argueing that Toronto lacks convenient access to neighbourhood amenities is not panning out.





KGB

[isaidso]

Do people really want downtown Toronto to be as crowded as Hong Kong, or Tokyo? Is ultra high density considered to be our goal? To me, quality of life means having ample green space... places like Riverdale Park. I want the density of downtown to increase, but with definite limits.... I also don't fancy being physically shoved into a subway car like a cow into a corral. There are places where the density of population is so high that if you stand at a bar, you are expected to spend a great deal of money because you are basically renting that spot. Give me a quiet pub where I can sprawl out and read my newspaper. Also, what perplexes me is if people want high density populations like Hong Kong, why is there such visceral opposition to City Place?

There is a point where the disadvantages of high density out weigh the benefits, but downtown Toronto isn't close to this tipping point...not by a long stretch. It is normal that alot of people are resistant to change. They live here because they like how it is now. Others live here because they crave a bustling city.

I much prefer the feel of the Yonge/King intersection over something like Yonge/St.Clair. Yonge/St.Clair isn't low density, but it is lower density. Ultra high density does require urban squares and parks close by, however. This is an area that needs to be rectified if ultra high density happens downtown. We have Dundas Square, but Toronto desperately needs a large downtown park. There is none. The land between Skydome and the ACC was our last best chance at one.

As far as City Place goes, my criticism of it has never had anything to do with the density of it, but how the buildings meet the street. The density of City Place is great.

[Waterloo_Guy]

I don't think there should be any limit on density in the downtown. Having said that, I'm not claiming that higher density makes for a nicer environment. Yes, it's possible to believe both of these things simultaneously.

As for Toronto in general, we have a strange propensity to aspire to be like cities that we are clearly superior to. I guess that's just part of being a Torontonian.

[Taller, Better]

^^agreed waterloo and isaidso. I can see a great deal of potential for increased density in downtown Toronto. There are just so many benefits to having a big population downtown.. entertainment aside, it is so much safer on sidewalks that are filled with people. I rejoice at the increased population downtown via condos... this is exactly what we need to take us to the next level. I doubt if we would ever have to seriously worry that we are going to become a tin full of sardines.
I think the best thing about City Place is its density. I've always said I would never personally choose to live there, but it is a new dimension in Toronto neighbourhoods... let's let it finish and judge the final results. If I had my way there would have been more variation in the building types, but beggars apparently cannot be choosers. There are going to be a pile of people living downtown and within a stone's throw of the lakefront. Might not be all bad... :)

[isaidso]

I've been very critical of certain aspects of City Place, but am willing to wait and see. City Place is a departure from what we have downtown presently, but it's not entirely fair to pass judgement till it is finished and had time to establish itself as a neighbourhood.

I am more impressed with St. Michael's. I sense that Bay will really blossom over the next 10 years. In 1990, I never would have hung out on Bay Street. In 2007, I've found myself there a few times....especially further to the south near Dundas. Some more restaurants and stores. Better sidewalks. Some trees and public art. Maybe even a narrower street. Bay could develop into a great street for pedestrians.

[Taller, Better]

The St Michael's proposal is smokin'.. it is just such a sexy development that I am afraid to hope too much that it goes up as shown. Could rank right up there with Condo X.
CityPlace is always going to be a "specialized" community. Not everyone is going to like living in a place like that. Would probably drive me crazy.. however... there are a ton of people moving into Toronto that crave that sort of high density 'hood, and they will probably very much enjoy it. Just another part of this great town we call Toronto! :cheers:

[KGB]

I much prefer the feel of the Yonge/King intersection over something like Yonge/St.Clair.

I like both....and other variations as well. And we have the luxury of having them all in Toronto. I love Manhattan, but after a while, the monotony of nothing but high density becomes oppressive. That's why they need one big park for people to escape it...we don't.

And there's a big differene between bustling, lively streets (which Toronto has a lot of), and just plain frenetic, over-crowdedness (which HK has too much of).

I like the idea that I can turn off a bustling commercial street, onto a quiet, century old, 100 year-old tree canopied residential street, lined with Bay'n Gable semis (that don't cost $27 million), with an elderly Portuguese couple sitting on the front porch.

Toronto is a Jane Jacob kinda city...HK aint. And I'm quite happy with that.


KGB

[Mike in TO]

Also, that parking lot directly south of St.Mike's, north of that French (?) restaurant could also be prime real estate or a nice square/plaza.

The lot (1000 Bay Street) was sold to a developer earlier this year.

[current]

In the latest Condo Guide magazine on the second last page (pg 161) Cresford has an ad:

1000 BAY
CONDOMINIUM
RESIDENCES
COMING SOON

[Taller, Better]

Good Heavens! I had completely forgotten about this one!

[CrazyCanuck]

That area is going to see some quick density. U of T is slowly getting boxed in.

[Taller, Better]

**bump*

[DrT]

"1000 Bay", the address has a ton of cachet.

[urban 2.0]

I think it is disgusting to watch a grown dog owner squat and poo on public
spaces. If you see them do it, give them an earful because it sets a bad example for their dogs..

