90 Isabella | ?m | 69s | Capital Developments | Diamond Schmitt

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
19,537
Reaction score
45,632
Location
Toronto/EY
From the Lobbyist Registry we learn this site is in play.

The Isabella frontage is a series of charming old homes; in behind is a small townhome development which I take to be the key to this parcel.

Lets start w/Streetview:

1642009619449.png


I couldn't find a streetview of the townhomes, so site credit is as noted:

1642009655136.png

From: https://primolisting.com/listings/3546/share?unbranded=true

Now the aerial photo:

1642009713681.png


mid-way between Church and Jarvis, north side

Site size ~2300m2/ 25000ft2

Heritage status: A fair bit.....

90, 90A, and 92 are all designated; while 94 is listed.

Hmm, I don't think 90 is heritage.........(the townhomes)......

Consider that an invitation to dig up info, fellow UT'ers.

Client is Capital Developments.
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,143
Reaction score
1,170
The proposed tower or towers in this development if built. Will probably be pushed back to preserve the facades on the front and side ends of these charming old buildings. Simular to the Huntley Shelby proposal down the street. Which it think is becoming the norm when you don't want to lose the whole building lol!
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
19,537
Reaction score
45,632
Location
Toronto/EY

Nice to see the heritage buildings entirely intact.

But the tower is bland, and the forward cantilever makes the tower more imposing over the heritage than it needs to be or should be.

The appearance of the tower, at-grade, between the heritage homes is the least desirable feature, it's a waste of a potentially flattering view corridor.

While I might argue for some use of (real) brick here; if the choice were to go fully contemporary, I think a darker tone on the tower (dark black or sapphire blue would add a more flattering contrast to the heritage and make it pop.

***

To add, the space in this render, on the left of this building is the proposed park associated with the tower further to the left.

One can clearly see how ridiculously small this well shadowed space will be, and why it is entirely unreasonable to accept it as a park.
 
Last edited:

SonyPayStation

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
153
Reaction score
192
Nice to see the heritage buildings entirely intact.

But the tower is bland, and forward cantilever makes the tower more imposing over the heritage than it needs to be or should be.

The appearance of the tower, at-grade, between the heritage homes is the least desirable feature, it's a waste of a potentially flattering view corridor.

While I might argue for some use of (real) brick here; if the choice were to go fully contemporary, I think a darker tone on the tower (dark black or sapphire blue would add a more flattering contrast to the heritage and make it pop.

***

To add, the space in this render, on the left of this building is the proposed park associated with the tower further to the left.

One can clearly see how ridiculously small this well shadowed space will be, and why it is entirely unreasonable to accept it as a park.

Sapphire Blue would be amazing. This needs to transition between X condos and 88 --- like a dark to light.
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,143
Reaction score
1,170
I guess I was right they did preserved the old Victorian buildings with this development lol! What a huge looking skyscraper to tower over those homes seen in the photo up above !
 

SonyPayStation

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
153
Reaction score
192
Nice to see the heritage buildings entirely intact.

But the tower is bland, and the forward cantilever makes the tower more imposing over the heritage than it needs to be or should be.

The appearance of the tower, at-grade, between the heritage homes is the least desirable feature, it's a waste of a potentially flattering view corridor.

While I might argue for some use of (real) brick here; if the choice were to go fully contemporary, I think a darker tone on the tower (dark black or sapphire blue would add a more flattering contrast to the heritage and make it pop.

***

To add, the space in this render, on the left of this building is the proposed park associated with the tower further to the left.

One can clearly see how ridiculously small this well shadowed space will be, and why it is entirely unreasonable to accept it as a park.

I disagree (though I agree with 99% of your posts, as it would be)

HOWEVER This area has a massive dearth of parkland, and the City has done absolutely jack with its funds except hoard them. It's more than enough space for a playground with some podium adjustments. The City could delete street parking on the South and widen the public land to add to the park, or the city could ask for the entire frontage of the Heritage buildings. If the City had a history of actually productive using its funds, it would be a different story.

