Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
Project Essentials / dataBase – detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread  I  Real Estate Thread
12° / 12 Degrees Condos
25 Beverley St, Toronto
Developer: BSäR Group Of Companies
Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 233

Thread: 12 Degrees (15-27 Beverley St., BSÄR Group of Companies, 11s, Core Architects)

  1. #1

    Default 12 Degrees (15-27 Beverley St., BSÄR Group of Companies, 11s, Core Architects)

    I don't know if there's another thread. I searched but couldn't find one.

    From Adam Vaughan's March 2009 Newsletter

    15-27 Beverley Street

    (image available in PDF version of newsletter)

    Craig Hunter of Armstrong Hunter & Associates and Charles Gane of Core Architects presented the proposal for 15-27 Beverley Street, on behalf of property owners Tarek Sobhi and Tyler Hershberg at a public meeting held by Councillor Vaughan on February 9. The proposal is at a pre-application stage, and will require a rezoning application.

    There are currently houses on this site that date back to the 1880s, which are in the process of being included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The house at 15 Beverley St. was Frank Gehry's maternal grandmother's house, and the houses are among the first worker cottages in the district.

    This project proposes to demolish the houses and replace them with a 13 storey, 42 m building with five live-work townhouses at grade and a residential building above. The building would have a 6500 sq ft floorplate. The loading area will be contained in the building, and entry will be from Cayley Lane to the south, which would be widened and repaved.

    There would be a podium at the 6th storey, where there will be a terrace and outdoor amenity space, as well as a landscaped buffer. The design of the building was envisioned as an assortment of glass cubes that would shift from different views around the building. The highest mass is in the south-west corner of the site.

    Councillor Vaughan indicated that he had already provided feedback to the applicants that the building was too tall, and had provided the 'Phoebe' building on the west side of Beverley as the height limit that would be accepted, particularly if there would be demolition occurring.

    Several residents in attendance raised concerns about the height of the building and the contrast with the heritage buildings in the area, as well as the proposal to demolish the heritage buildings currently at the site.

    A few in attendance indicated support for the design of the building and new development in the area. Concerns were raised about drug dealing and graffiti in Cayley Lane, which some attendees felt that the development project would resolve.

    Councillor Vaughan asked that the proponents take the feedback from the meeting and return with a revised proposal.


  2. #2

    Default

    Well, it does look rather hot. But demolishing more Victorian homes? Hell no! Move this project to that parking lot around the corner. (Why doesn't CoT have density transfers for protection of historic buildings like the CoV?)

    via google, Tyler Hershberg looks to be an empire communities associate: http://ssb.yorku.ca/course_material/...4?OpenDocument Tyler J. Hershberg, BA, LL.B, MBA
    thershberg@empirecommunities.com
    Last edited by urbandreamer; 2009-Mar-12 at 22:47.
    Canadian architecture I like: http://renderpornstar.com/

  3. #3

    Default

    Looks fantastic!

    42m is too high? Really? Wow, these platitude-spoutin' residents sure know how to cow their way into 'bucolocracy.'

    Where this sexy building is located.

    Where this sexy building is not located.
    Last edited by ProjectEnd; 2009-Mar-12 at 23:26. Reason: Added map links

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Leaving Rob Fordland before it is too late.
    Posts
    936

    Default

    IMO the design compliments the newer structures in this neighbourhood. I like it and hope it gets built.

  5. #5

    Default

    So this is essentially where the cross-walk is - and would replace all the houses which front onto Beverly? I don't know, the houses have seen better days - it seems interesting that the city is suddenly interested in their preservation now that a building proposal, which includes their demise has come into existence. The buildings in question have essentially seen better days and I am inclined to think that, while they may be historical, that the owners were waiting for this to happen.

    I am not opposed to the development of this building, on another stretch/site, but I think that keeping them intact and restoring them, like the ones being restored on Phoebe is the better route and more interesting one. I like this proposal, but think that it might be better suited along Bulwer..

    p5
    ...by design

  6. Default

    The row of Victorian homes beginning at the crosswalk and continuing south to the first alley are 39-27B Beverley. This development at 15-27 Beverley shouldn't affect them. There are however 2 short, ugly small squarish buildings next to them that are probably the one's cited in the article.

  7. #7

    Default

    Again, I'll echo what you guys are saying: great proposal, wrong site.

    REJECT.

  8. Default



    That is hardly worth saving in my mind.

    I would much prefer this modern architeture to the bland low-rise that currently occupies the site. I really wonder why anyone thinks this is in an unappropriate area: there are condo apartments to the west, a retirement home to the south and industrial lofts to the east, not exactly a low-rise residential community?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nicetommy View Post
    The row of Victorian homes beginning at the crosswalk and continuing south to the first alley are 39-27B Beverley. This development at 15-27 Beverley shouldn't affect them. There are however 2 short, ugly small squarish buildings next to them that are probably the one's cited in the article.

    If this is the case, then I'm all for the proposal at the height and location.
    The tower just one block further north (south of Grange Park) is definitely taller than 13s, so why not this one?

    Does the density exceed the zoning?

  10. #10

    Default

    Perhaps the plan could be modified to preserve 15 Beverley and incorporate a huge spiral staircase emerging from the roof?

  11. #11

    Default

    I'd:

    1)Restore these homes

    2)wrap the old homes in a glass box

    3)then build on top
    Canadian architecture I like: http://renderpornstar.com/

  12. #12

    Default

    At the risk of sounding like a barbarian, given the nature+state of these buildings I would a) demolish them and b) build on their ruins.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,490

    Default

    Alternatively, the project could incorporate the facade of the 4 houses as the main lobby or something since that means it will definitely be refurbished !

    We've seen several applications (proposed and actual) like Bauhaus, Yonge/St. Nicholas, Kormann House, King's Court, ...

  14. #14

    Default

    Though not the primary cause, projects like these still do contribute to the slower than expected population growth that Toronto is currently experiencing. This 13 level building, which sits on already occupied land, will generate the same population growth as a 5 floor building constructed on a vacant lot. It's very possible that at least 70 students live in those houses and will be displaced.

    I would approve the design, scale, and context of this building, but reject it on the grounds that there are many empty lots nearby that are equally developable. Once all vacant lots have been used up, only then would it be appropriate to demolish the existing housing stock.

  15. #15

    Default

    Development happens primarily because people who own plots of land wish to develop them. Sometimes a developer will eye a certain property and perhaps buy it from its existing owner with intentions to develop it. The city however, does not go around assessing property with the intentions of planning out how neighborhoods will look etc. This is done in a more general sense since the city does have an Official Plan for development, but as we here on UT know, what actually goes up can vary widely.

    More succinctly, development comes to the city, not from it.

Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •