The houses along Sherbourne, (574, 572, 570) are now boarded up at least at street-level. This now brings the high rise construction projects with a three-block radius of Sherbourne and Isabella Sts to NINE. Has everyone noticed the installation of the double-higher utility poles the last few weeks? (Pics of them included as well.)
AC0A8F89-C7A1-46BC-9C20-68839DE4CAFD.jpeg
6DE5D77F-0B9C-4526-A72F-855CF227ED27.jpeg

EC3D6C81-E912-43BE-B4D3-3BA4D80255C1.jpeg
BD51A171-399D-43D7-A3AB-FCD199F14EA7.jpeg
8652D86C-8577-461B-A3E1-8B51E95B7486.jpeg
 
What Cabbagetown use to be and what it is today are 2 different things when I grew up there from my point of view. Other than my 2 schools K-5 and 6-8 are still there, places I live in, worked after school at and buy things are gone. Places that were run down are now high class homes or were replace with towers or midrise or X. It has also the first holdout building where the owner either refused to sale as they wanted to live their life out there or the money offer was too low that buildings were built around it like a number others in the last 10 years I have seen so far.

At least a number of developments have seen these so call heritage homes retained with towers in their back yard. I expect this site will see a tower 40-50 story in the backyard with the worse one been torn down for the driveway and entrance to the tower. Not all the homes in that area are worth keeping, other than the ones in the photos above.

The 3 new towers to the north of this site retained one or more existing building as well relocated them to build the towers..

The one on the east side of Sherbourne will see most buildings go and no great lost for them once construction starts on it.

The midride building will be gone in the site plan for the tower.
 
It's part of a project to increase the voltage of the Rosedale/Sherbourne neighbourhoods.

I do hope that as further developments occur, including this block, burying the wires, at least adjacent to those buildings will be a requirement.
 
The houses along Sherbourne, (574, 572, 570) are now boarded up at least at street-level. This now brings the high rise construction projects with a three-block radius of Sherbourne and Isabella Sts to NINE. Has everyone noticed the installation of the double-higher utility poles the last few weeks? (Pics of them included as well.)
View attachment 460780View attachment 460781
View attachment 460776View attachment 460777View attachment 460779
Isn’t that zigzagging stretch of asphalt on the sidewalk just lovely? Perhaps our version of Portugal’s patterned mosaic?

F073E281-8930-49B8-B110-8BD2BD5104E2.jpeg
 
Does Alterra only do real high rises? Or is there a chance they'll construct a medium sized building to diversify the cityscape in this neighbourhood (they will have 5 huge condos in that intersection already)...
 
Application is up on the AIC:

1683791342871.png



Arch. Firm is IBI

Height is 59s

From the Docs:

1683791641154.png


1683791811300.png


1683792948461.png


1683793004489.png


1683791865703.png


1683791905285.png

1683791974412.png

1683792002613.png

1683792087765.png


1683793175966.png


Comments/Notes:

No street trees on Sherbourne side; sidewalk width at 3.3M is relatively low but probably acceptable here for pedestrian travel given no landscaping encumbering movement. Not very pretty though.

I presume the justification here is heritage retained in-situ; that's a pretty solid justification.

One mature tree retained on Linden, but all new trees proposed are Serviceberry, these are nice, but are not canopy trees, their height range is 15ft-25ft at maturity.

Tower Floor plate at 822m2 is above guideline.

Shadow impact St. Jametown West Park is severe late in the day, however, a shorter building would not materially alter this fact.

Superficial heritage preservation is high, all buildings that are currently of heritage value and in good condition would see their facades retained.

No parkland on site, or specifically identified offsite. This development should not be the subject of cash-in-lieu but rather an off-site park acquisition.

I have previously identified attractive choices for this over in the thread for the Huntley-Selby proposal.
 

Attachments

  • 1683793154801.png
    1683793154801.png
    642.7 KB · Views: 48
Last edited:
Not bad looking. Another decent development for a part of town that was once pretty forlorn.
 
Unfortunately it looks like this house painted in grey will not be preserved, even though I might argue it's should also be considered part of the original ensemble:

ec3d6c81-e912-43be-b4d3-3ba4d80255c1-jpeg.460776

Correct, the intent is to remove this building. Reasons are given below: (from the HIA)

1683826250731.png



Note a problem in that the statement about Windows/Doors is inconsistent between 2 paragraphs.

I think one could source original period brick if the condition were too poor to restore, though there is a question of cost.
 

Back
Top