From what I can tell, no... other than the aforementioned people.



... dogs (their owners) should be banned from public parks. I'm sorry if you don't have the land for your animal, you shouldn't own it.

Public parks and our streets aren't toilets.

Dogs all but destroy the grass of not only parks, but of neighbourhoods.

Shitting and pissing on someone else's land - is nothing more dis-respectable than that?

Maybe we should go shit on dog owners front lawns?!

[Taller, Better]

I disagree.... dogs are part of our society. Certainly they add a tremendous amount of life to my neighbourhood...
Sometimes being in "public" means having to deal with things we personally wouldn't choose... I find lots of things in public to be distasteful, but we have to share the community.

[Regan4000]

There should be more designated off leash dog parks. I like letting my dog run wild in the open park near my house. I can understand that people without dogs would be irritated...

However, regarding the dog dirt, as long as their owner picks up after them, and doesn't throw the bag in my lawn compost bags, then there really is no issue.

[Istrian]

yes,yes...society is part of our dog, and pitons etc etc:ohno::cheers::ohno:

...while the 'Atom Heart Mother" is being eaten, even though in some part of this crazy planet the caw is the most 'respectable' being ?!?

Long live the cats, especially mine one !

[KGB]

^^

Yea....I'm totally with ya on the poop and pee thing being both disgusting and destructive to public and (other people's) private property.

But what is the alternative....banning all animals in public (an animal has to go when and where it has to go)?

Hmmm....it looks like that's just one of life's little compromises...the best we can do is encourage cleaning up after them and totally getting people keen to the idea that using people's front yards as toilets for their pets is NOT ok, even if you are picking up after them (you can't pick up pee, and even picked-up dogshit leaves residue children can play in).




KGB

[Taller, Better]

I have to say 99% of the dog owners I know are responsible and pick up the dog crap. Not a hard thing to do.

[DrT]

yes,yes...society is part of our dog, and pitons etc etc:ohno::cheers::ohno:

...while the 'Atom Heart Mother" is being eaten, even though in some part of this crazy planet the caw is the most 'respectable' being ?!?

Long live the cats, especially mine one !

Stop smoking weed at least for a while before you post.

[yyzer]

This project was approved by Toronto City Council last night....

Parking cherished, condos more so

TheStar.com - GTA - Parking cherished, condos more so

March 05, 2008
Jim Byers
Paul Moloney
John Spears

To hear most councillors tell it, it's an attempt to unpave a parking lot and put up a paradise. But some folks are still angry about redevelopment plans for land around a historic Bay St. church.

Toronto council yesterday voted 37-1 in favour of building condominium towers of 55 and 45 storeys just north of St. Basil's Church at St. Joseph St.

Downtown councillor Kyle Rae said the buildings will be stunning landmarks on a site perfect for high-density housing as it's on the Bay bus line and near several subway stations. He said the church won't be cast in shadows and a park set to replace a surface parking lot will be a worthy addition to an area lacking public green space.

Former St. Michael's College president James McConica said the school has been trying to develop the property since 1998 and that this plan is "500 per cent better" than the original scheme.

Rae said students and St. Basil's parishioners were consulted frequently. But those opposing the plan said they're upset because they'll lose a badly needed 150-space parking lot.

"We have to look at our options, but it's definitely not over," said Linda Cahill, a St. Basil's parishioner who helped organize a petition asking for more public consultation. "They know that we know that we weren't consulted."

[isaidso]

Good news. It's a beautiful development that respects its surroundings. Glad to see the parking lot vanish, and hope the end product is as lush as the render. The abstract linear treatments shooting up the side of the facade is gorgeous. It would be a shame if that got lost during the whole process.

[Sixrings]

there isnt a NEED for retail on BAY STREET.. No ones stopping there car and getting out for a quiet strol, instead Bay is for the taxis with its Express lane and fast compairatively speaking transit... We dont need MORE retail... Well at least not until some of the other retail gets fixed up from being neglected.. YOUNGE STREET!!!!!!!!!! I dont ming queen being Dingy But young is becoming more hip and upscale the retail should reflect that with buildings that look like you dont have to worry about stepping on mouse traps or roofs from caving in

[Taller, Better]

I can see some retail on Bay, but in essence I agree with Sixrings....increasingly Bay is a residential street. They have to walk one short block to Yonge Street and they have all the retail they could ask for.

[isaidso]

We already have retail on Bay Street. There's the huge Canadian Tire store anchoring the strip to the south, and Indigo-Yorkville anchoring on the north. Intensive retail from one end to the other might not be preferable, but a good balance between residential and commercial would create a more dynamic street than currently exists.

I'm not sure why the existence of retailing on Yonge negates the possibility of developing other retailing strips. It's not an issue of laziness, but simply in response to the needs of a growing city. There aren't exactly too many empty retailing spaces on Yonge Street. It's not about not having enough retail options, it's about space.

