308 Jarvis | 108m | 34s | Graywood | Turner Fleischer

cdr108

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
4,664
Reaction score
19
So the outline of 308 only is in red, while the vacant lot (and historic house) are next to it outlined in blue.

308 alone seems like an awfully narrow site to be putting five hundred feet on. Does anyone know if any of the adjacent lots will be included?

i think i read something about the property /project reaching to Mutual street so there must be more to it than just the red area.

oops ... someone beat me to it.

here's a view of 225 Mutual Street ... not sure what it is, some non descript 1s block, next to a row of THs.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&cp=13&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=225+mutual+st+toronto&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1047&bih=593&wrapid=tljp132738366087700&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x89d4cb4ba79af985:0x3b078c011af8786a,225+Mutual+St,+Toronto,+ON+M5B+2B4&gl=ca&ei=bkQeT_WHOMvDgAfRo-CeDw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ8gEwAA


this parcel is HUGE !
 
Last edited:

CanadianNational

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,487
Reaction score
22
Location
Downtown Toronto
A big lot.

Something like this, p'haps?




So, here's a rectangular box with a height of 560', neatly placed on the lot. That's supposing an almost 500' tower atop an almost 90' podium.
No one can say it's short, exactly.



















 
Last edited:

Mongo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,312
Reaction score
160
Well, in that case, given Toronto's anti-Christian sentiment this should go ahead without a hitch.
Yep. Well, I'm off to Rogers Stadium to watch today's batch of Christians being thrown to the lions, and maybe stick around for the gladiator fights.
 

whatever

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
2,544
Reaction score
166
Something seems off there. The Primrose is 23 storeys, but in that rendering the new tower looks like it's 3 or 4 times the height.
 

dt_toronto_geek

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
10,941
Reaction score
100
Location
Downtown Toronto
This is obscenely tall for this location, the building will cast shadows on the historic park across the street in the afternoon - it will never get approved by the City past 30s - and shouldn't.
 

kkgg7

Banned
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
920
Reaction score
0
This is obscenely tall for this location, the building will cast shadows on the historic park across the street in the afternoon - it will never get approved by the City past 30s - and shouldn't.
Why is shadow such a bad thing?
In the winter, probably very few people will linger in the park. In the summer, wouldn't it be nice the park has some shaded area? Not everyone likes to be under direct sun in the summer (myself, for example). The shadow will only be cast on a small area of the park during part of the time. I don't think that's so much a big deal, especially it will be located on the west side of Jarvis, which is a pretty wide street. I don't envision it to be a big deal.
 

dt_toronto_geek

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
10,941
Reaction score
100
Location
Downtown Toronto
Why is shadow such a bad thing?
In the winter, probably very few people will linger in the park. In the summer, wouldn't it be nice the park has some shaded area? Not everyone likes to be under direct sun in the summer (myself, for example). The shadow will only be cast on a small area of the park during part of the time. I don't think that's so much a big deal, especially it will be located on the west side of Jarvis, which is a pretty wide street. I don't envision it to be a big deal.
There are trees in the park for shade. It also sets a dangerous precedent for this stretch of Jarvis between Carlton & Gerrard with other potential sites for development on the west side, not to mention the loss of another mansion on Jarvis Street. This is all wrong. Just my 2¢ though, it's all a losing battle with these developers and I'm not over the loss of Odette House yet so I'm a little negative these days.
 

cdr108

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
4,664
Reaction score
19
There are trees in the park for shade. It also sets a dangerous precedent for this stretch of Jarvis between Carlton & Gerrard with other potential sites for development on the west side, not to mention the loss of another mansion on Jarvis Street. This is all wrong. Just my 2¢ though, it's all a losing battle with these developers and I'm not over the loss of Odette House yet so I'm a little negative these days.

is this mansion being used as commercial or residential?

i don't want this to be another disaster.
 

whatever

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
2,544
Reaction score
166
The mansions on Jarvis are kind of an odd problem, in that individually they're great, but collectively they're so spread out with dead spaces in between that they kill any chance for street life. It would be a massive undertaking and probably be incredibly messy given all of the titles and landowners involved, but I wish there was some way that the mansions could be collected and repositioned to create one or two "heritage" blocks. Granted, they'd lose their context, but in a way that ship has already sailed. All of the great trees were cut down, the lawns and gardens were paved over for surface parking lots, and development has slowly encroached on the buildings anyway. If the alternatives are to either see them torn down (like Odette House), facadectomized (like the Lyle studio), tacked on as ornaments (like the James Cooper Mansion), or abandoned to neglect (...) then maybe a preservation district isn't such a bad idea, especially when there's so many worthwhile candidates in so small an area.
 

Top