City
New in Toronto real estate: The Brant Park
The Brant Park is the newest Lamb Development condo brainchild. (You all know Brad, right?) Slated for Adelaide and Brant street, this to-be-constructed nod to 1960's architecture will offer a range of suites, from one-bedrooms to two-level penthouses, with the area acting as the condo's main amenity. The structure itself is certainly a divergence from those glass-shedding towers of Toronto's downtown (so too are the standard glass stoves in each suite), but a closer look should reveal if this ode to the past presents a promising future for would-be condo owners.
SPECS
Exterior: Glass/Concrete
Number of units: 200
Number of floors: 11
Unit sizes (in square feet): 368 - 1,466
Starting price: 238,900
Parking: $39,900 (for suites 533 sq.ft. or more)
Storage locker: $4,000
Maintenance: $0.54/sq.ft.
Hydro included?: No
Amenities: Party room, gym, 24/hr concierge
Expected occupancy: August 2014
THE GOOD
I don't have a "Wavering" heading, so I'll just put this here. While it's nice to see a change from the big glass towers that are taking over Toronto's downtown, I suspect armchair urban planners (myself included) will be torn when it comes to judging the aesthetic of this new structure. Supposedly inspired by 1960's modernist architecture, The Brant Park is intended to complement other mid-century structures in the area. Personally, I'm not a fan of it. While retro can work, I think Brant just looks dated; more a forgotten 1970s-era apartment complex at Lawrence and Keele (no hate, Lawrence West, I swear), than a new urban condo in the hear of the Fashion District. But that's just me.
On to the clear Brant Park boons. If you like bustle, the location is a great one. You're far enough west to avoid the bulk of the neon mini dresses and excessive hair styling of the Entertainment District, while not too far over as to remove yourself from the action. The Brant Part is right between some great cafes and bars up on Queen, as well as super eats down on King (and if you must, clubs over on Richmond). Best of all, the building will be directly across the street from St. Andrew's Playground park, which is a definite plus for condo pet parents who want an off-leash area close to home.
As for the units themselves, while size might be an issue for some (but more about that later), many Brant Park units boast a most redeeming quality: function kitchen layouts! I've been waiting for this one. While there are still a few suites with the much-loathed wall of appliances (the "kitchen"), there are many others with more practical designs.
Some kitchens are designed as corridors with breakfast bars, other come with islands, and others, still, are somewhat of lineup of appliances, but arranged on a corner as to offer more counter space. This is progress! (Or a regression back to a time when condos were designed with actual cooking in mind. I'm not sure.) Combine that with a barbeque-ready terrace or balcony, and The Brant Park has certainly got something on.
And a note about maintenance. While we all know monthly rates start out artificially low, The Brant Park seems to have kept extra amenities to a minimum. So unless builders spring for a last-minute infinity pool or spa rooftop terrace, buyers probably won't see their rates rise with the same ferocity as their condo-owning neighbours.
THE BAD
Is wide over tall necessarily a good thing? This project has swallowed up a whole block of Adelaide, with renderings showing the building a full 20 bays long. So back to my armchair urban planner analysis: when a single structure absorbs a complete city block, it doesn't offer a whole lot in the way of character to the sidewalk. Even if the building includes varied at-grade retail. The block will look uniform and in my opinion, uninspired.
Now, back to unit sizes. The smallest units at The Brant Park, dubbed "One Bedrooms," scantly measure in at 400 square feet. Call me old-fashioned, but I like my bedroom to have four complete walls. And my one-bedroom suite to fit more than one person, on occasion. These teensy units seem to offer neither. The "bedrooms" on these floor plans appear more sleeping "nooks," and 400 square feet seems more typical of sizing for a Bachelor apartment.
So, while I certainly can't call myself an expert on the rules that regulate suite classifications, it's clear to me that these "One Bedrooms" are "Junior One Bedrooms" at best, or "Studio" suites when you cut through the semantics. Nice try, Brad Lamb. Call them what you want, but for a semi-comfortable one bedroom unit at The Brant Park (i.e. more than 500 square feet) you're looking at paying in the mid 300's. So don't let that starting price fool you..
