interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
27,154
Reaction score
35,288
319 Jarvis Street

Just tweeted by David Oikawa.

C4zbJYuUMAA71y8.jpg

David Oikawa ‏@DavidOikawa1

506 units. more info soon I imagine!
 

Attachments

  • C4zbJYuUMAA71y8.jpg
    C4zbJYuUMAA71y8.jpg
    81 KB · Views: 13,131
Last edited by a moderator:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit redevelopment of the lands known municipally as 319, 321, and 323 Jarvis Street for a 50-storey mixed-use buidling with retail uses at grade: 506 dwelling units, 69 sq. m. retail, 35,316 sq. m of RGFA.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 17 116378 STE 27 OZ Feb 13, 2017 Under Review

This is what's there now.

jarvis.JPG
 

Attachments

  • jarvis.JPG
    jarvis.JPG
    120.2 KB · Views: 6,097
It's that Comfort Inn plus another narrow property to the north with a three-and-a-half storey building on it. I imagine that there will be issues with a 50-storey building proposed south of Allan Gardens: shadows are going to determine a lot here.

42
 
It's that Comfort Inn plus another narrow property to the north with a three-and-a-half storey building on it. I imagine that there will be issues with a 50-storey building proposed south of Allan Gardens: shadows are going to determine a lot here.

42

Immediately to the north is 325 Jarvis, a condominium townhouse complex of 20-something units. Unless the owners opt to dissolve their condo corporation and sell, I can't see 50 storeys right next door working for them either.

Personally, I'd be most concerned about shadowing on Allan Gardens too.
 
What the hell is going on? If you can only afford 1/8th of an inspired Foster design than don't buy the 1/8th of an inspired Foster design. Why do a podium when it's not much bigger than the tower? It's the only thing I like about the tower. It doesn't occupy an entire block. Of course, it's still the usually density grab with a high lot coverage and zero stepbacks along the full 47 floors to provide breathing room with neighbouring properties.
 
This proposal is non-sense.

There is no relationship to the context whatsoever!

Nothing that suggests that height is appropriate.

Nothing that creates a cohesive or even desirable streetwall.

While not hopelessly unattractive, it certainly doesn't offer anything (overtly) to offset its obvious drawbacks.
 
What a beauty !
I hope it will be built with the current pleasant design.
It will bring beauty,modernity and elegance to the area.
 
Podium looks awfully similar to 2 Carlton...I sure wonder who could have designed this lump.
 
Wow ! The winds of change have begun to blow! Good bye to the days of low rise buildings in the downtown core. Skyscrapers are here to stay. Pumping the population up from over two hundred thousand to a half a million. In the next decade or so!
 
What the hell is going on? If you can only afford 1/8th of an inspired Foster design than don't buy the 1/8th of an inspired Foster design. Why do a podium when it's not much bigger than the tower? It's the only thing I like about the tower. It doesn't occupy an entire block. Of course, it's still the usually density grab with a high lot coverage and zero stepbacks along the full 47 floors to provide breathing room with neighbouring properties.

"Okay, for the west frontage, give me 2/3rds Foster and 1/3rd Toronto Delta Southcore. And just do whatever with the podium."
 
"Okay, for the west frontage, give me 2/3rds Foster and 1/3rd Toronto Delta Southcore. And just do whatever with the podium."

Thank you! Got a good laugh at that one!
 
Podium looks awfully similar to 2 Carlton...I sure wonder who could have designed this lump.

Or who signed off on this lump. I can't believe it's from one of our experienced developers.
 
I could see 25-30 storeys here, max. This is the very periphery of the downtown core, next to established lowrise neighbourhoods and Allan Gardens.

I think it helpful to acknowledge that Toronto is turning into a different type of city. The old ideas of what's suitable height or density don't line up with the reality we find ourselves in. That buildings should get shorter away from Yonge always struck me as terribly short sighted with one foot firmly planted in the past and the other not sure where to tread.

Jarvis is home to 3 floor mansions from a century ago and 15 floor buildings here and there. Do we build to that scale? It's one of the biggest arterial roads in the downtown core. The answer is that we can't and shouldn't.

There seems to be this intense pressure to build the smallest scale possible while still saying 'yes' to development. In one of the fastest growing cities in the western world is that any way to plan for the future? The sooner we accept what's coming the better we can manage that growth. What's coming? Toronto will eventually look like Manhattan from the DVP to Liberty Village and from the lake to Yorkville. Some low rise areas should no doubt be saved intact but for the rest is going to intensify... and drastically.

The sooner we accept that the better. Building 25-30 floors here will within 20 years look like a tremendous waste of valuable real estate. It's exasperating that we're going ballistic over a 170m building in our core when cities are building 3-4 times that height (500-700m). Toronto still thinks it's a big Canadian city sometimes. We're not. We're a middle sized world metropolis on our way to becoming a mega city.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top