Toronto 164-168 Isabella Street | 244.16m | 70s | Elysium | Studio JCI

Since this is all-rental, perhaps it can get going with relative speed. I like the design, apart from the ridiculous "Torontoism" of the heritage century homes at the base. Contrarily, maybe this bizarre style of heritage retention will become a kind of quirky, oddball practice charmingly associated with Toronto.
 
Strange Advance said:
Since this is all-rental, perhaps it can get going with relative speed. I like the design, apart from the ridiculous "Torontoism" of the heritage century homes at the base. Contrarily, maybe this bizarre style of heritage retention will become a kind of quirky, oddball practice charmingly associated with Toronto.
Click to expand...

It's funny how NYC's setback laws shaped their skyline to have tiered buildings and our heritage laws led to us having buildings teetering on their tippy toes. I've alway enjoyed learning about laws affecting architectural forms.
 
Strange Advance said:
Since this is all-rental, perhaps it can get going with relative speed. I like the design, apart from the ridiculous "Torontoism" of the heritage century homes at the base. Contrarily, maybe this bizarre style of heritage retention will become a kind of quirky, oddball practice charmingly associated with Toronto.
Click to expand...

I don't see any SPA on file for this one yet............those usually take a moment to work through.

Could be awhile yet.

They could, potentially clear zoning in Q1 2026; but it'll be a bit yet for construction.
 
According to this article at Renx:

renx.ca

Elysium builds, buys sites for Yarra student housing platform

It's a busy time at Yarra, the purpose-built student housing platform of Elysium Investments Inc. Plans have been unveiled for its first development in Guelph, Ont. and the firm is about to close on a development site in Toronto.
renx.ca renx.ca

This site's tenure is as yet undetermined. It could be Purpose-Built Rental or Student Rental or a hybrid of the two.

With no decision yet taken, we can assume ground breaking is a considerable distance down the road.

SPA has not been submitted here.
 
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Resubmission with revisions & stat changes:
  • Storey count is now 70 due to the addition of an indoor amenity level above floor 69 and below the MPH
  • Height is now 244.16m to the topmost architectural element (slanted roof) and 237.2m to the roof slab
  • Unit count is now 648 w/ 50 rental replacement units
  • Total bike parking down to 369 w/ cash-in-lieu of deficiency
  • Total site area increased slightly due to the inclusion of a piece of property in the northwest corner of the site
Updated renderings of the podium & heritage retention:
isabella1.jpg
isabella6.jpg
isabella5.jpg
isabella4.jpg
isabella3.jpg
isabella2.jpg


Also from the revised cover letter, a discussion of the development potential of adjacent 556 Sherbourne (Isabella Hotel) site:
1776719915234.png
 
Paclo said:
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Resubmission with revisions & stat changes:
  • Storey count is now 70 due to the addition of an indoor amenity level above floor 69 and below the MPH
  • Height is now 244.16m to the topmost architectural element (slanted roof) and 237.2m to the roof slab
  • Unit count is now 648 w/ 50 rental replacement units
  • Total bike parking down to 369 w/ cash-in-lieu of deficiency
  • Total site area increased slightly due to the inclusion of a piece of property in the northwest corner of the site
Updated renderings of the podium & heritage retention:
View attachment 730782View attachment 730783View attachment 730784View attachment 730785View attachment 730786View attachment 730787

Also from the revised cover letter, a discussion of the development potential of adjacent 556 Sherbourne (Isabella Hotel) site:
View attachment 730788
Click to expand...
Interested in the analysis of 556 Sherbourne. They created a very significant setback on the west side of the “upper portion” (3.0m). Why wouldn’t they assume a 0.0 m setback (up to the lot line) with no windows all the way up? That’s allowed, as far as I understand.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top