Cherry Place

Developer: Rekai Centres
Architect: Montgomery Sisam Architects
  
Address: 55 Eastern Ave, Toronto
Category: Commercial (Retail), Institutional (Health Care)
Status: Pre-ConstructionCompletion: TBD
Height: 183 ft / 55.70 mStoreys: 13 storeys
Project Forum 196 posts
Real Estate Forum
Follow 12 followingUpload 83 photos
Official WebsiteReport Error


Toronto Cherry Place | 55.7m | 13s | Rekai | Montgomery Sisam

They didn't look particularly matured according to the Google street view angle...

...so outside of this being an arsed hole move on behalf of the developers, I am going to assume they would be in the unfortunate way during construction. /sigh
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
They didn't look particularly matured according to the Google street view angle...

...so outside of this being an arsed hole move on behalf of the developers, I am going to assume they would be in the unfortunate way during construction. /sigh
Click to expand...
They first show on Streetview in 2014 so were ca10 years old. Yes, they will be replanted but if people are allowed to cut trees every 10 years we will NEVER see mature trees. It is clearly FAR too easy to get permits (if they had permits!!) to remove trees. @Northern Light may have comments. The City used to appoint a Councillor as the Tree Advocate - I think last one was Joe Pantelone - it is a way of having a politician to complain to and maybe Olivia should restart this.
 
LUVIT! said:
Why would they have to remove street trees anyway if the trees are on city property?
Click to expand...

There are legitimate reasons (in some cases) for such removals.

1) Trees in poor health.

2) Tree Roots are within the construction zone the tree is unlikely to survive them being cut.

3) Necessary removal of the sidewalk (which may cause root damage), and/or removal of trees for the purpose relocating/installing utilities.

4) Replacing mediocre tree pits with better growing conditions.

5) Tree Crown (branches) may interfere with construction, and the extent of trimming may cause irreparable harm.

***

In general, trees greater than 30cm (1ft) in diameter at breast height (upper chest, average height male), are subject to protection, smaller trees are not.

Though you can't remove a City-owned tree w/o permission, unless its an emergency.

DSCToronto said:
They first show on Streetview in 2014 so were ca10 years old. Yes, they will be replanted but if people are allowed to cut trees every 10 years we will NEVER see mature trees.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, those trees don't look 10 years old to me, in the 2023 Streetview images. I remember documenting many trees in this block in poor condition not that long ago....though they look healthy in 2023. I do suspect several were previously replaced here.

2023 Streetview:

1740268274668.png


June '2019"

1740268759204.png

DSCToronto said:
@Northern Light may have comments.
Click to expand...

I do indeed. Beyond those I've offered above.

The Landscape Plan shows all the trees on Cherry being retained!

1740268874397.png

1740268932554.png


Those are the most current plans and from 2023.

I think someone should ask for an explanation then......

As the approved plan and the action do not seem to align.

Application Details

www.toronto.ca
 
The City Planner for the Rekai site responded, very promptly. He said:

"The applicant needed to do this for the construction management of their site. Previously their plan had been to reach an agreement with the car dealership next door (Honda I believe) and use some land there for the construction related activities. They were not able to reach an agreement with Honda, and so their activities are expected to encompass the boulevard along Cherry Street which impacted the trees.

The City’s urban forestry staff were engaged and reviewed the applicant’s plans to remove and then replace the trees once construction is completed. Staff in that department were satisfied with their changes."

.
 
DSCToronto said:
Previously their plan had been to reach an agreement with the car dealership next door and use some land there for the construction related activities. They were not able to reach an agreement with Honda, and so their activities are expected to encompass the boulevard along Cherry Street which impacted the trees.
Click to expand...
Cheaper to cut trees than cut a deal with Honda? What if they couldn’t get approval to cut down the trees? I guess they had no plan.
 
DSCToronto said:
The City Planner for the Rekai site responded, very promptly. He said:

"The applicant needed to do this for the construction management of their site. Previously their plan had been to reach an agreement with the car dealership next door (Honda I believe) and use some land there for the construction related activities. They were not able to reach an agreement with Honda, and so their activities are expected to encompass the boulevard along Cherry Street which impacted the trees.

The City’s urban forestry staff were engaged and reviewed the applicant’s plans to remove and then replace the trees once construction is completed. Staff in that department were satisfied with their changes."

.
Click to expand...

This is what we were told, as well. The rear laneway is owned by Rekai, but used by Honda. It sounded like the parties couldn't reach an agreement and Rekai didn't want a fight to lead to further delay. As such, the entire boulevard along Cherry (including a lane of traffic) will be closed and used for construction staging -- all the trucks will pull in along this route. This is why the trees are being chopped down.

It's not an ideal situation, as it requires the sidewalk to be fully closed and the remaining traffic lanes to be reconfigured. I'm not sure what Rekai's backup plan might have been, but they gathered community support. We will obviously push them to restore the public realm as much as possible.
 
The City should not make it cheaper to close a sidewalk, a road lane, and chop down trees that whatever it would have taken to take over a rear laneway accessing a car dealership. But Cherry St has a lane of parking there, so maybe that's all that's being lost?
 
evandyk said:
The City should not make it cheaper to close a sidewalk, a road lane, and chop down trees that whatever it would have taken to take over a rear laneway accessing a car dealership. But Cherry St has a lane of parking there, so maybe that's all that's being lost?
Click to expand...
What was lost was row of healthy trees.
 
Ugh. Love buildings being built, hate yet another sidewalk being taken out for it. Havent had Parliament West, Trinity-east, Front South for YEARS now. Didn’t someone propose something or run for mayor with a promise to look into it? Or was that the only problem? They only had to “look into it”
 
xmyth_ said:
Ugh. Love buildings being built, hate yet another sidewalk being taken out for it. Havent had Parliament West, Trinity-east, Front South for YEARS now. Didn’t someone propose something or run for mayor with a promise to look into it? Or was that the only problem? They only had to “look into it”
Click to expand...
In this case I do not understand why all the trees needed to go. Further south, (Front to Mill) most were carefully fenced off and (mostly) saved. Obviously it's easier just to 'clear-cut' but .....
 
DSCToronto said:
In this case I do not understand why all the trees needed to go. Further south, (Front to Mill) most were carefully fenced off and (mostly) saved. Obviously it's easier just to 'clear-cut' but .....
Click to expand...

It's because the turning path / laydown area for construction vehicles is the entire sidewalk and boulevard along Cherry. The entire area will be closed for the duration of construction.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top
NEWSDATABASEMAPFORUM DASHBOARD SERVICESUTProLOG IN
CITIES