As we add a sea of new condo towers in this area, do we really want to force everyone on to already congested Yonge? I'd much rather that the downtown retailing strip that is Yonge grow organically into a retailing loop: from Yonge/Queen up Yonge to Bloor, along Bloor to Bay, down Bay to Queen and back to Yonge/Queen. We already have numerous shopping strips and look how vibrant they have made the areas where they exist. There is no reason that Bay street should be relegated to the status of a permanently boring pedestrian street that cars treat as an expressway.

[Taller, Better]

Retail on Yonge doesn't negate retail on Bay, and it will follow as population and demand increases, but right now focusing development on Yonge as opposed to duplicating it on Bay would be good for downtown. We need more money to be put into Yonge Street to give it a brush up and cleaning. Sure there should be some retail on Bay, but I see no need for it to be a second Yonge Street at the moment- maybe in 2050 when there are twice the people living here. What is wrong with a crowded main street? Most cities have one, and that is where the liveliest action is. I don't see anything wrong with a residential street being a little quiet... all streets don't need to be "dynamic".

[isaidso]

OK. We seem to be on the same page. I agree that more money and development is needed on Yonge and am not opposed to a crowded main street. Bay doesn't need to be another Yonge Street immediately, but my argument is that it shouldn't be prevented from starting the process. I do see Bay transforming rather more quickly than you do though. The Canadian Tire store and Best Buy was the first major push by retailing off the strip and on to Bay. It wouldn't surprise me if this was just the tip of the iceberg.

The Toronto boom seems to be stronger and more permanent than most people realize. Things have changed and we're probably seeing the most rapid intensification in this city's history.

I also agree that not all streets need to be dynamic, but Bay should probably develop into one. We're in no danger of being left with no quiet, activity specific streets.

[Taller, Better]

I doubt if there will be any prevention of Bay from having retail... I am assuming the podiums of most of these condos going up on Bay will all be retail-geared. ROCP 1&2 have provided new retail on the street. I agree that someday Bay will be more retail oriented than it is now, and so will little sidestreets like Wellesley, or Grosvenor.

[Sixrings]

the canadian tire was a extension of the eaton centre.. NOTHING MORE... its location does not suggest we need more retail along bay... We already have queen street yorkdale and young... IF money should be spent anywhere it should be to continue to revelope young street north of College to bloor..

[outinleftfield]

Umm, shouldn't this header now read "approved"?

[CrazyCanuck]

Look again.

[outinleftfield]

Thanks, man!:)

[caltrane74]

Tower 1 = 184 Meters

Tower 2 = 158 Meters?

do we have confirmation......?

[isaidso]

I doubt if there will be any prevention of Bay from having retail... I am assuming the podiums of most of these condos going up on Bay will all be retail-geared. ROCP 1&2 have provided new retail on the street. I agree that someday Bay will be more retail oriented than it is now, and so will little sidestreets like Wellesley, or Grosvenor.

It seems that way. I'm interested to see what type of retail goes in ROCP 1&2.

It would be nice to have a another department store brand downtown. Perhaps one day a Simons a few block north of the Canadian Tire store although they'd probably be more interested in Yorkville. The core will need a great deal more intensification first, but Bay has the scale to accommodate a huge amount of pedestrian volume.

[ScrapeTheSky]

Simons would be MOST welcome. Although if it came here, there goes my excuse to visit Montreal every so often! :P

Simons would need a very large, very prominent location. Yorkville doesn't seem right for Simons to me. Maybe 1 Bloor though.

[Taller, Better]

I have to be honest, in my humble opinion Simons has been sliding a lot in the last number of years. I've bought nothing there on my last four visits to the store. Used to have a great selection of men's clothing, but it is starting to look the same as the stuff at the Bay- pleasant, respectable but not exceptional, and there are only so many cable-knit sweaters I can fit on a shelf.
This is going to ruffle a lot of nationalistic feathers, but I would love to see a Bloomingdale's or Sak's open, or a Canadian outlet of Harrod's. THAT would get my blood pumping....

[Biudo]

...a Canadian outlet of Harrod's. THAT would get my blood pumping....

Um...Selfridges? If you wanna go Canadian.

Better yet, have the Bay move out of their Queen store and get Selfridges in. The Bay is wasting a beautiful building there.

[Taller, Better]

Selfridges would be nice too... I'm surprised Weston hasn't opened one yet. I have heard some say it would be competition for himself (Holt's), but I don't see it that way. But Selfridges could only handle a space even smaller than Holt's, let alone the huge Bay. Still would love to have a Bloomies or a Saks here- I'd love to have them take over the Sears store at Eaton Centre. And look forward to the day when Harry Winston opens a shop here seeing as this is where their headquarters is.

[isaidso]

Never thought of Selfridges, but it would make sense. The Weston's also own that Irish department store, Brown Thomas. Failing a Canadian owned chain moving in, there are a huge number of big successful department store chains around the world.

Everything from Galleries Lafayette of France, to Stockmann's of Finland, to one of the big Japanese chains like Mitsukoshi. If we want something entirely different, it would be an interesting idea to bring a European or Asian chain here. That would be much more intriguing than another North American chain.

