10 Lower Spadina

Developer: Arkfield Development
Architect: BDP Quadrangle
  
Address: 10 Lower Spadina Ave, Toronto
Category: Residential (Unspecified), Commercial
Status: Pre-ConstructionCompletion: TBD
Height: 536 ft / 163.26 mStoreys: 49 storeys
Project Forum 71 posts
Real Estate Forum
Follow 3 followingUpload 24 photos
Official WebsiteReport Error


Toronto 10 Lower Spadina | 163.26m | 49s | Arkfield | BDP Quadrangle

jmi22 said:
They are absolutely of a past architectural era, but honestly the street level is not terrible. Small, frequent storefronts with adequate sidewalk space for covered patios is not something we get in a lot of modern developments. A recladding in a warmer colour (633 Bay comes to mind) would probably make them decent enough to look at
Click to expand...
Agreed. Re-designing or renovation of older condos and apartments could be more viable than what ppl thinks.

In 2021, the French architect duo won the Pritzker Prize for their work on re-designing and renovating old apartments and social housing.

Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal | The Pritzker Architecture Prize

www.pritzkerprize.com

Obviously not remotely the same as Lakeshore properties tended to be higher end even if they are older, but it is still highly viable to make them look nice and up-to-date.

(This is my long-winded way to agree with you).
 
jmi22 said:
They are absolutely of a past architectural era, but honestly the street level is not terrible. Small, frequent storefronts with adequate sidewalk space for covered patios is not something we get in a lot of modern developments. A recladding in a warmer colour (633 Bay comes to mind) would probably make them decent enough to look at
Click to expand...
Yes, reclad that 1980’s concrete building, but how do you do that with all those jutting out, bubble-like windows/balcony. That’s the real eyesore. Needs to be revitalized, polished up, w some redesign, if that ever happens. The address is 460-480 Queens Quay btw.
Definitely past architectural era-Not a fan. But same architect, Erickson, who designed the much nicer Roy Thompson Hall.
 
christiesplits said:

Overshadowing an architectural jewel? Here’s why residents are fighting a 49-storey condo on Toronto’s waterfront​

Overshadowing an architectural jewel? Here’s why residents are fighting a 49-storey condo on Toronto’s waterfront

Regarded as a landmark project when it was built in 1985, it included amenities that now seem part of a bygone era in Toronto.
www.thestar.com
Click to expand...

The above article merits some excerpts:

In reference to the headline:

1740061968534.png


In reference to this proposal and to one of the concerns raised about it:

1740062019252.png


I think the STR concern is a valid one, but not tied to height. Its not rigidly tied to unit size either, so though studios/ small 1 beds do show greater tendency to be used this way.

Also....514ft2 is not a one bedroom, even if you met some technical requirement, that is functionally a studio. I'm not remotely entertaining the notion that 1brdm is smaller than 600ft2.

****

On the timeline here:

1740062189630.png


On the other site next door:

1740062229034.png


On amenity space;

1740062292729.png


I have no problem with less amenity space, but I want something back for it..............say affordable rental housing.

***

Traffic/pedestrian congestion at the intersection is also discussed.

As is...shadowing......of major parks. (HtO, Canoe Landing)

Toronto legend Ken Greenberg is quoted as having an unfavourable view of the tower, because towers are becoming a monoculture. (I'm summarizing)

Finally, the councillor gives some suggestion that she's not unsympathetic with some of the concerns.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Also....514ft2 is not a one bedroom, even if you meant some technical requirement, that is functionally a studio. I'm not remotely entertaining the notion that 1brdm is smaller than 600ft2.
Click to expand...
I see where you are coming from but I kinda disagree.... I am living in 500-ish sqft one bedroom. I was living in one other 500-ish one bedrooms before.... I felt like 500 sqft is probably a one bedroom, since the ones with good layout actually will have a real bedroom with a real door and window.

Anything below 500 sqft are usually fake one bedrooms (ones with a wall cutouts inside a shoebox), which I have lived in a few as well.

I do think living space can be a bit bigger, but saying 500 sqft are studios kinda invalidates my experience :/
 
Tyrang said:
I see where you are coming from but I kinda disagree.... I am living in 500-ish sqft one bedroom. I was living in one other 500-ish one bedrooms before.... I felt like 500 sqft is probably a one bedroom, since the ones with good layout actually will have a real bedroom with a real door and window.

Anything below 500 sqft are usually fake one bedrooms (ones with a wall cutouts inside a shoebox), which I have lived in a few as well.

I do think living space can be a bit bigger, but saying 500 sqft are studios kinda invalidates my experience :/
Click to expand...

For me, the key isn't really the ft2, its the functionality for most people, but ft2 generally is required to provide that.

My criteria:

There must be sufficient kitchen space, including cupboards and counters to allow someone to regularly cook their own meals.

There must be a dedicated dining space. (people are free to repurpose this if they want to eat leaning over a counter or via a TV Tray....but there should be room to seat 4 at a table.

There must be a real bedroom.

There must be sufficient storage space (walk in closet, coat closet etc.) that someone living lightly does not require offsite storage.

