Here is a 1 bedroom + atelier:

And here is a 2 bedroom + atelier:

Right away you’ll probably notice a few things. 

There are no dens in these plans. They have been replaced with ateliers, which sounds cool. I want my own atelier where I make things. But it may also be a clever way to get around calling them studies or nooks.

A lot of people in the industry have been commenting on how they’ve included the exterior living space in the calculation of total area. That seems logical to me, especially for a project like this where the terraces form such an integral part of the architecture.

The other thing I noticed is that the buildings are, actually, being referred to as mountains. This has been part of the project’s design narrative since the beginning. So I like the consistency. The above plans are for suites within the “east mountain.” 

But what I wanted to ask all of you today is whether you find the addition of a 3D plan helpful. It’s obviously not new, but it is still fairly uncommon, at least in this market. Do you think it’s worth it?

One remark from the article that stood out for me is this one here:

Still: The design breaks a lot of rules. Which is why it took two years of difficult negotiations with city planners to reach approvals. “We wanted it to be quieter,” says Lynda MacDonald, a senior Toronto planner who was involved in overseeing the project. “It’s a very large project, and we wanted to make sure it respected the character of King Street.”

I am often asked why we don’t see more innovation in architecture and real estate. There are a number of reasons for that. One of them is risk. Development is in many ways a game of risk mitigation. 

But another reason is that when you try and do something unconventional that disrupts the status quo, you also call into question the typical planning criteria used to evaluate projects. And that may slow you down.

Alex accurately points out in his article that we are used to doing things around here in one of two ways:

The King Street project is also an ambitious experiment with urban design. There are basically two species of tower in Toronto: a midrise slab of six to 10 storeys, which steps back at the top; and a “tower-and-podium,” a model borrowed from Vancouver that combines a fat, squared-off base (or “podium”) with a tall, skinny residential tower. Both can work, but can also create the big-box blandness that many people dislike about new urban housing.

None of this is to suggest that we should ignore the character of a particular area. It is critical and I believe that KING Toronto has been mindful of that. 

But I also firmly believe in ambitious city building and I think there’s no question that KING Toronto is doing exactly that.

Images: Hayes Davison via Dezeen and courtesy of Westbank

This month’s issue (May 2017) of Monocle magazine is a special “design & property” edition. It includes their annual property survey (shown above), which showcases interesting projects and people from around the world.

I was excited (but not surprised) to read the editor’s letter at the beginning of the issue and learn that the Monocle folks “think all the time” about launching their own property company. I would love to see how they execute on a development project, because I am sure it would question conventional norms.

Ian Gillespie of Westbank (headquartered in Vancouver) is featured and interviewed under the heading: “a more beautiful city.” Here you’ll hear him say that they build Porsches and not Fords. I also learned that they acquired a district energy company called Creative Energy, which they are looking to bring to Toronto and Seattle.

Because it’s a property issue, the ads are also tailored to that, so you get a good cross section of international projects. This morning was my first time seeing One Park Drive in Canary Wharf – London’s first residential tower by Herzog & de Meuron.

So if design and property also happen to be your jam, you may want to pick up the May issue of Monocle.

Share Dialog

Share Dialog

Share Dialog