THE VERDICT
If you can spring for an appropriately sized unit (or drop a cool $900k for a two-level penthouse, whatever), The Brant Park might offer a good option for downtown condo-seekers. The layouts are livable, the location is close to everything, and the limited amenities suggest that maintenance fees may remain (somewhat) manageable. That's all good, of course, as long as you can live in a building without its own yoga studio, as well as stand its exterior facade.
What do you think? Would you live here? Add your comments to the thread below.
Discussion
50 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
In 2000, as a 20 year old I was looking to buy my first property, I spoke to Brad as his ads were everywhere and he was very rude and not helpful or insightful at all. Ended up buying a 600 square foot loft at King/Shaw for a great price instead and selling it several years later. Screw Brad in his ear.
Best developer in the city hands down is Context; they actually care about blending good architecture with the surrounding neighbourhood.
That says it all. This is a scheme to make Brad Lamb more money by sucking some value from a viable area. The building will not be an asset for the neighbourhood or provide decent living space to residents.
Yep, rather than route the ducts through a thicker wall, which would cut back on profitability, they route the ducts through the unit itself, like in a basement apartment. You'll see such corners cut throughout these buildings. The builders drive away in their Rolls Royces leaving the buyers to discover the shortcomings over time.
These condo developments are not my cup of tea, thanks.
tiny suites
no families wanted
go f yourself
I have had the bad fortune of working with Brad - or within his sphere of influence - on several occasions. As noted several times here already, he is TRULY a first class douche whose in so tight with the big developer/real estate board types you could shove coal up his pompous ass and have gold within an hour. Avoid anything he has a hand in. I wish we could rid this City of him. I really do. We'd all be better off.
I'm actually surprised the city would allow something straight up from the street like this. It's pretty imposing. It could be a very nice departure from the glass towers that have become so ubiquitous in Toronto, but it's really not...
Please don't try to be an architecture critic if you have no idea what your talking about. This applies to everyone commenting here. Just because it's not a spectacle doesn't mean it's poor design (though, as everyone's seen, even spectacle is complained about).
My Aunt put a deposit down on a condo unit at his building on King St (and Simcoe) a couple years back. It didn't have full approval from City at the time due to height and density issues. However, several months later, the City and Lamb negotiated a deal and the prices at the proposed condo shot up about 30-35% overnight. My aunt had put down a deposit on a $350,000 unit and once the building got full approvals, she was told the price was now $469,900 for exact same unit. If she wanted to continue buying the unit, that was the new price and they needed more deposit. Needless to say, my aunt complained, ended up speaking to Lamb himself about a week later and he told her the price went up again and it was now $499,990. If she didn't want it, he had 5 people lined up to buy her unit right now and gave her an ultimatum of paying up that day because the price would go up to $509,990 the next day. Contract my aunt signed apparently included provisions for the developer to change the price at their discretion at anytime even after the deposit. Long story short, my aunt pulled out of deal.
I used to be a real estate agent and had the misfortune of working with his agents on a deal. Not only do they (this is a few years back) try to ride the fine line of regulations by offering exclusive deals, and discounted commission to push out other brokers, but they also delay paying out commission on deals. They are crooks!
I believe the city would be a lot better off with out this, and the other hideous shoebox condos he has built.
I absolutely LOVE that park, and have been around it since my early years. I hope that the condo doesn't destroy the area... but I've kinda given up home on condos not destroying things.
In any case, I found him to be a miserable landlord. I had to suffer through a month of viewings. It was time consuming, violated my privacy and I should have gotten rent reduction for putting up with that kind of shitty interruptions to my day to day life.
So don't rent from Lamb either - because your last month of your lease will be putting up
with viewings. He does not hold onto the condos that he owns because you end up paying and he reeps all the profits after the condo registers.
Today, I see his shitty constructions made of steel beams, meaning there will be no concrete walls between apartments. You'll hear everything your neighbors will be doing (poor soundproofing), like taking a leak, their music, their sneezing and worse their banging.
Yuck - I hate Brad Lamb, his rentals, his condos. He's a crook and Toronto's "Freddie Cruger"!!! He should be in JAIL.
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!