Toronto 355 Sherbourne | 172.8m | 48s | Kindred Works | KPMB

Northern Light said:
As one can see above w/the title change, a new submission has been made here at drastically greater height, from 12s to 48s

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

From the above:

View attachment 679642

View attachment 679643

Site Plan:
View attachment 679644


Ground Flor Plan:

View attachment 679646

View attachment 679647
View attachment 679648
View attachment 679650
View attachment 679652
View attachment 679653

Elevator Ratio: 440 units, 4 elevators or 110 units per elevator.
Click to expand...
Closer to Heaven at 48-Storeys.

BLOCK-CONTEXT looking EAST...
1757362592111.png


Looking WEST...

1757362705950.png
 
I like this one a lot more than the previous midrise variant, ironically feels less overpowering against the church by allowing an unobstructed view of the side wall roofline and inner corner turret from street level. The transitional 2-4 storey extensions to the side connect the tower to the streetscape too. Overall feels easier to mentally distinguish the old from the new.
 
I hope all this development causes a serious cleanup of that area/park. I won't get into politics of homelessness/mental illness, because we obviously need to do a better job at managing these things. Regardless, it is not acceptable to expect people, sometimes young children, to dodge used up needles and crazy people threatening violence and screaming at everyone who walks by
 
70Challenger said:
I like this one a lot more than the previous midrise variant, ironically feels less overpowering against the church by allowing an unobstructed view of the side wall roofline and inner corner turret from street level. The transitional 2-4 storey extensions to the side connect the tower to the streetscape too. Overall feels easier to mentally distinguish the old from the new.
Click to expand...
I would agree. I really like the transition to the tower from the church, and the ceiling/structure looks super interesting. I just hope the city doesnt make them change it to all glass for the transition, like so many of the heritage solutions that the city pushes for in their box checking.
 
The previous version was very thoughtful and worked well with the church. Imagine a block with ten buildings all about ten storeys tall. A much nicer way to create density than the new, developer-greed application which is FIVE TIMES the height. Toronto sprawls across hundreds of square kilometres and yet we are building as if real estate is limited like Hong Kong. *We need density,* but why are we giving in to developer greed by imprisoning people in tiny boxes forty stories off the ground? The Province and City needs to plan and legislate better.
 
J Martin said:
The previous version was very thoughtful and worked well with the church. Imagine a block with ten buildings all about ten storeys tall. A much nicer way to create density than the new, developer-greed application which is FIVE TIMES the height. Toronto sprawls across hundreds of square kilometres and yet we are building as if real estate is limited like Hong Kong. *We need density,* but why are we giving in to developer greed by imprisoning people in tiny boxes forty stories off the ground? The Province and City needs to plan and legislate better.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I found the previous proposal lazy and clunky. This is a major improvement and gives the church a lot more of the spotlight.
 
I quite like the podium of the revised proposal, including the southern extension with its arches and the large arches of the podium above the church. I think this is much nicer than the original.

I don't care for the tower. It's not the height, I would just prefer that the tower not extend over the podium.
 
I'm not quite sure when it was added, but a new sign has appeared beside the development notice.

tempImageVIlSO8.jpg


The QR code takes you to https://simplydbs.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dbUWHntVVoVz6Wq?SOURCE=signs&PH=2A&BLDG=353 Sherbourne Street

It's a survey that asks a number of "would you rather have A or B" type questions about what you'd like in a unit, common amenities, outdoor spaces, etc. (I didn't complete it all the way to the end.)

It seems that someone in the community has already given their feedback a slightly different way... I guess they don't realize that the proposal doesn't include demolishing the church.

tempImageLoLsQG.jpg
 
Toronto's not a museum city, they do layers of history here with new additions complementing old structures. Considering how dreary and car-centric the outskirts are, any housing densification in the downtown center while preserving the most important heritage aspects is welcome.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top