Toronto 383 Sherbourne | 129.04m | 39s | NJS Capital | Arcadis

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I can least say I like what they 're planning on doing with the podium bit.

 

[cd concept]

Simple but effective! Keeping the podium with brick and glass is nice but rare these days. And tower's facade is not all glass and will stand out from a distance.

 

[TheKingEast]

Surprised that they're putting up such a tall tower in that location.

 

[AlbertC]

Hmm, I'm curious if this is a zone 'n flip move by NJS Capital:

Strategy | NJS Capital

NJS Capital is a Toronto-based real estate investment firm specializing in small to mid-sized properties that drive superior risk-adjusted returns. Discover our unique value-add philosophy that is quickly defining an entirely new sector in the GTA.

njscapital.com

 

[innsertnamehere]

this puts the HousingNow site to the north to shame, and shows how much density the city continues to leave at the table on those sites.

 

[Bjays92]

This is tall for this area no? Cuz it certainly seems it.

 

[AlbertC]

49 storeys would be a bit taller for the area. The closest nearby height precedents would be at the Sherbourne & Wellesley intersection, where 159SW is 36s and the older Verve condo is 39s.

However, just a thought but I don't believe NJS Capital will be the ones to ultimately realize this project in the end. From what I gather of their operations, they manage smaller apartment blocks and look for opportunities to add value in their investments. Which gives me the impression that they're possibly looking at this site to upzone for high intensification potential and then flip it for profit.

It's possible that this proposal may end up around the low to mid-40s range, but for NJS it's all just going to be house money to be determined.

 

[Koops65]

 

[Anthonylipson1996]

Design is lazy. A few sharp features, but even those are downplayed. Less building coverage for the front exterior of the tower would look much better imo.

 

[concrete_and_light]

The City won't lead on setting new height precedents with affordable housing because then new height precedents would be set and oh no we can't have that but then new height precedents are set anyway and people in need have less housing.

 

[HousingNowTO]

Based on what our volunteers had to deal with on the nearby HOUSING NOW site, this development will need to deal with the City's "Shadow-on-a-Park" policy as it impacts WINCHESTER PARK...and the WINCHESTER SCHOOL property.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1330987658181554176

 

[HousingNowTO]

Yeah, they'll need to deal with the "net new Shadow-on-Park" impacts...

 

[interchange42]

Yeah, they'll need to deal with the "net new Shadow-on-Park" impacts...

View attachment 344426

Trees should provide shadow on parkland… buildings, not so much. Shadow parkland with buildings too much and the trees won't grow.

If this building is approved to add 10% more shadow on the park, then every subsequent redevelopment in the surroundings will get the same. In a city with limited public green space in many neighbourhoods, and more demand on each park as the city continues to get denser, there is a strong argument for holding the line on new shadows on parkland. You may not like any recognize the validity of any impediments to new density and height, but others will not necessarily agree that everything must be sacrificed in the name of new housing.

42

 

[ErieHall]

It is becoming increasingly clear that parks must be banned in the downtown core if housing is to ever become even just "a bit pricey".

More seriously, it's not like a park is suddenly worthless just because it's shadowed.

 

[DtTO]

There is no way this will look anything like the rendering. There are no balconies, and we can't have that in Toronto. We have to put balconies on EVERYTHING, even if it's 300 floors up, it needs balconies on all 4 sides. If we can find a way to put balconies on the floors and ceilings of units, we'd do that too.