Berkeley House | 70.05m | 20s | Lamb Development | A&Architects

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,710
Reaction score
32,222
Location
Toronto/EY
New App into the AIC for this.

The location is immediately north of an existing proposal '49 Ontario' for which we have a thread.

1633425598853.png


Aerial pic:

1633425521184.png


Site size: ~ 10075M2/11,500ft2

Streeview:

1633425804714.png

Taken from: youtube (cool house media iguide)

Adjacent development thread: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-49-ontario-street-136-05m-39s-dream-a—a.30533/page-5#post-1688319

Link: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=SqJcY4eZVmZUTPErhIP0DQ==
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,710
Reaction score
32,222
Location
Toronto/EY
Design by A& Architects, just like Lamb's project at 471 Queen East.

Possibly being marketed as the "Berkeley House":



View attachment 354436View attachment 354437View attachment 354438View attachment 354439View attachment 354440View attachment 354441View attachment 354442

Albert; did the docs d/l for you properly?

When I went to look at this, they were all d/l as .txt files and wouldn't open.
 

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
16,064
Reaction score
34,007
Location
Davenport
Albert; did the docs d/l for you properly?

When I went to look at this, they were all d/l as .txt files and wouldn't open.

Can't say that I tried downloading everything. But the Architectural Plans and Planning Rational docs worked properly as PDF format. I used Chrome browser if that makes any difference.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,710
Reaction score
32,222
Location
Toronto/EY
Some additional images info, from the Planning Rationale Report:

1633766673369.png
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,131
Reaction score
13,177
Ehh, the interior would be pretty dark but it looks like it’s actually a pretty functional unit, plenty of space for clear eating, dining, sleeping, and office spaces .Definitely far worse out there.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,710
Reaction score
32,222
Location
Toronto/EY
8'10" wide unit. Even for a shitkicker like Brad, that's low.

View attachment 356397
Ehh, the interior would be pretty dark but it looks like it’s actually a pretty functional unit, plenty of space for clear eating, dining, sleeping, and office spaces .Definitely far worse out there.

What strikes me............8ft 10, minus 6ft for the bed provides an unobstructed travel path (assuming one didn't obstruct it) of 2ft 10.

In general, an unobstructed travel path for someone in a wheelchair is considered to be 1100mm (or 1.1M) which is 3'4.

While its true that only 15% of new units constructed are required to meet accessibility standards...........and in respect of kitchens or areas a guest might not use, perhaps that's reasonable.

I'm not sure its reasonable that someone in a wheelchair may not be able to visit a resident at all; or be able to used the bathroom, at all, if visiting.

I would argue, at the minimum, this unit width is six inches shy of reasonable.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,131
Reaction score
13,177
The bed doesn’t need to go end-out, it can be put sideways which creates a wider aisle.

Again, it’s definitely not a great unit, but it’s far from the worst getting built today.
 

Top