Toronto Smart House | 82.6m | 25s | Urban Capital | a—A

[Ric]

To me it looks dated already before it is even built. Color is all to be in its favor. When you look closer it looks usual cheap all glass tower destined to be rental ghetto with all those micro units.

No, but some looks cheaper than other and this one looks like it was pulled from slums of Manila.
I guess this unorthodox architecture got me thinking of some Asian city, no offence to slums of Manila )

It just looks to me, that nothing else but usual glass cladding. Can you prove me wrong, how come you see it as one of the highest quality cladding?
Do you have some resource that shows superiority of materials used in that construction?

I don't know what some people like about it. To me it looks like cheaply made, all glass ghetto condo.

Ok buddy. We get your point that you hate this building. When 6 of your 8 posts in this forum are dedicated to your distaste for this building it says alot.

 

[skov555]

Ok buddy. We get your point that you hate this building. When 6 of your 8 posts in this forum are dedicated to your distaste for this building it says alot.

I am not active in this forum, you just pulled messages from my last exchange about that building and I subscribed to it just to not miss reply.
Now again after new shots especially in close range I expressed my dislike, hope it does not bother you too much, otherwise I am not invested in this building at all.

 

[Michael1985]

Regardless of how it looks, I can see this bridging many more smart home developments. (Just my opinion of course)

 

[utwatch]

I think it looks great. Window wall looks clean with the dark trim. A lot of newer condos in Toronto are very messy interms of window wall. This is spandrelless and uncluttered. Not very cheap looking at all. IMO it fits in well

 

[A Torontonian Now]

This morning:

 

[ADRM]

On a glorious day:

 

[Miscreant]

 

[Edward Skira]

 

[Yegger]

My favourite thing about this building is probably its scale. With regards to its built-form, it fills the "missing middle". Development in Toronto is driven mostly by buildings of similar heights (100-150m) so it's refreshing to see something that responds to a low-rise context.

 

[innsertnamehere]

a 25 storey tower filled with micro units is about as far from "missing middle" as you can get.

The entire basis of "missing middle" housing is ground related units that come in larger, more family oriented sizes. 250 square foot units 200ft above the ground is the exact opposite of that.

 

[Yegger]

a 25 storey tower filled with micro units is about as far from "missing middle" as you can get.

The entire basis of "missing middle" housing is ground related units that come in larger, more family oriented sizes. 250 square foot units 200ft above the ground is the exact opposite of that.

I would argue that by providing an alternative to the existing housing stock in the form of micro-units, this building is providing more diversity in housing options. Thereby filling in a gap in the supply, which is the missing middle.

I'll entertain the idea that we need larger family sized units but let's not pretend that 3 bedroom units in this area wouldn't be filled by students of OCAD or UofT.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I would argue that by providing an alternative to the existing housing stock in the form of micro-units, this building is providing more diversity in housing options. Thereby filling in a gap in the supply, which is the missing middle.

I'll entertain the idea that we need larger family sized units but let's not pretend that 3 bedroom units in this area wouldn't be filled by students of OCAD or UofT.

It may be missing, but middle it is not. Maybe "missing low-end", or "missing micro".

There seems to be this idea in urbanist circles that anything that isn't a 40 storey condo is "missing middle". It isn't. Missing middle is specifically a form of housing that is in the middle between low-rise residential and high-rise apartment. There isn't a lot of it built, and it is in the middle of different possible building forms. Thus, "Missing middle". And this ain't that.

The city especially seems to be branding midrise apartments as missing middle.. in reality they provide the exact same type of end user experience as a highrise condo.. and are priced accordingly.

 

[Yegger]

It may be missing, but middle it is not. Maybe "missing low-end", or "missing micro".

There seems to be this idea in urbanist circles that anything that isn't a 40 storey condo is "missing middle". It isn't. Missing middle is specifically a form of housing that is in the middle between low-rise residential and high-rise apartment. There isn't a lot of it built, and it is in the middle of different possible building forms. Thus, "Missing middle". And this ain't that.

The city especially seems to be branding midrise apartments as missing middle.. in reality they provide the exact same type of end user experience as a highrise condo.. and are priced accordingly.

Alright, having looked into it a bit further, I understand and agree with you on the above points. I don't have a background in urban planning (as a civil engineer) so I'm always open to learning more regarding the appropriate planning jargon/terminology. Thanks for the clarification

 

[LUVIT!]

I thought the missing middle was something in the range of 4-8 floors or less perhaps of an alternate material (wood) that is of a decent sq footage for middle income people and perhaps not in the core of the city but on the fringe. Chicago, for example, has many of these type of low rise structures.

 

[Edward Skira]

Missing middle. Imagine if instead of monster homes people were still allowed to build these things in the suburbs/yellow belt? Would increase density across the board without having to go high-rise.