Toronto Burke Condominiums | 163.4m | 53s | Concert | Arcadis

That rendering shown above is not the Howard Street Project. That is the new rental Tower to be squeezed in between 565 and 555 Sherbourne (where the No-Frills is currently).
 
Peepers said:
That rendering shown above is not the Howard Street Project. That is the new rental Tower to be squeezed in between 565 and 555 Sherbourne (where the No-Frills is currently).
Click to expand...

Should probably start a thread for this one...
20101031075.jpg


20101031077.jpg
 
City Planning Preliminary Report

To be considered by Toronto & East York Community Council on January 18, 2011:

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2011.TE3.25
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-34478.pdf

Addresses
6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 Glen Road
4, 6, 58, 60, 62, 64, 76 and 100 Howard Street
603, 605, 607, 609 and 611 Sherbourne Street

Proposal
Block 1 / West: 50 storeys (bldg 1A), 5 levels underground parking
Block 2 / Middle: 5 storeys (bldg 2A)
Block 3 / East: 56 (bldg 3B) + 46 (bldg 3C) + 53 (bldg 3D) storeys, 5 levels underground parking
 
Looks like the planning department is going to try and kill this development :mad:

"The application in its current form is not supportable. Among the issues of considerable concern to staff, are the appropriateness of the proposed land use redesignation, along with the proposal’s significant scale , density, massing and transition towards the existing adjacent neighbourhoods in the centre of the North St. James Town Neighbourhood and Apartment Neighbourhoods to the south"

Their major concern seems to be the "transition" towards St. James town would somehow detract from the architectural beauty of St. James town :confused: This is nuts! I hope that the developer will stick to his guns and take this to the OMB if necessary.
 
The architecture of St. Jamestown has nothing to do with the Planning Dept's concerns with the application, but merely the height and the 1800+ units being proposed. They are not trying to kill the development, just doing their job in assessing the merits of the application. You would be hard-pressed to find any planning application that does not raise any concerns, regardless of the use, height,and/or density. This goes for any planning applicaiton regardless of the location or municipality. Besides, it's just a preliminary report and more than likely the application will be revised before a final report and recommendation is prepared and goes to Council for approval.
 
Is there any legitimate reason to shorten these towers or will this be another seemingly token cut done to make it look like the planners are earning their paycheques?
 
Ramako said:
Is there any legitimate reason to shorten these towers or will this be another seemingly token cut done to make it look like the planners are earning their paycheques?
Click to expand...

I am sure there are, just are there are legitimate reasons to even increase the building heights. The planners jobs are not to reduce proposed building heights, but to assess the merits of the applicaiton by reviewing the many pros and cons that are brought forward. They will look at the surrounding context in terms of built form and land uses, listen to the community and various groups that have an interest in the development (both for and against the development), and look at the available infrastructure capacities, amongst other things.

androiduk said:
I think they would have to do something with Howard St. to accomodate the extra traffic. Maybe make it 2 way from Bleeker to Parliament.
Click to expand...

I didn't read anything about Howard St., but Red Rocket Lane will be widend for two-way traffic between Bloor and Howard.
 
marcus_a_j said:
The architecture of St. Jamestown has nothing to do with the Planning Dept's concerns with the application, but merely the height and the 1800+ units being proposed. l.
Click to expand...

If these buildings were being proposed beside Queens Park I could understand the concern for the height and scale. They are being proposed to be built beside the largest high-rise slum in the city so what does it matter that they will dwarf St James town?

The only people that I could see having legitimate issues with this project would be residents of Rosedale but I suspect most of them would be happy to see this buffer being built between St James Town and their community as it can only enhance their property values.
 
The city planning department is making me shake my head on this one. There are no "concerns" here - they (and all of us really) should be glad, even relieved, that a respected developer is proposing a project designed by a top class architect for one of the shabbiest, most neglected blocks in all of the downtown. This project will single-handedly give the awful St. Jamestown area a massively needed boost, and restore some lovely heritage buildings that have been sadly languishing for decades to boot. Hell, it might even inspire some investment within the St. Jamestown buildings themselves. If I were the president of Lanterra I'd feel rather offended. I hope they go to the OMB and get the green light for everything they're proposing.
 
Towered said:
The city planning department is making me shake my head on this one. There are no "concerns" here - they (and all of us really) should be glad, even relieved, that a respected developer is proposing a project designed by a top class architect for one of the shabbiest, most neglected blocks in all of the downtown. This project will single-handedly give the awful St. Jamestown area a massively needed boost, and restore some lovely heritage buildings that have been sadly languishing for decades to boot. Hell, it might even inspire some investment within the St. Jamestown buildings themselves. If I were the president of Lanterra I'd feel rather offended. I hope they go to the OMB and get the green light for everything they're proposing.
Click to expand...

It's all to easy for us on this forum to condemn the city here but there are legitimate concerns, sure you want to blow them off because this is new / grand / adds density - but there's some practical aspects that need to be considered. For the most part that's what the report highlighted - it didn't even mention 'rejection' directory, just that a lot has yet to be studied and that they would need to address all of that.
 
I can foresee some serious section 37 dollars for St. Jamestown from this development.

This is a good start, but it needs some tweaking on first glance.

There is a serious lack of diverse housing being proposed (only 3.8% 3 bedrooms). I don't see much in the way of animating Howard Street. There are a couple of blocks of stores and restaurants already there (they've always seemed pretty vibrant every time I've been in the area) and this development could extend that vibrancy to Parliament Street, but it doesn't appear that it does. The eastern edge of the development doesn't seem to turn to Bloor here, which is not a very nice stretch anyway. With the amount of heavy foot traffic and density in the area, perhaps Howard Street could be a woonerf.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top