[Taller, Better]

I think sometimes it is an issue of exclusivity... a store like Harrod's probably doesn't want to dilute the mystique by replicating all over the world ( I know there is one by the same name in Buenos Aires but it has no connection to the Harrod's in London). But I see no reason for a Selfridge's not to open.. they opened one in Manchester, and it is no more exclusive than Holt Renfrew. Harvey Nick's opened a branch in Leeds. One problem with European stores opening here is that the markup in North America is lower than in Europe, and sometimes they don't like that. That was the reason Marks and Spencers yanked out of Canada in a great cranky blubbering huff. I'd also love to see Weston make a free standing Fortnum and Mason's here, seeing as he owns it, but they can't even seem to get their act together to order tea in for the Holt's, for they are always sold out and always awaiting a shipment. However, if push came to shove and I had a choice betwixt a Simons and a Bloomingdales... I know which one I'd rather have.

[isaidso]

Holt's was a terrible mess when the Weston's bought it. They've managed to resusitate the brand, but more does need to be done. Holt's and Selfridge's do collaborate. The Weston's probably feel that they are becoming less distinct from each other, and the introduction of Selfridge's to Toronto might be more of a rival than a compliment to what they already offer. Fortnum and Mason is a more likely candidate.

It's more probable that a competitor moves in than another brand owned by the same people. There aren't too many department store firms that have successfully moved beyond their domestic market. I know that Debenham's is in about 20 countries, while Harvey Nichols is in a couple, as in Stockmann's, and Mitsukoshi.

Bloomingdale's? I'm not familiar with them, but they seem to have a great reputation. An American chain would probably have a leg up on other foreign firms since Canadians are very familiar with American brands due to proximity and cultural influences from the south. All I can say is that there should probably be another department store brand in Toronto within the next 10 years. We have the Bay and Sears in the mid-market, and Holt's occupying the high end.

Come to think of it, I've never been in a US department store. I heard good things about Macy's and Nordstrom's though. What ever happened to Canadian chain Les Ailes de la Mode. They imploded didn't they?

[metroboi_nay]

I'm tired of this "cast in shadows" remark made by the politicians here, man if NYC had used that word many times, it would look like Toronto. Yes Bay is residential but you keep building more and more and no stores where are all these people gonna go? Clog Yonge street and make the people there work harder. I think its fine retail on Bay, it works up in Yorkville.

[Taller, Better]

There were rumours for years that either Bloomies or Saks was sniffing around Toronto. I think it really requires a huge expansion push to get a national company to go international. Operating in Canada has different requirements (labelling, bilingual issues, etc... ) but if Tiffany's can do it, anyone can. Bloomingdale's is a marvelous store. Very dreamy! :)
The point about Selfridge's being a rival might be very true... but still would be nice to have one here. I doubt we'll ever see Harrod's come here... if they were to open an international store it probably would be in New York.

[Taller, Better]

I'm tired of this "cast in shadows" remark made by the politicians here, man if NYC had used that word many times, it would look like Toronto. Yes Bay is residential but you keep building more and more and no stores where are all these people gonna go? Clog Yonge street and make the people there work harder. I think its fine retail on Bay, it works up in Yorkville.

I think there is a myth that in New York anything can be built anywhere. City planning involvement and objections are just as strong as in Toronto. A difference is that in New York City there is a TON more money. More head offices with a kabillion dollars behind them that want to build supertalls,
and less land to build on. Manhattan is very small. To create a supply, you must have a demand, and supertalls are extremely expensive to build, and hard to justify unless a company is high profile. Witness what happened in Calgary with Encana; many people thought it would be the tallest building in Canada, but obviously the justification for such an expense was not there.

[babel]

Taller, Better: As an aside - The Tea Emporium in First Canadian Place ( and other locations ) carries a wide range of estate teas in case Holts doesn't have what you're looking for. I buy their black Milima GFBOP, from Kenya, as an all-day tea.

[Taller, Better]

Thanks Babel... I will give that a whirl! :cheers:

[isaidso]

Can you get Lapsang Souchong anywhere? Twinings offer it, but it's so hard to find. As far as British department stores go, I'd much rather have Selfridge's than Harrod's. Apart from their food hall, Harrod's is abit of a stuffy bore.

Saks or Bloomingdale's would be the most logical new entrants. I'm sure they are both watching Toronto with increasing interest. Toronto represents the best untapped market for both of these firms. We're geographically close, culturally similar, and one of the biggest markets on the continent.

Another interesting possibility if Holt's continue to prosper, is a move beyond Canada. They are reaching saturation in Canada, doing many things right to become a formidable rival to the world's high end department store companies, and have very deep pocketed owners. A Holts in New York, Tokyo, or Shanghai? They'll have to start thinking internationally sooner or later.

[koolio]

They're gonna have to start in some lower profile markets before breaking into NY and Tokyo right away.

[babel]

isaidso: You can buy good Lapsang Souchong in the Chinese specialty tea store on the east side of Broadview just south of Gerrard. I bought a small tin of it quite some time ago, and sometimes add a small pinch of it to whatever tea I happen to be making, but it's actually a bit too strong for my tastes.

[isaidso]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

They're gonna have to start in some lower profile markets before breaking into NY and Tokyo right away.

Markets like New York and Tokyo represent their best chance for success though. Going to places like Boston first doesn't make sense since they aren't big enough to sustain a sizable number of entrants in the high end segment of the market.

Granted, Holt's will have to up their game and reputation internationally before venturing into foreign markets.

St. Michael's. What is the timeline on this project?

[Johnzz]

Any word regarding sales launch, pricing, etc...?

[vancouverite/to'er]

I'll second that. Website?

[Rapid]

That is my favorite place in Toronto. Walking through St. Mikes onto Bay has this feel I can't describe. I hope a couple of 500ft towers don't detract from it, but it is Bay street.

I make that walk atleast 5 times a week. It's VERY windy sometimes.

[Johnzz]

The new kid on the block gets a rough ride
The fans and foes of skyscrapers lock horns once again, this time over a church parking lot
JOHN BENTLEY MAYS

jmays@globeandmail.com

May 2, 2008

Toronto's most recent public dust-up over a residential high-rise proposal - this time slated to gobble up a parking lot on the campus of St. Michael's College (an affiliate of the University of Toronto) - featured the usual combatants.

On the side of college officials and the developers - dukes up - stood city councillor Kyle Rae, foe of above-ground parking lots in the downtown core and a vocal fan of inner-city skyscrapers.

On the opposing side was an aggrieved citizens' group, in this instance, the clergy and parishioners at St. Basil's, the college church. They were offended by what they took to be the disregard for their opinions by the college and the city, and irritated by the sell-off and impending loss of their large parking lot.

The critics of tall-building aesthetics were also on hand: The Reverend Paul McGill, a priest at St. Basil's, told a reporter that the proposed towers - 45 and 55 storeys, respectively - were "sterile" and "monstrous." After city council approved the plan, a parishioner at St. Basil's said: "We have to look at our options, but it's definitely not over."

Whatever the merits of the parishioners' argument that they were given the brush-off by city and college officials, the continuing controversy at St. Michael's College pinpoints a number of issues that deserve attention.

One of them has to do with parking lots. The parishioners may not like it, but all above-ground parking lots in downtown Toronto are doomed. And they will stay doomed, so long as our cash-strapped city reaps fat fees from developers of residential towers, and these developers, as they are required to do, provide financial support for much-needed community projects, parks and other amenities.

But there are good public-policy reasons that we should be glad to see the end of parking lots, including the one at St. Mike's. They are environmentally unfriendly eyesores, bleak expanses of gravel or asphalt that fray the urban fabric. The convenience they provide for drivers is far better handled by underground garages. Also, parking lots unfortunately encourage people to drive into our congested downtown, and discourage use of public transit - which, incidentally, serves St. Michael's College and St. Basil's Church very well.

The college is making provision for parking in a lot across the street, at least on Sundays, which is as it should be: Elderly and infirm parishioners must not be disadvantaged by the college's determination to develop its site. All others can walk or cycle or take the TTC.

As a practising Catholic, I would probably agree with Father McGill on most religious matters. But I find his opinions about architecture extreme and beside the point. Designed by the omnipresent mid-career Toronto architect Peter Clewes, the two point-towers will almost certainly be neither "sterile" nor "monstrous." Mr. Clewes does tall glass and steel condo buildings that, so far, have been good examples of austere and elegant architectural modernism, and solid building-blocks in a city in need of repair. Though you never can tell what architects are going to do next, I don't expect Mr. Clewes's design strategy to swerve suddenly into the horrific at this point. At least when it comes to art, St. Michael's surely has very little to fear.

The towers pose yet another and more interesting problem.

The university, along with many of its friends in the community, have opposed the erection of large new buildings on the mostly low-rise and mid-rise campus, except at the edges that directly abut the downtown fabric. And even on the campus outskirts, the structures have not been very tall.

But let's say the Bay Street site of St. Michael's College qualifies as one of the university's edge conditions, and the scheme proceeds as planned. Towers standing 45 and 55 storeys tall on the fringe of the campus would certainly not seem foreign in their urban context, which includes several high buildings. Seen in the academic context, on the other hand - low-rise, compact little St. Mike's - the towers will probably seem audaciously big.

Yet the college and the condo complex will have one thing in common: Each represents the thought of its time about what new buildings should look like, and, together, they comprise a record of architectural ideas in modern times.

In the case of the college, this thinking has passed through several phases, from the mid-Victorian Gothic revival style of St. Basil's Church to the 1960s precast concrete "institutional-lite" manner of the John M. Kelly Library.

For their part, the towers will present to the city and the university a still later version of architectural thinking, as it's been developed by designers seeking a simple, economical, contemporary skyscraper style.

