Toronto JAC Condos | 108.5m | 34s | Graywood | Turner Fleischer

CanadianNational said:
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?
Click to expand...


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...esult&ct=title&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ8gEwAA


this parcel is HUGE !
 
Last edited:
A big lot.

Something like this, p'haps?

jarvismutual.jpg



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.

allan2.jpg



allan3.jpg



allan4.jpg



allan6.jpg



allan7.jpg



allan8.jpg



allan1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gord said:
Well, in that case, given Toronto's anti-Christian sentiment this should go ahead without a hitch.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
It looks 2 and a half times the height to me.

42
 
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.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kkgg7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
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.
Click to expand...


is this mansion being used as commercial or residential?

i don't want this to be another disaster.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top