I love some of the complaints;

"too close to the subway" its 150ft away from the tunnel.

"closeness to pickering nuclear plant" its 30+km away from the site...
 
Interesting to see this identified on the DRP notice not by its address but as "North St. Jamestown".
 
arvelomcquaig said:
It's ironic that the NIMBY essay characterises the density of the proposed towers with “excessive consumption.†Despite the extant knee-jerk, hippie-like glorification of small-scale development, high density development is a step towards more sustainable societies where people make do with much less space.
Click to expand...

I quite agree and I frequently use this argument in favor of urban intensification. Unfortunately our current development boom has almost completely overlooked opportunities for the application of sustainable design principles, which is in my opinion enormously upsetting given the huge amount of developments underway and $ being spent on new construction.

I remember, at the November, 2011 community consultation for 501 Yonge, someone in the audience asked Peter Clewes how his proposed design would incorporate principles of sustainability... he sheepishly advised that the building would conform to the tier 1 green building standard (itself a laughable attempt at "greening" our building standards).

I've a slight suspicion that Barry Fenton and Mark Mandelbaum aren't particularly interested in paying the premium for high-performing buildings (ICE aside) - which is a pity given their prominence in Toronto's development industry.
 
arvelomcquaig said:
It's ironic that the NIMBY essay characterises the density of the proposed towers with “excessive consumption.” Despite the extant knee-jerk, hippie-like glorification of small-scale development, high density development is a step towards more sustainable societies where people make do with much less space.

It's frustrating that people continue to associate urbanism with consumption. I remember how surprised my aunt was when she heard I like tall buildings and the denser parts of Toronto. It seemed to contradict her idea that my artsy/progressive personality naturally favours a rural cottage life or something (when in fact it's the opposite).
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your points but disagree that highrise is the most viable building form to achieve high density. A city with a relentless landscape of highrise towers results in poor urban fabric. Look at cityplace, or even what the entertainment district is turning into. Extremely high densities can be achieved with a mix of mid and low rise, and the occasional well-placed, and well designed highrise. Unfortunately under Toronto's current planning and zoning practices (or anything close to it) such a plan is difficult to realize.

With respect to this site, I'd have it left as greenspace and the historic structures restored. Increase the density to the south and southwest in the manner described above. (don't mess with Cabbagetown)

And yes, say no to faux, so hands off the old stuff, because you can't re-create it.
 
Last edited:
I can't decide if now I feel this proposal has become convoluted, or if the fact that they've split the site up a bit more and made it more varied in form is a good thing. I guess the latter, as variety is good in an urban setting.

It seems now instead of three towers on the east end of the site there are still two of the square towers but the third, east-most tower is a cylindrical shape now, among other changes to the plans.
 
Thanks for posting :) It's interesting watching this huge development progress.
 
Resubmission!


http://ward27news.ca/north-st-jamestown-revised-application-submission
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/stjamestown/north_stjames.htm

The applicant has submitted revised drawings and studies. Hightlights of the changes include:

Block 1 – 45-storey residential tower (previously 50 storeys) with a two storey podium with retail and preservation of 603 Sherbourne St. and partial retention of 605-607 Sherbourne St. houses
Block 2 – 4 storey townhouse block with preservation of 6-16 Glen Road
Block 3 – 12, 37 and 45 storey towers (previously 56, 46 and 53 storeys) with some retail at grade, an on-site park and preservation and relocation of 76 Howard St to another vacant site in the neighbourhood
The development now proposes 1,235 units (previously 1,840)
Click to expand...

Are these new? http://www.toronto.ca/planning/stjamestown/pdf/north_stjames_plans.pdf
 
fedplanner said:
Resubmission!


http://ward27news.ca/north-st-jamestown-revised-application-submission
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/stjamestown/north_stjames.htm



Are these new? http://www.toronto.ca/planning/stjamestown/pdf/north_stjames_plans.pdf
Click to expand...

^Yes that is the new plan.

I was wondering what was happening with this proposal and it is very disappointing to see how drastically the buildings have been chopped down in size and for what purpose? The project is sitting on top of a subway station what better place for density? Over 600 units have been eliminated?

This was one project that I was looking forward to because of the plans to rejuvenate the Victorian homes on Glen Road. I would not be surprised if this new proposal doesn't get off the ground either and this undeveloped stretch of land remains mostly vacant for another 10-20 years. By then the Victorian Homes will have been demolished through neglect.
 
This was one project that I was looking forward to because of the plans to rejuvenate the Victorian homes on Glen Road. I would not be surprised if this new proposal doesn't get off the ground either and this undeveloped stretch of land remains mostly vacant for another 10-20 years. By then the Victorian Homes will have been demolished through neglect.
Click to expand...

If a smaller scaled project couldn't sellout in this environment, what makes you think a bigger one would?

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top