I hope the towers and the college learn to co-exist peacefully. St. Michael's has long been, and Mr. Clewes' high-rises will probably be, notable contributions to the evolving landscape of downtown Toronto.

[Taller, Better]

They might lose their large parking lot.
My heart bleeds for them.

[CrazyCanuck]

I like how Mays was rational and didn't just jump to the side of the church here, good on him.

[Grey Towers]

I hope the project isn't watered down to appease the naysayers. Has a construction date been announced?

[Taller, Better]

One would think the Christian attitude would be to want to help mankind by facilitating housing... not to be attempting to scuttle projects in order to keep a nice big parking lot for themselves.

[CrazyCanuck]

Does the parking lot really get used other then on Sundays anyways?

[Taller, Better]

It is a hideous eyesore, and a complete waste of space. If the Church wants to remain a vital part of modern day life downtown, it has to be a bit more aware than it appears to be on this issue.

[isaidso]

^^They do seem to get awkwardly out of step with the modern world. Ignoring the world, as it is today, won't make it go away. They're infinitely better off embracing it and finding their place in it. Re-invention is what makes one resilient and able to stand the test of time. Look at Cher. :)

I'm not even religious, and I'm giving them advice. :weird:

[The 'Sauga]

The official name of this condo is now: U condominiums

http://www.ucondominiums.ca/

[Johnzz]

The official name of this condo is now: U condominiums

http://www.ucondominiums.ca/

Great, thanks!!!

[current]

July 25

From Bay St.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2704782574_a278b38986_b.jpg

They are starting to build the sales office on the parking lot off Bay just southeast of the church buildings.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2704782592_38ab19eb05_b.jpg

[Canadian Chocho]

:eek2: wow!

[Marco Polo]

I like this bamboo design. It is fresh.

[iliamo]

I don't get it. The black columns that go through the tower make it look hollow..? Someone explain how it works?

[isaidso]

It may just be a render, but the black columns are supposed to evoke images of the forest. I'm hoping it's actually going to be a design feature where they cleverly use colour and beams to give the illusion of trees in winter.

There seems to be some activity on the site.

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z133/markus919/2008/DSCN3381.jpg

Anyone want some bricks?

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z133/markus919/2008/DSCN3380.jpg
Posted by casaguy at urbantoronto

[CrazyCanuck]

I have a feeling that those beams won't actually go through the tower. They will stop at the base and some fancy facade work with carry them upwards.

[Taller, Better]

If it is built as shown, it will be a spectacular downtown tower. I am so happy that they did not build back in the 80's when those applications for zoning variance were first posted. I am sure this is a much nicer building than would have been built back then.

[isaidso]

It's something I've thought about lately too. It's better that we are going through our big construction boom now, rather than back then. Tower design is more sophisticated, and building standards are infinitely higher today. I'm not saying that there weren't some great towers built back then, but we got a lot of buildings like those 2 towers at Yonge and Bloor.

If the block where 1 Bloor East is being built was developed in the '70's, we might have ended up with something like that Bay building.

[Fastwalking]

It may just be a render, but the black columns are supposed to evoke images of the forest. I'm hoping it's actually going to be a design feature where they cleverly use colour and beams to give the illusion of trees in winter.

There seems to be some activity on the site.

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z133/markus919/2008/DSCN3381.jpg

Posted by casaguy at urbantoronto


Hey great, some more blue glass buildings. We dont have many of those. The black painted lines would make them really stand out though, dont you think? Honestly, the architectual innovation of this project is just inspiring.

[Taller, Better]

Again, I think the renderings tend to make all glass buildings look greenish or blue because of the blue
sky that is always used. To me this doesn't look like it will be a "blue" building.

[DrT]

That "bamboo effect" has to be only decorative on the cladding, not real beams or real structural like this:


http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4577/hearsttowernycbyfosterea5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Hearst Building NYC -- Sir Norman Foster, Architect.

[vancouverite/to'er]

Again, I think the renderings tend to make all glass buildings look greenish or blue because of the blue
sky that is always used. To me this doesn't look like it will be a "blue" building.

What idea colour/shade did you have in mind? Just curious:)

[isaidso]

That "bamboo effect" has to be only decorative on the cladding, not real beams or real structural

You're likely right there, but real beams or structural would be infinitely more beautiful and sophisticated. If they are brash and bold enough to go that extra step, I'll be pleasantly surprised. It will still be beautiful, but many steps down from what could have been. It would be refreshing to see truly breathtaking beauty in design, but we usually get something many rungs below that. The Beijing opening ceremonies brought home that truth all too clearly.

Many think the standard here is high, but it's only high relative to what we are used to. Maybe Beijing will open people's eyes to how beautiful design can be. If you're used to stunning or can imagine it in your mind, anything less is always going to be a disappointment. It's a curse in some respects.

Can we have a 'wow' building please? A decorative cladding isn't wow, even if they think it is. Perhaps, that's the problem.

[Taller, Better]

What idea colour/shade did you have in mind? Just curious:)

Who knows.. impossible to tell from those blue sky renderings. Maybe clear to pale greenish glass. I think those are balconies, but it is so hard to read on that tiny picture.

