innsertnamehere said:
not understanding the hate on this one. There is a lot of dead street frontage in this area - this fixes a lot of it.
Click to expand...

I doubt one isolated slab addition will create that much healing in the area - besides, it fits poorly with the existing building. The rendering showing the sunlit courtyard between the addition and the current slab is especially suspicious IMO - the direction of the shadows doesn't look right - and it's a 13m separation.

AoD
 
Last edited:
It's the lack of design merit for me. The way it wraps around the existing building in an overt effort to maximize floor plates, and the fact that the design has no interplay with the existing building (neither a good juxtoposition nor an homage) are both unfortunate.

The addition of retail and commercial to Jarvis, as well as additional residential density here, could be a positive, but only with a more sensitive design.
 
Update:
Intensification proposals for Tower-in-the-Park apartment sites is the latest development trend in Toronto, as property owners seek to infill under-utilized greenspaces with new density. The latest in this growing list was submitted earlier this month by CAPREIT, seeking a mid-rise wrap-around addition to the 1971-built, 28-storey rental apartment building at 100 Wellesley Street East, located on the northwest corner at Jarvis.
Click to expand...
 
The little parkette along Jarvis is really nice. I sit there all the time when meeting up with friends and stuff. It's a shame to lose a nice green space for a turd like this.
 
I like it but the residents in the lower floors of the old tower are losing sunlight and their view. That needs to be addressed with a revision. I hate the "tower in the park" paradigme, especially during the cold weather. It's good to see consideration given to the street (retail).
 
Going from a 10 floor view to a small light well is hardly desirable. At the very least they should receive a rent reduction.
 
I live here, we got this news 3 or 4 weeks ago. At that time the plans hadn't yet been submitted to the City. Currently we have a roof top pool with walk out to a sun deck, small gym, change rooms & closed saunas, they are offering up new spaces for residents - large gym, party room, movie theatre room, things like that - at least that's what they are proposing. Losing all the green space and mature trees is the biggest concern along with existing residents that get a view of an apartment a few dozen feet away. In a perfect world either the north or south side addition could be approved along with the east (Jarvis) extension piece and the town homes next to Barbara Hall Park. That leaves some valuable green space.
The front page story indicates there are 552 existing suites, the correct amount is about 430.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
I live here, we got this news 3 or 4 weeks ago. At that time the plans hadn't yet been submitted to the City. Currently we have a roof top pool with walk out to a sun deck, small gym, change rooms & closed saunas, they are offering up new spaces for residents - large gym, party room, movie theatre room, things like that - at least that's what they are proposing. Losing all the green space and mature trees is the biggest concern along with existing residents that get a view of an apartment a few dozen feet away. In a perfect world either the north or south side addition could be approved along with the east (Jarvis) extension piece and the town homes next to Barbara Hall Park. That leaves some valuable green space.
The front page story indicates there are 552 existing suites, the correct amount is about 430.
Click to expand...
Thanks for catching the typo. It has been corrected.
 
I think the Jarvis frontage is fine but the sections wrapping around Wellesley and Cawthra can go. One or two stories on those streets would be okay with me.
 
This is a nonsensical proposal. Far too impactful on the existing units. The planning rationale contains no sound justification for the paltry separation between the existing and proposed components. Quoting page 49 of the Bousfields report:

"As a matter of good urban design practice, a minimum separation distance of 11.0 metres is generally applied between two buildings on the same lot. Above a mid-rise height (generally 11-storeys and above), the tall building guideline of 25.0 metre separation would be an appropriate guideline to assess."

This seems to me to be a totally arbitrary and unsubstantiated statement. It has no basis in policy and 11 metres is far less than any of the separation guidelines in the Avenues & Mid-Rise Design Guidelines. I have also seen nothing in the Official Plan/Tall Building Design Guidelines, that would support this statement. The surrounding built context is pretty tight and compact but the winged addition as proposed is stretching any possible comparison that can be drawn to this site.

Overdevelopment, plain and simple. IMO, a mid-rise component along the Jarvis frontage is acceptable and desirable from a planning and urban design perspective. The winged additions on the north and south side of the existing building should be kiboshed, and I'm sure they will be. No doubt another example of aim high, accept less, but it's depressing that these kinds of proposals are being bandied about as good planning. Le sigh.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top