Edit: The tower in between the two hertiage buildings is really weird. I did not see that. Rendering error maybe?
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
19,537
Reaction score
45,632
Location
Toronto/EY
I disagree (though I agree with 99% of your posts, as it would be)

HOWEVER This area has a massive dearth of parkland, and the City has done absolutely jack with its funds except hoard them. It's more than enough space for a playground with some podium adjustments. The City could delete street parking on the South and widen the public land to add to the park, or the city could ask for the entire frontage of the Heritage buildings. If the City had a history of actually productive using its funds, it would be a different story.

Thanks for the compliment; disagreement is fine........but I'll make this case:

The provision here is only 2,000ft2 and that includes meeting the sidewalk and the building flank.

You can't really do much of a playground in that.

I agree the money ought not to just go sit in a bank account. Rather it should be allocated as off-site parkland acquisition in the immediate area; preferably by either expanding an existing park; or possibly purchasing all or a portion of the
The Separate School Board site further east on Isabella...

1652462487070.png


All that empty pavement just waiting to be a park!

**

Looking at the area, I see a reasonable prospect of expanding James Canning Gardens (the most southerly of the Yonge St. linear parks). Adjacent properties are not heritage protected and buying several through funds from multiple developments;
including those already collected could result in a critical-mass improvement in usability for that space.

1652462337654.png


The fenced off vacant land here, sitting beside the existing park was an off-site parkland aquisition to be adding to James Canning Gardens, why not just keep going east and more properties?

**

Another option could include purchasing some of the open space in front/behind this apartment building next to Cawthra Square Park and adding to that space.

1652462044843.png


Arguably a bit too far away, but they could also look at grabbing this property and adding it to Asquith Green Park:

1652462198309.png
 
Last edited:

SonyPayStation

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
153
Reaction score
192
Thanks for the compliment; disagreement is fine........but I'll make this case:

The provision here is only 2,000ft2 and that includes meeting the sidewalk and the building flank.

You can't really do much of a playground in that.

I agree the money ought not to just go sit in a bank account. Rather it should be allocated as off-site parkland acquisition in the immediate area; preferably by either expanding an existing park; or possibly purchasing all or a portion of the
The Separate School Board site further east on Isabella...

View attachment 400117

All that empty pavement just waiting to be a park!

**

Looking at the area, I see a reasonable prospect of expanding James Canning Gardens (the most southerly of the Yonge St. linear parks. Adjacent properties are not heritage protected and buying several through funds from multiple developments;
including those already collected could result in a critical-mass improvement in usability for that space.

View attachment 400116

The fenced off vacant land here, sitting beside the existing park was an off-site parkland aquisition to be adding to James Canning Gardens, why not just keep going east and more properties?

**

Another option could include purchasing some of the open space in front/behind this apartment building next to Cawthra Square Park and adding to that space.

View attachment 400114

Arguably a bit too far away, but they could also look at grabbing this property and adding it to Asquith Green Park:

View attachment 400115
I can get behind this .... I just don't trust the City to actually do anything I guess!
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
19,537
Reaction score
45,632
Location
Toronto/EY
I can get behind this .... I just don't trust the City to actually do anything I guess!

Fair enough; which is why the acquisition should be a condition of the development, and not disappear into cash-in-lieu.

Obviously, a developer can't force a sale, so they could try all these and come back empty-handed, but that would be my first choice.

The second would see the City move to expropriate if needs be (can't do that from the Separate School Board, but all the others); and then have the developer reimburse the City what is actually paid to an upper limit, as a condition
of the development.
 

TossYourJacket

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
919
Reaction score
2,220
I'd say this is comically tall, but that's just what happens when council refuses to let anything more than a single-family home go up in almost anywhere else in the city. I just hope there are enough elevators for the amount of people living in this tower (but I doubt it, as that costs money, and reduces the number of stupidly tiny units a developer can cram into a tower)
 

The Preservationist

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Messages
403
Reaction score
961
Location
Toronto
Heritage largely remains, none of this rebuild the facade business. The approach worked well with the Selby, particularly if like the Selby they add a quality restaurant or bar in the base to enhance the public experience. As always podium materials and execution will make or break this one. Hey developers make this one a win-win.
 

Top