[DrT]

It would be refreshing to see truly breathtaking beauty in design, but we usually get something many rungs below that. The Beijing opening ceremonies brought home that truth all too clearly.

I was thinking exactly the same thing last night watching the opening ceremonies in Beijing.

The "Birdnest" stadium is stunning. Someone threw out the word "intimidating", which is how I felt looking at the architecture there.

Of course we cannot make the average condo in that class of building, but it should inspire us to try harder in the esthetics and technology departments of architecture. Open our eyes to what can be.

[isaidso]

It's quite telling that someone would describe the Beijing Stadium as 'intimidating'. It speaks to the design sensibilities of that person. The Chinese are used to things done on a massive grand scale. A culture thousands of years old has enriched Chinese society immensely in terms of design, food, architecture, and almost every other facet in life.

Understanding China, goes a long way to understanding why they build breathtaking buildings. It also goes a long way in understanding why Canadians, in general, do not. That we are a young nation should never be an excuse or the end of the discussion. Humans are all born with the same eyes, desires, and creativity. We may not share the Chinese experience, but we certainly don't need to be Chinese to share in those other characteristics that we all naturally possess.

China is fascinating to us because to understand China, makes self reflection that much more insightful. They are so different from us. What does that say about them? What does that say about us? The whole process of observation and self evaluation is very rewarding. The contrast in cultures will ensure that China remains a nation people around the world will continue to marvel at.

With respect to the built form, it's ok to want more, expect more, and push for more. Resisting that desire is an admission that you're not prepared to change or evolve. Maybe one day it will be the Chinese having this discussion about Canadians. The answer to that depends on our interest in exploring and creating.

[current]

Renderings posted last year by The 'Sauga

New renderings of revised version of the development:

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6379/stm2ai6.jpg

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/93/stm3vw4.jpg

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4738/stm4fa2.jpg

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7664/stm5sx5.jpg

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9407/stm6db2.jpg

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/1705/stm7pe5.jpg

[isaidso]

These renders would suggest that it is, in fact, beams and the actual structure that gives the 'bamboo' effect. If they are beams and not decorative cladding, I am very impressed and gives me great optimism for the future.

[Waterloo_Guy]

Why are the heights in the thread title unknown? I thought we knew.

[vancouverite/to'er]

I love the courtyard rendering. Brilliant.
Can anyone fill me in on whether 67 Nicholas St. will get approved?

[Ziggy]

Why are the heights in the thread title unknown? I thought we knew.

They will be 184m and 154m
source: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-10219.pdf

[Johnzz]

I wonder if the developers are now madly cutting back asking prices for these units before next months launch...

The condominium climate in Toronto seems to have changed quite quickly.

[drummer]

They've posted prices from low $300,000....but that could easily mean 1+1 bedroom with parking going for at least $400,000.

[Johnzz]

Of course this area is great and the buildings look very sharp. I'm just not sure how many more $700/sqft 1 bedrooms this market can absorb at the moment...

[Grey Towers]

The listing in today's Star only mentions the smaller tower. Has the other been scrapped?

[vancouverite/to'er]

shit...
can someone check UT for me? I'm too scared to hear if it's bit the dust..

[Grey Towers]

Hopefully just an accidental omission.

[vancouverite/to'er]

I checked UT actually and there's no info about any plans changing. In fact they're getting ready to move the cars out of the lot:)

[DrT]

Of course this area is great and the buildings look very sharp. I'm just not sure how many more $700/sqft 1 bedrooms this market can absorb at the moment...

Ouch.

I do not think that developers can cut back on the selling prices much and still make a profit. The reality is that we have inflation in materials and labor costs, and that most of the new developments are high end ("the best of everything"). Very few projects are advertised as "average" for "the average working stiff". Buyers, as a group, suffer from "expectation inflation" and cannot see themselves as average or mediocre. Most are built to appeal to those who aspire to airs of "exclusivity".

Have you seen any projects that advertise mica countertops lately?

[Johnzz]

I'm guessing that, given the market slow down, the developers will try to sell one building before marketing the other.

In my opinion, Pemberton would be better off putting the whole project on hold for a couple years rather then struggle with slow sales in the current climate. A stalled project, once started, could be deadly.

A great development/location, just ill timed...

[Taller, Better]

I'm not convinced this is a slow market. It may have cooled from record levels, but getting back to normal doesn't make a slow market unless people all start panicking.
Here is a link to a thread talking about Housing starts jumping, lead by Ontario (and specifically Toronto)-
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=691126&page=2

[valantino]

Of course this area is great and the buildings look very sharp. I'm just not sure how many more $700/sqft 1 bedrooms this market can absorb at the moment

There's a huge difference between absorb and sell when refering to the market.

[Taller, Better]

They advertised heavily in today's Globe and Star.

[Johnzz]

I'm not convinced this is a slow market.

