arvelomcquaig
Active Member
This is why we need the OMB. This shouldn't be considered “over-development” at Dundas & Jarvis.
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
ksun
Senior Member
not to mention the tall building guideline is complete BS and should be rid of. It is actually amazing Jarvis is mostly low rise as if we are in the middle of Collingwood, not toronto.
salsa
Senior Member
Classic ksun hyperbole.
Stupidandshallow
Active Member
City staff indicated a proposal that is within a height range of approximately 10 to 17 storeys would be appropriate for the site.
Really 10 – 17 storeys at Dundas and Jarvis? That’s Ludicrous and under-development. I really do hope that this goes to the OMB and gets built. After all the site is currently home to a commercial surface parking lot, a 2-storey rental housing building, and a 2-storey townhouse converted for office uses.
I’ve walked down this stretch before and it is quite depressing. I think any development that will replace a surface parking lot is great for the core and this area desperately needs development.
Really 10 – 17 storeys at Dundas and Jarvis? That’s Ludicrous and under-development. I really do hope that this goes to the OMB and gets built. After all the site is currently home to a commercial surface parking lot, a 2-storey rental housing building, and a 2-storey townhouse converted for office uses.
I’ve walked down this stretch before and it is quite depressing. I think any development that will replace a surface parking lot is great for the core and this area desperately needs development.
AlbertC
Superstar
Nah, Jarvis reminds me more of Elora than Collingwood.
Uptowner
Active Member
I agree with others that 17 would be a ludicrous outcome. I wish they had been more ambitious in the first place and gone for 50.
Gotzvon
Active Member
Very confusing rationale considering Pace is U/C and Dundas Square Gardens is right there as well. Dundas and Jarvis is (or should be) a major downtown intersection with a streetcar right there and the Yonge subway 10-15 mins walk away. I imagine the OMB will side with the developer largely on this one.
The City's rationale is that they always want the height peaks at major intersections and height ridges along major roads, with the buildings decreasing in height when you move away from those. 17 still seems a bit short when Ryerson is proposing a 30-storey residence immediately east on those on Jarvis. I doubt the OMB would award anything higher than that here. This will likely end up shorter than that, but higher than 17 storeys.
42
42
Mike in TO
Senior Member
I appreciate that this is a forum and most comments are rather superficial in nature (I.e. "Collingwood" example) and that people naturally gravitate to the headline height number rather than digging into the nuts and bolts of the actual planning challenges that the site presents. I certainly agree that the site should is ripe for a "higher and better" use, but the height itself is not really an issue (that is something that the proponent and city can either negotiate to a mutual agreement that is economically feasible or that the OMB can step in and mediate.... As an aside for all the people calling on the OMB to simpy step in here and on other sites, that role is changing and I would expect to see a lot more mediation in the future vs decisions that have a winner vs a loser).
The complication from a planning perspective here is not the height, nor the density - it is the constraints of the site itself and the immediate neighboring towers. I think we can all fairly debate whether a 25m tower separation is an appropriate distance in an urbanizing setting, but it is fair to say that the planning considerations are centered around light penetration and privacy between generally mostly glazed and transparent buildings...
What is being proposed isn't really a minor variance, but fairly tight sperations of 18.2m from the Great Gulf project Pace and 22m and 13.7m to the buildings to the east. Those considerations (as well as parkland, but I won't comment on that) are the real challenges being presented by the project.... Everyone always gravitates towards height, but that can be figured out, these other issues based on the 25m standard are real challenges.
The complication from a planning perspective here is not the height, nor the density - it is the constraints of the site itself and the immediate neighboring towers. I think we can all fairly debate whether a 25m tower separation is an appropriate distance in an urbanizing setting, but it is fair to say that the planning considerations are centered around light penetration and privacy between generally mostly glazed and transparent buildings...
What is being proposed isn't really a minor variance, but fairly tight sperations of 18.2m from the Great Gulf project Pace and 22m and 13.7m to the buildings to the east. Those considerations (as well as parkland, but I won't comment on that) are the real challenges being presented by the project.... Everyone always gravitates towards height, but that can be figured out, these other issues based on the 25m standard are real challenges.
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
I suppose you have never been to Elora. I don't see a river, limestone cliffs or heritage mills anywhere along Jarvis, perhaps st Lawrence market is a bit like Elora. I'd say its more like Kitchener.
But I'm from Elora and a bit biased on this.
17 stories is stupid, I don't understand why this side of downtown seems to have so many obstacles to overcome in order to be further developed.
Stupidandshallow
Active Member
Your comment about people not getting to the nuts and bolts is quite presumptuous. I focused on the height after reading the preliminary report that suggested it should be 10-17 storeys.
While I didn't gravitate towards the tower separation issue, I find it equally as silly as the height restriction/recommendation. Is that really a tight separation in an urban environment? I really think the Toronto planning department treats Toronto like a suburb.
argus
Active Member
You should read his post more closely. There are a number of issues beyond height alone, and the previous poster did clearly indicate a view regarding the 17 floor limit. The facing distances are important, particularly to the built environment and to the people who will eventually live in the building. There is more to a building and the context than height alone.
Gotzvon
Active Member
You're quite right, but I think there are workarounds to those problems that can be found without butchering the height and density of a building in an area that can definitely support it. Considering the projects being built around it, including Pace and Ryerson's student housing, the height seems contextually appropriate. Hopefully Tribute can come back to the city with a proposal with different massing that addresses their separation and sky view concerns while maintaining a reasonable height.
AlbertC
Superstar
I suppose you have never been to Elora. I don't see a river, limestone cliffs or heritage mills anywhere along Jarvis, perhaps st Lawrence market is a bit like Elora. I'd say its more like Kitchener.
But I'm from Elora and a bit biased on this.
17 stories is stupid, I don't understand why this side of downtown seems to have so many obstacles to overcome in order to be further developed.
Not meant to be taken so literal. Purposely went for the absurd comparison.
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
Not meant to be taken so literal. Purposely went for the absurd comparison.
It's all good, its rare that Elora comes up in passing, so i feel obligated to defend it lol. It's much prettier than Jarvis. I think there is hope though, Jarvis has lots of potential, some nice recent projects, allen gardens, st lawrence market, etc. It just needs some more attention along certain stretches mostly south of Gerard.