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

I'm impressed! Those setbacks remind me a bit of the terraced building at King and Jarvis right across from St Lawrence Market north. The setbacks here work really well with the heritage home, and the townhomes on Mutual street are sympathetic to the rowhouse feel of that side. At the same time, the tower viewed from the park looks like something straight out of Manhattan. It's clear that they paid a lot of attention to how this building fits into its surroundings, at street level, and overall I'm really liking what I've seen so far! I hope those are brick patterns rising up the tower and it would give it some interesting character.
 
This is a promising start. The mid-rise podium looks good, and the setbacks provide a nice transition towards the tower. It integrates well at street level on Jarvis and the back street, and fairly incorporating the heritage house. The dark facade looks sleek. Actually reminds me of a slimmer and taller version of the Florian. Hopefully this proposal will also use black brick and glass. The tower design does need some refining though. I also agree that the height of the proposal is a bit excessive. 35-40 storeys would be of more appropriate context to the existing area, and would be equally as effective in contributing to the cityscape.
 
Last edited:
CanadianNational said:
I think the scale of this presents the equal problem of shadowing Allan Gardens,

Oh no - not the Ramada! It's such a nice period building. I'd say let someone have a go at the Primrose, though, definitely.
Click to expand...

It's been mentioned quite a few times that shadowing would not be a major issue.

I'm glad someone else feels the same way about the Ramada. My heart skipped a beat when I read the post advocating for its demise. I've visited friends staying there and I find it quite striking inside and out.

But back to the tower. Overall I think it looks pretty good. I hope the brick is more red than orange. Black + orange is hard to pull off without it looking too Halloween-y.
I'm not too concerned myself about the height but would bet it will be reduced.
 
Just an initial impression: I like the base and how it it relates (and does not overwhelm, the house and streetscape) and I like the tower (it has unique design elements and a decent crown). I too think its a bit too high though and I will not be surprised if it gives up a few stories.
 
What are the chances that this would actually get approved and built ? It looks OK when viewing it from Allan Gardens because it's kind of narrow , but looking at it from the south and north, it suddenly looks like a monolithic slab, something like what the Primrose would look like if it, too, was 50 storeys tall, wide and tall.
Also, there was an 18 storey tower previously approved for this site that would've been smack up against Jarvis without much setback from the street, so moving it more into the middle of the lot makes it suddenly fit for 50 storeys ?
365-375 Church ... Menkes should take notice that 18 storeys might be what would be approved for that site, similar proposal to the previous proposal for the Quadrangle lot ... not the 30, then 25 storeys that they had wanted. Can they make a profit at 18 storeys ? Maybe.
 
nopacnone said:
Build itttt!!
Shadows shmadows !!
Click to expand...

50 stories of shadow on the historic Conservatory and northern part of the park late afternoon, it ain't gonna' happen here. To suggest otherwise is promoting a complete lack of civic pride and throwing any semblance of planning out with the bath water.
 
But who cares about parks, greenspace, and our heritage when you can have OMGTALLBUILDINGZGUYS!!!! on every single block in the city? ;)
 
The park would be greatly improved if there were more people living around its immediate environs (not to mention a greater diversity in the people that use the park). Right now the stretch of Jarvis from Carlton - Gerrard can be pretty sketchy at night, and having all of those eyes on the street would go a long way to making it feel much more secure. It would also be nice to see an animated streetfront at that location. The building is north of the conservatory, and the shadowing is just going to be for a small part of the day, a small part of the year. I'd personally love to see this one go ahead as proposed.
 
The park is quite actively used during the day, almost overused. The difficulty addressing the park is not underuse.
Buildings surround the park, all of them active and most in good shape. There are a few small gaps here and here, but mostly the streetwall is continuous.
The southern end of the park at Gerrard is lined with historical intact homes. It is also home to the notorious Seaton House shelter, and multiple historical homes that have been converted to rooming houses and shelters. The shelter acts as a primary stressor on the area.

The difficulties facing the park are not ones stemming from lack of people, lack of surrounding buildings, shadowing issues or park neglect. The major issue facing the park is that of gross income disparity.

The southern end of the park tends to deal with poorer people, the north end, with the better off. The park is surrounded by 'eyes on the street' - but many of the eyes belong to troubled populations, people with addiction issues, the poor and indigent.

The park doesn't seem to attract as many pedestrians from Jarvis Street, as from it's other three sides. This is not from underuse of Jarvis by traffic, but more in line with the unpopularity of Jarvis as a comfortable pedestrian spot.
Jarvis street facing the park has a few sizaeable gaps where buildings could go, and the blind side of the Primrose Hotel to contend with. These few gaps could use new construction that would help unify this side of the park architecturally, but I can't say I feel this tower as proposed would help with that.

Putting up a 50-storey tower here on one side will not do much to address the larger social issues of the area.

I think a gentler approach to the park and the buildings around it are in order. A city program directly aimed at moving the overbearing concentration of shelters and poverty out from around the park area would be of enormous benefit. The importance of this to the area cannot be overstated. Personally, I believe Seaton House must go. A more fine-grained and equal distribution of shelters and services around the city would only be fair, and this would allow the restoration of these historic side streets.
Encouraging new construction on a scale that helps maintain the charm of the park and the historical side streets would also be a good idea. Mistakes have already been made around the park perimeter, notably 140 Carlton - an ugly building, badly situated. We don't need more buildings of this scale that could look like future mistakes, here.
 
Last edited:
I was actually just taking a stroll through the area last evening, and couldn't agree more with you CN.

Not really sure whether this warrants a seperate thread or belongs elsewhere, but I did notice a sign outside 103 Pembroke St, advertising it's conversion into condos, to be called The Four Courts apparently, though I was unable to find out more on the project.
 
You absolutely nailed how Allan Gardens functions and fits into the area CN, well done. Shelters and services definitely need to be spread around the city but I can't see the political will to do so.
 
If I am reading this correctly, this is going to the OMB....to turn it legally into a commercial parking lot.

See: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.MM22.16

"The applicant currently operates an illegal parking lot on the site known municipally as
308-314 Jarvis Street & 225 Mutual Street and Municipal Licensing and Standards have
outstanding violations in this regard. As a consequence the applicant has filed a minor
variance application for the use of a parking lot to be added to this site. Although the
applicant has indicated in conversations with staff their desire for this to be applied as a
temporary use, a temporary use by-law must be passed by City Council for a period no
greater than three years, the current application does not reflect this desire or process.
The applicant is seeking a variance from the by-law for the following:
Section 12(2) 80 and Section 12(2) 148, By-law 438-86
A commercial parking lot is not permitted."
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top