TB, At the moment, the market is in "stand still" mode. What I'm worried about is what will happen over the next two months. With ongoing corporate bankruptcies and global wealth destruction of unprecedented levels, I don't see how Toronto can just revert back to "normal" markets.

Don't get me wrong, I own a dozen rental properties in Yorkville so I do have a vested interest. The only glimmer of short term hope for Toronto is that it doesn't have the inflated prices of say Calgary or Vancouver.

I think 5 years from now, we should be ok. It's just, at the moment, we're about to face the mother of all storms...

If corporate executives don't already see this, they will soon get burned.

[Taller, Better]

TB, At the moment, the market is in "stand still" mode. .

But, what about the report here, in post 24 by Ziggy:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=691126&page=2

in part it says:
"Housing starts jump, led by Ontario

JOHN PARTRIDGE

Globe and Mail Update

September 9, 2008 at 9:36 AM EDT

Housing starts rebounded sharply in August, with the seasonally adjusted annual rate jumping to 211,000 units from 186,500 in July, far outstripping Bay Street forecasts of about 190,000, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. said Tuesday.

Ontario accounted for the entire gain, with starts in the country's most populous province climbing 81 per cent to 86,500 from 47,800 in July, but falling in every other region, CMHC said.

The agency attributed the rebound mostly to multiple-unit starts, with those in urban areas jumping 25.2 per cent to 114,700 units, after falling 20.2 per cent in July.

“After a brief pause in July, the volatile multiple segment bounced back to a level of activity that is more consistent with our forecast for this year,” CMHC chief economist Bob Dugan said in a news release. “Most of the volatility in housing starts over the last three months reflected swings in multiple starts in Ontario.”

[Johnzz]

Yes, but I'm not so sure housing starts are the best method to gauge current market conditions. I think the lag is at least 6 months between condo sales and building starts...

[InTheBeach]

No correlation whatsoever IMO.

Housing starts are a rear view mirror stat since they are reflecting sales that took place months/years ago.

[PORTRUSH1998]

I understand that they are advertising heavily and booking previews. Has anyone heard anything on prices and floorplans?

[Taller, Better]

I'm a bit worried for this one... been a long time in the pipes, but might have come at a bad economic time. Ditto for ICE.

[urban 2.0]

... the newspapers must be happy! ... get ready for thick condo sections again!

[taal]

I'm a bit worried too but I think the demand is still there so we shouldn't be worried. It's the smaller projects that'll get axed first ... smaller projects in up and coming neighborhoods. ICE might get an AXE from the city though but that's another matter.

[CrazyCanuck]

It won't be that sudden, people are still buying. Just watch for less and less project announcements, that's all.

[Sid_toronto]

i'm from St.Mike's at UofT and as much as i love Hi-rises it sucks to see it being build on our campus.

[isaidso]

It's not realistic to expect anything smaller on Bay Street. If anything, Bay Street will get denser, taller, and much busier over the next 20 years. It wouldn't surprise me to see almost as much pedestrian traffic on Bay one day as exists on Yonge today. Indigo and the Canadian Tire are probably just the tip of the iceberg.

In the not too distant future, the University of Toronto will be a low density oasis of green hemmed in on all sides by a wall of towers. The Manhattanization of Toronto has only just begun.

[Sid_toronto]

yeah i guess, just as long as they leave the campus alone, it's too historic and beautiful.

[isaidso]

I couldn't imagine that they'd want to touch the campus.

U of T will have to accept that it's situated in one of the fastest developing swaths of land on the planet. I'm actually looking forward to the contrast that is developing between the campus and the surrounding city. Extreme density next to extreme tranquility. It's what makes areas next to Central Park in NYC so spectacular.

[Sid_toronto]

True, Bay, Bloor, and maybe even spadina should get filled up pretty soon.

[Taller, Better]

It is not intended to touch the campus - it will be filling up that ugly parking lot that exists now.

[Jaborandi]

It is not intended to touch the campus - it will be filling up that ugly parking lot that exists now.

Only a few years ago, that ugly parking lot was a lovely green playing field. It was St. Mike's which paved it over just as it was St. Mikes that sold it for development.

[current]

November 10

The sales office is open.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/3030775780_13707ddbcf_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/3030775782_c9a987032f_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3210/3030775786_87c5f5ae28_b.jpg

[DrT]

^^
I stumbled upon the sales "trailer" the other day and thought "Wow!"
Very fancy and nice looking sales office.
Seems like marketing is becoming more and more crucial for these developers.
Great pics as always current.

[isaidso]

I wonder if they'd let me have that 'U' when they're done with it.

[Taller, Better]

It is a cool U and must have cost a pretty penny to fabricate.

[Northern Lotus]

I was at the show room yesterday. It was empty. Plenty of units to choose from. The sales lady said that this is the only condo selling in the city. I am not so sure about that.
Floor plans are well designed but the finishing materials are not top grade. No granite floor or counter top finishes for the bathrooms or kitchen. Average price is around $650-700 psf.

Not sure it is a good time to buy as the market is expecting to crash.

Floor plans can be viewed at www.ucondominiums.ca