“EMERALD ON BLOOR”MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Client’s philosophy, Values, Goals and desired “image”:

years. Client’s current thinking is a mixed use development, with retail / commercial on the lower levels and residences on the upper levels. Client is

The client requires a feasibility study to determine what building program must be accommodated on the site in order to meet his investment objectives. Client also wants the permissible and/or the required development envelope for the project to proceed including building program and construction cost and other alternatives that may be suitable for the neighbourhood (Bloor –Yorkville)

Site Location: 204 Bloor st West Toronto ON, Canada / Neighbourhood: Bloor Yorkville

Lot size: 553m (5,952 sqft)

Proposed Program:

Program mix: Below ground: 3 level Parking, Level 1-3: Retail (exclusive stores), Level 4: Retail (Lounge / restaurant)

design, the program will not only exceed the client’s income target by over 60% but also add a unique character to its street.

sustainable initiatives with the aim of achieving a LEED designation, it is doubtful that the city will decline an application for rezoning that accommo-

process will add to the soft cost associated with construction cost of this project and may also take roughly 2 months - 2 years in unique cases.

However the expected income to be generated from sales of the residential units before and after completion (if clients decided to sell) will be such

income of over $4M hereby producing the client with a net income of Approximately over $80M in 20 years after all cost of building have been paid and excluding the $19M made from sale of residential units in year 0

2

152

8

34 6

9

7

A

D

B

E

DDD

F

O

R

D

R

OOOO

AAAAA

D10

1. Royal Ontario Museum 2. Philosopher’s Walk 3. Royal Conservatory Music 4. Telus Center for Performance and Learning

5. Varsity Stadium 6. Lillian Massey Department of Household Science 7. The Colanade 8. Church of the Redeemer

9. Renaissance Plaza 10. One Bedford ?. Site

?

SITE ANALYSISCULTURA

10

?8

9 1

3

4

45

DESIGN PARTIPP The theory behind the design for this buildingff was derived purely from the need to maximise the use of space, given the size of the lot and at the same time allowing for adequff ate sky gardens. It was also necessary to allow the shaft of the buildingff to step back fromthe building base, to adhere to the lighting and wind street conditionsand providing healthier urban community public / private spaces.

viability analysis / profoff rma was not yielding the expected return oninvestment due to the loss in sq footage fff rom the building shaft sff tep back. In response to this, a cantilevered apartment system was used toresolve this issue. These cantilevered units reclaim 70 % of the sqfootage loss fff rom the step back while still allowing for an ouff tdoorgarden at street level which also serves as an intermediary for ffconnecting the building to the street.

DESIGN THEORYCULTULL RA

Existing Building Existing Building

Property Line

Street Lamp

Line Of Canopy Above

Property Line

Vehicular / Pedestrian Lane way

Scale - 1: 200

1 2

34

5

6

7

22

21

128

139

1114

20

“CULTURA” GROUND FLOOR PLAN

1. GROUND FLOOR RETAIL2. VESTIBULE3. CONCIERGE / VALET4. LOBBY5. INDOOR WATER FALL 6. SERVICE ELEVATOR7. ELEVATOR #28. COMMUNICATION ROOM9. ELECTRICAL ROOM10. MECHANICAL SHAFT11. TEMPORARY STORAGE FOR (MOVE IN / OUT)12. MAIL ROOM13. OUT DOOR WATER FALL 14. OUTDOOR GARDEN 15. BICYCLE RACKS16. GARBAGE / RECYCLING ROOM17. PASSAGER DROP OFF / PICK UP18. AUTOMATED STACKED ELEVATOR PARKING SYSTEM FOR ZIP CARS19. EXHAUST GRILLES FOR GARAGE VENTILATION20. ELEVATOR LOBBY21. ELEVATOR #322. TOILET

BLOOR STREET WEST

CULTURASITE PLAN

CULTURA

GROUND FLOOR

RESIDENTIAL FLOOR

Main entrance Lobby1

23

45

67

89 10

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25

12

34

56

78

9

1110

1213

14

1615

17

1920

2122

2324

25

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cafe

Residential Elevator Lobby

Mechanical room

Car Elevator

Bicycle Parking

Restaurant

Lounge

Entertainment room

Outdoor Lounge

Fitness Center

Mail room

Concierge room

Residential Apartments

Garbage Chute

Waste Compactors

Garbage / Recycling room

Storage room

Automated parking system

Maintenance pad

Share same space:

Adjacent spaces:

Accessibility:

separation by distance or barrier:

May or may not share same spaces:

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

NET ASSIGNABLE

FLOOR AREA

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

4845 sqf

2500 sqf

3000 sqf

1500 sqf

3000 sqf

GROSS FACTOR

15 %

RESIDENTIAL

COMMON ELEMENTS

COMMERCIAL (RETAIL)

AUTOMATED ZIP CAR

PARKING / STORAGE

SPATIAL / FUNCTIONAL PROGAA RAMMINGCULTULL RA

Storeys below grade:

Sec on 3.2.2 gives the re separa ons for above grade stories. For the re separa ons of the construc on below grade, see 3.2.2.15.(2); 3.2.1.4.(1). Elected not to use 3.2.1.2 as it o ers no advantages but imposes restric ons, especially on the garage air intakes.

Firewall:

3.1.10: The re resistance ra ng in 3.1.10.2 notes the need for masonry or concrete 3.1.10.2; itspossible support on the frame in 3.1.10.1.3 and the waiving of the parapet 3.1.10.4.2.

Sprinkler system

There are many clauses that require sprinklers in the building. Sec on 3.2.2, for a building over 6 storeys high will require the building to be sprinklered as shown in other pages of this analysis. The requirements for high buildings will require sprinklering. Basements need to be sprinklered under 3.2.2.15.2a

Normally, sprinkler heads are not required within the condo suite, and the ceiling of most rooms of the condo is the nished concrete slab above. However, a City of Toronto By-law that came into e ect just April 1, 2010 requires sprinkling of the interior of residen al units in a high building in the City of Toronto.

High building and smoke control

The building is a high building under Sec on 3.2.6. In this sec on there are requirements for controlling smoke in a re in a high building. See the Supplementary Standards 3.2.6.4, Method A or F, to control smoke movement. Both of these methods require that there is a door in the re stairwell that separates the re stairwell below the grade from the stairwell above grade. Both require that the doorways of the stairwells at grade are open in a re to vent out fumes. This analysis assumes that a can serve this purpose for the exit through the lobby. By using these measures an ‘Area of Refuge need not be provided.

Fire Resistance Rating / Safeff ty

Scale : 1:300

CULTURA

DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCULTULL RA

SCHEMATIC DESIGNAACULTULL RA

sion, maintaining correspondence with partners abroad and team management.