Ok, I'm done dinner now.............which btw, was a beautifully marbled pork-chop, breaded in yellow curry, garamasala, cumin, and cayanne; along with buttered Basmati Rice with Tandoori seasoning and chicken stock and flash-fried snow peas..........(just sayin)..........
So, I'm now ready to join the evisceration of this complete desecration of the site in question.
LOL
First off, before we get to the architectural design ethos..........important though that is......the site and building are laid out completely wrong............
Cut this BS out about a park...........it was a bad idea as a POPs, it's a worse idea as a park, and an extra 500ft2 makes not one iota of positive difference.
Go give cash-in-lieu to WT with City permission to start implementing the various foot bridges to stitch the existing and proposed waterfront parks together; don't waste my time and precious land on this nonsense.
Also WTF with the Harbour Streetscape...........no, on every level. Too narrow, and lose the car access. This is one of the more compelling sites for zero parking that exists; but if you need to provide for some form of car access or drop-off, it should be from a right-in, right-out (only) access off York, and onto Harbour.
The notion of a traffic crossing a critical, high-use bike path at that location is just terrible; made worse by peculiar shaping of the path for cyclists/walkers.
****
Now, let's talk about a building..............
We all knew from day one this site would be a serious challenge to do anything economical. Separation distances are a thing..........and holy hell is this site tight.
But this is just an example of wrong-headed thinking........
View attachment 373661
No, no and no..........
I realize it would mean fewer units..........but bump your ask per ft2, by moving the hallway to the southern limit of the building...........
Before you all make a face at me about how much space that cuts out..........
Note that separation distance is based, at least in part on the premise of not staring into someone else's apartment...........if the southern windows front onto a hallway........there might be a bit of wiggle room....to grow the footprint.......
But more importantly......from the developer's perspective, there's no money in units that stare into the buildings to the south............there just isn't..........the money is in strategic views north, east and west.........
Make the unit thin and long........like a Brad Lamb bowling alley, but with natural light.......LOL
It would pay off........
Also....subject to flight path rules, max out the height..........with the permission of the City.......pay cash-in-lieu......upper floor units, serviced by their own elevator core than can overlook the buildings to the south are worth gold.
Now.....let's talk design............the original idea was imperfect, but closer........
You know you're going to be expensive per ft2..........it's the nature of the site...
So go bold.
Don't try to attract the many at less per ft2, try to attract the few at the maxed out number.
It works, because you lighten construction costs with fewer walls, fewer windows, fewer fixtures, fewer risers/stacks........fewer elevators.
Obviously you need the real estate price to be right to make it work.........
But this is just going the wrong direction.
It's not a mass production site.
Bland is not the business.
Rare case where I don't care too much about the streetwall and retail, maybe because I consider this section of Harbour a lost cause......
I'm not saying do it wrong.........I am saying that's not the priority here.........do right by walkers/cyclists..........do right by curb appeal and view
Be bold; lose the park (and everyone knows I love a good park.........but not a leftover sliver of land)....
In the end, this is the rare case of Diamond consistently mis-stepping.
Not sure if it's a bad partner, bad advice, or a moment of developers (writers) block.........but take a breath, and rethink it all.
