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

tracy11brunel said:
I thought the area there was only zoned for buldings with a Max height of 25 stories. Were they successful in changing the zone already? I couldn't find anything on the current status of the appication. What happened at the Jan 9th meeting? Was it approved? Sadly I missed it.
I live in the tower directly behind the site and had no idea this was going on! I had not recived any notice and only saw the sign on the building as I walked by this weekend. The sign must have recently went up when the startbucks closed. I am cetain many more residents from my building woukd have attended if they knew.
Click to expand...
Zoning isn’t a static thing. It changes and evolves over time to comply with Provincial policy and the Official Plan. A site zoned for 25 meters today could be rezoned as long as it complies with the overarching policies. For example, 11 Brunel wouldn’t exist today if they didn’t rezone the land.

The meeting was a community consultation. The decision happens at council, and the date isn’t set yet.
 
Branden Simon said:
They are opposing the 49-Storey tower and it will cause several issues on road and nearby buildings.

https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/2...osing-49-storey-tower-at-the-foot-of-spadina/

Click to expand...
Open the video - I felt like I have seen this before.... but let's not judge yet.

"Building is too tall...." - That's fair, it's a bit taller than the norm here.

"Traffic...." - maybe? I can't really see one building would cause all the traffic, but I can see why this could be concerning. But this is going down a really familiar direction....

"And all the contractors and construction trucks...." - NIMBYs lol.

Close the video.

Anyways, just improve the design and maybe lower the height a bit and we are good to go.
 
Tyrang said:
Open the video - I felt like I have seen this before.... but let's not judge yet.

"Building is too tall...." - That's fair, it's a bit taller than the norm here.

"Traffic...." - maybe? I can't really see one building would cause all the traffic, but I can see why this could be concerning. But this is going down a really familiar direction....

"And all the contractors and construction trucks...." - NIMBYs lol.

Close the video.

Anyways, just improve the design and maybe lower the height a bit and we are good to go.
Click to expand...
Hilarious, these morons decided to live at SPADINA AND QUEENS QUAY and are mad about tall buildings. Maybe next week we will have some Yonge and King residents complain about new office towers in the area.
 
Exactly, height is fine but the tower itself is so meh. Should really be something spectacular situated at such a prominent place on the waterfront and the start so to speak of one of the city's greatest streets
 
jmi22 said:
Hilarious, these morons decided to live at SPADINA AND QUEENS QUAY and are mad about tall buildings. Maybe next week we will have some Yonge and King residents complain about new office towers in the area.
Click to expand...

There's a whole line of 12 storey condos next to the site. This building is out of context with its neighbours. The height is not out of context with development of the past 10 years which creates this conflict. A 49 storey tower with minimal property setbacks along its entire heights that squeezes in 511 units in a point tower is a major step backwards in what Erickson envisioned for Kings Landing. I just feel its ironic to label people morons or NIMBYs for having issues with developers pushing higher and higher boundaries and the ones throwing labels are exclusive to height enthusiasm and how many people you can cram in a block. The opposition's comes across as better community builders.

This tower could have an internationally heralded skin. It doesn't change really all that much about the proposal. It's investor driven mediocrity. It's not that out of context with what has been recently approved so I don't hold it against the owner/manager upping their value.
 
maestro said:
There's a whole line of 12 storey condos next to the site. This building is out of context with its neighbours. The height is not out of context with development of the past 10 years which creates this conflict. A 49 storey tower with minimal property setbacks along its entire heights that squeezes in 511 units in a point tower is a major step backwards in what Erickson envisioned for Kings Landing. I just feel its ironic to label people morons or NIMBYs for having issues with developer pushing higher and higher boundaries and the ones throwing labels are exclusive to height enthusiasm and how many people you can cram in a block. The opposition's comes across as better community builders.

This tower could have an internationally heralded skin. It doesn't change really all that much about the proposal. It's not that out of context with what has been recently approved so I don't hold it against the ownership trying.
Click to expand...
You want to talk about context????

The 12 storey condo, when built, was intensely out of context with the surrounding height precedents, land use and lot coverage typical of the waterfront. It was an area of low rise, heavy industry, the redevelopment of which set a ground breaking precedent for the redevelopment of lands previously deemed quite literally unhabitable. Subject site circled in blue, you may note the RAIL YARD, SHIPPING DOCKS AND PETROCHEMICAL STORAGE TANKS in close proximity.
1739731747275.png
1739732187084.png


Your qualms over the massing indicate not an issue with this tower in specific, but a distaste for what a city is. Building to property lines is the norm in cities, units themselves are not over-crowded, servicing is off-street and efficient and surrounding amenities plentiful.

There is nothing "crammed" about this, unless your ideal built form is something along the lines of Bramalea Town Centre. Toronto has been crippling its potential for 40 years bending over to people who hate the very concept of a city. There are countless small towns across Ontario where one can live out their fantasy of bucolic village life, why so many feel the need to enforce it on everyone else trying to live in the middle of the 4th largest city on the continent I don't know.
 

Attachments

  • 1739732166420.png
    1739732166420.png
    777.1 KB · Views: 36
maestro said:
There's a whole line of 12 storey condos next to the site. This building is out of context with its neighbours. The height is not out of context with development of the past 10 years which creates this conflict. A 49 storey tower with minimal property setbacks along its entire heights that squeezes in 511 units in a point tower is a major step backwards in what Erickson envisioned for Kings Landing. I just feel its ironic to label people morons or NIMBYs for having issues with developers pushing higher and higher boundaries and the ones throwing labels are exclusive to height enthusiasm and how many people you can cram in a block. The opposition's comes across as better community builders.

This tower could have an internationally heralded skin. It doesn't change really all that much about the proposal. It's investor driven mediocrity. It's not that out of context with what has been recently approved so I don't hold it against the owner/manager upping their value.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the video?

The tower can drop a bit in height - I think most of us agrees. Those opposition in question did not come from the perspective of building a community, they are using classic NIMBY argument when they have a problem with construction crew. Therefore, it is hard to take them seriously.

I think you should watch first if you haven't.
 
10 Lower Spadina? Fine. Now please do the site next door, 260, 270, 280 Queens Quay, all one unsightly bizarre behemoth by the waterfront.
Not only the 2nd incredibly drab structure on that street, (the 1st being “the 3 ugly sisters” appropriately nicknamed) but maybe the worst in T.O. Those buildings just ruin the much improved harbourfront experience-by car, walking or cycling.
 
I think this development would be better suited if it fit in with its neighbours a bit better, or at least stood out enough to be something to marvel at. I don't get the logic of what makes this, according to the developers, a "landmark tower," other than the fact that it's the tallest thing around. It's ugly and basic.
 
I'd happily accept something like One Delisle or UofT Academic Wood Tower here but it is just glaringly obvious this is just the typical run-of-the-mill Toronto condo with the overdone balcony arrangement that we see everywhere from The Charles to Yonge and Rich. Only exacerbated by the their hollow attempts to defend it at the consultation tbh.
 
Skyhighzz said:
10 Lower Spadina? Fine. Now please do the site next door, 260, 270, 280 Queens Quay, all one unsightly bizarre behemoth by the waterfront.
Not only the 2nd incredibly drab structure on that street, (the 1st being “the 3 ugly sisters” appropriately nicknamed) but maybe the worst in T.O. Those buildings just ruin the much improved harbourfront experience-by car, walking or cycling.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top
NEWSDATABASEMAPFORUM DASHBOARD SERVICESUTProLOG IN
CITIES