Toronto 365 Church Condos | 102.1m | 31s | Menkes | Wallman Architects

I bet it's not going to get approved for 25 storeys, and they end up selling the land to Ryerson at a loss, but they'll have the honour of having the building named after them. Deal, no deal ?


for the record, i too believe that this will not get approved at 25 storeys. and as much as it pains me to agree with wanderlust not once but twice, i think that we're also on the same page with respect to a shorter building being better in this location, all things consdiered.

what wanderlust fails to consider, however, is that the building is actually profitable below 24 storeys. i know for a fact - and read into this what you will - that the numbers work at 20 storeys. imho i believe that this is where we'll land on this once all is said and done at the Board: 18-20 storeys.
 
Some revised renderings:

2012_09_25_01_33_18_365church2.png
 
Thanks for posting those renders.

Something about it gives me an office park vibe, oddly enough. And then there's that mechanical room sticking out of the top. I'm hesitant about the balconies, too.
I'm surprised that this group seems to be having so much trouble coming up with a perfectly fine, ordinary building. You'd think that'd be a basic, routine sort of thing for firms to do.

Still, it's better than hemorrhoids. If it got built like this, at least it'd be fresh relief for an alienating stretch of street, and the end of another surface parking lot. I'd like to see alterations. But at this point, I'm just like "Get the damn thing built!".
 
Last edited:
Get rid of the balconies on the west and east sides, and hide the mechanical. Then let's see what the ground level looks like in more detail.
 
It's a great find by ProjectEnd to see these renderings but they're of very poor quality. Imagining sharper images and better colour this could add a really good building to this area.
 
It would appear that these renderings are for the purposes of the zoning amendment application, not marketing, so there's a reasonable likelihood that this is not the final treatment for the building.

42
 
In a completely unsurprising move, the Board approved this development without variation. Board decision @ http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL120119

This has set the precedent for huge development on every corner in this area. 355 will now be approved and same with the one on Jarvis.

that's just so sad ... given that the OMB has accepted 30s, you can bet that Menkes will be asking for a CofA for another 5s later on.
 
What, a 30s/100 meter bldg for Church street between Carlton and Gerrard is too tall:confused:

Agreed.
This site is a sheer 5 minutes walk from the College station. When plenty of towers of 50+ stories on Yonge are being constructed/proposed, something in the range of 30-40 is more than appropriate for this site. Church st below Village needs new additions like this, and hopefully more will come.

I have no idea why people think it is too high. Bringing more people to live in east downtown is exactly what we need.
 
Agreed.
This site is a sheer 5 minutes walk from the College station. When plenty of towers of 50+ stories on Yonge are being constructed/proposed, something in the range of 30-40 is more than appropriate for this site. Church st below Village needs new additions like this, and hopefully more will come.

I have no idea why people think it is too high. Bringing more people to live in east downtown is exactly what we need.


it just seems too bulky at 140 ft x 100 ft podium with 120 ft x 80 ft tower.
 
Agreed.
This site is a sheer 5 minutes walk from the College station. When plenty of towers of 50+ stories on Yonge are being constructed/proposed, something in the range of 30-40 is more than appropriate for this site. Church st below Village needs new additions like this, and hopefully more will come.

I agree, there are plenty of sites prime for development along this lonely stretch, a few rentals would be ideal to help students find dwindling accommodations. There are heritage issues as one gets down toward Dundas, Queen & further south which concern me. It always seems that the most logical sites are left alone and these land assembly groups seem to scoop up blocks of heritage buildings instead of parking lots and disposable properties that need to be redeveloped.
 

Back
Top