That strikes me as very difficult to deliver in ~500ft2.
 
Northern Light said:
For me, the key isn't really the ft2, its the functionality for most people, but ft2 generally is required to provide that.

My criteria:

There must be sufficient kitchen space, including cupboards and counters to allow someone to regularly cook their own meals.

There must be a dedicated dining space. (people are free to repurpose this if they want to eat leaning over a counter or via a TV Tray....but there should be room to seat 4 at a table.

There must be a real bedroom.

There must be sufficient storage space (walk in closet, coat closet etc.) that someone living lightly does not require offsite storage.

That strikes me as very difficult to deliver in ~500ft2.
Click to expand...
So from my exp in the 500 sqft condo units, most of these can be covered. Kitchen comes fairly standard in my experience - four stoves, sink, full-size fridge, dish washer. Full-size pantry kinda depends, but usually I don't expect it.

Table for four is kinda tough, I never had a setup for four ppl at dining table. But I think it could be done if I get a bit more creative with the right furniture, and if I am ok with a bit more clustering (which I hate).

Walk-in closet is pretty unrealistic for most one bedroom condo,. I don't even expect to see one in a two bedrooms.

My 550-ish sqft condo from before had small a den while also having a real bedroom. It is not big enough for anything other than a work area. I think this is a common setup.

Anyways, I think different ppl have different expectations and requirements. I have never married but have lived with partners multiple times. Usually 500 sqft 1 bdrm does the trick but it is definitely a bit tight.

Maybe that's because I have actually live in a shoebox with a fake bedroom before.
 
christiesplits said:

Overshadowing an architectural jewel? Here’s why residents are fighting a 49-storey condo on Toronto’s waterfront​

Overshadowing an architectural jewel? Here’s why residents are fighting a 49-storey condo on Toronto’s waterfront

Regarded as a landmark project when it was built in 1985, it included amenities that now seem part of a bygone era in Toronto.
www.thestar.com
Click to expand...
Maybe in its day, but King’s Landing is no “architectural jewel” presently. Some type of makeover is needed on that one.
 
Northern Light said:
View attachment 632024

I think the STR concern is a valid one, but not tied to height. Its not rigidly tied to unit size either, so though studios/ small 1 beds do show greater tendency to be used this way.
Click to expand...
Beyond the other issues I have with the opponents to this building, trying to regulate what a condo owner does within their own unit on a wholly different property from yours... is insane? Maybe they would also like to dictate the curtain colours in units within 560 Queens Quay?
 
jmi22 said:
Beyond the other issues I have with the opponents to this building, trying to regulate what a condo owner does within their own unit on a wholly different property from yours... is insane?
Click to expand...

I completely disagree on this one, as I support banning Short Term Rentals completely. That would add thousands upon thousands of units of long term rental housing supply to the market, which would result in lower rents and less of a supply crunch.

Units designed to be investor boxes that will likely become STR or being held vacant not only doesn't help the housing market and doesn't house very many people, if any, what it does is create issues like 'Chair Girl' over at ICE who could easily have killed someone throwing a chair off a high balcony...

That building is heavily STR, and there are plenty of posters here to tell you that qualify of life for those trying to be legitimate residents is not good.

From misbehavior of all sorts to endless (mostly false) fire alarms to perpetual waits for elevators that are entirely unreasonable.

Sure, some of these opponents are just Rich Nimbys...........absolutely.......... but that doesn't preclude them from having some legitimate concerns.

I agree, this building, as proposed, is not desirable, and does not represent good planning, just greed.

jmi22 said:
Maybe they would also like to dictate the curtain colours in units within 560 Queens Quay?
Click to expand...

You're being silly w/that comment...........but just for fun, I'll point out that there are condos in the City where the colour of window treatments is controlled by the condo corp, as the developer and architect envisioned, for the building's exterior appearance.

See Fashion House by Freed.

I actually dislike that level of micro management, but worth pointing out it exists.
 
A condo board regulating its own residents decorations is completely normal, the joke was residents presumably from Kings Landing trying to dictate the blinds of a wholly separate building down the street.

I am no fan of short term rentals either, and recently moved due to some new tenants below my unit who were quite terrible. I understand wanting to keep a lid on these things, but that is something to be worked out at a policy level (ie a city wide STR ban). Trying to stop a development from proceeding because it *might* have condo buyers who *might* lease out their units on Airbnb is just a defenceless argument. If such a concern is enough to justify the canning of this tower, than most of the towers built in the last 20 years should have never happened.

Not to get too sidetracked, but I think a citywide STR ban could be reasonable if hotel development was allowed city wide. The current pattern of hotels near the airport/400 series highways and smack dab downtown, but no where else is bad and makes the cost of staying in Toronto wildly higher than it should be. As much as these STR's suck for normal residents of buildings, they are responding to a very real, and very large demand that current zoning prohibits meeting in a proper, regulated manner
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top
NEWSDATABASEMAPFORUM DASHBOARD SERVICESUTProLOG IN
CITIES