Toronto Jarvis & Earl Place | 198.89m | 58s | Originate | Kirkor

[Broadeaves]

I've inured myself to the mostly unfortunate effects of these super-scaled developments on pleasantly-scaled Toronto streetscapes I guess: progress, housing etc, but I'm surprised this is the first post here to comment that this development will rudely re-contextualize Earl Street's utterly charming Edwardian apartment block streetscape (those derided 90's townhomes included, at least for their scale) that otherwise somehow survived this long. The Earl Apts. next door is hands down one of my fave buildings in this city, and Earl St. one of my favourite streets for those reasons. I naïvely believed this street was protected, and I should know better. So we're gonna get two overscaled, cantilevered podium storeys of relentless retail glazing transitioning to arts and crafts cuteness. That should go well.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...I mean, hopefully if this project turns out to be crap as well, maybe they can replace it in 20 years too.

 

[Northern Light]

I've inured myself to the mostly unfortunate effects of these super-scaled developments on pleasantly-scaled Toronto streetscapes I guess: progress, housing etc, but I'm surprised this is the first post here to comment that this development will rudely re-contextualize Earl Street's utterly charming Edwardian apartment block streetscape (those derided 90's townhomes included, at least for their scale) that otherwise somehow survived this long. The Earl Apts. next door is hands down one of my fave buildings in this city, and Earl St. one of my favourite streets for those reasons. I naïvely believed this street was protected, and I should know better. So we're gonna get two overscaled, cantilevered podium storeys of relentless retail glazing transitioning to arts and crafts cuteness. That should go well.

While there is certainly a strong liklihood that something resembling this proposal in scale will go forward here; there is nothing sacrosanct about its exact appearance, or some elements of its massing (the developer would
doubtless fight giving up buildable square footage, but might well trade form for height or vice versa).

Its more than fair to say there's room for improvement here; and I would encourage you to speak to the developer on that as this has not yet been submitted to the City, and I'm sure they will keenly listen to what may help get their proposal a smoother ride than not.

It may well be that nothing here would preserve what you value, and I understand that as a loss; but would encourage you nonetheless to be involved and minimize any harm from your perspective.

***

PS, many of your favourite buildings here have 'limited' protection in the form of being 'listed' on the Heritage Register.............but none are designated.

Listing dots are yellow, Designation are Pink:

There is also no Heritage Conservation District in relation to Earl Street.

While one could attempt to put those in place before an Application is submitted to the City, given the election cycle under way that seems unlikely.

But getting the developer to support that, and possibly some heritage restoration money as a public benefit might be feasible.

There's always an opportunity to make a proposal better. That may not always work out; but its almost always worth a try.

Edit to add:

Here's a pic from Streetview of one of your favourite buildings:

You know, it wouldn't be cheap; but I really don't see a reason the developer couldn't closely emulate this style for the podium if that was deemed desirable. I would tend to favour retail fronting Jarvis, myself, but I think it could follow a fairly similar rhythm

It could represent a real value-add in terms of the sales per ft2 down the line, though I sure as hell would not trust KirKor w/that idea at all, whatsoever.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

As a local I have mixed feelings. I’m mostly ok with this project, it makes sense there on Jarvis so close to bloor, right near the cluster of Rogers buildings X, X2, couture etc.
From where I live, I don’t think it will ruin my view and it might even enhance it if it turns out ok. But as someone who walks their dog around Earl and Huntley 12 million times a day, I hope the street keeps its charm. It has really great tree coverage which I hope doesn’t get compromised.

 

[Northern Light]

But as someone who walks their dog around Earl and Huntley 12 million times a day, I hope the street keeps its charm. It has really great tree coverage which I hope doesn’t get compromised.

Tree coverage on Earl, in front of this proposed development is actually pretty poor:

Looking at the proposal, at this early stage, I cannot foresee any of these trees surviving this development, frankly I wouldn't lament their loss.

But securing good quality tree coverage for the sidewalks I would be an ardent champion of.........

If that's a priority for you, please do involve yourself in the process to indicate that.

You want at least 5 trees on the Earl Pl frontage, preferably in a tree trench, Silva Cells, open soil, and soil volume of 40m3 per tree or greater. Complimentary native shrubs or herbaceous (wildflowers/ferns etc.)
would also be helpful Minimum of 2 trees per trench (trees of the same kind, in the same trench will often support each other/resource-share)

Good, native canopy species preferred. Exact choice depends on how much sunlight they will have in the longer term; but I'm very high on Red Oak for this type of site.

 

[Broadeaves]

You know, it wouldn't be cheap; but I really don't see a reason the developer couldn't closely emulate this style for the podium if that was deemed desirable. I would tend to favour retail fronting Jarvis, myself, but I think it could follow a fairly similar rhythm

It could represent a real value-add in terms of the sales per ft2 down the line, though I sure as hell would not trust KirKor w/that idea at all, whatsoever.

Thanks @nothernlight for your kind response to my Earl Street lament.

I know that through public input (outcry) a couple floors can get chopped off, massing can transition, or a sliver of a dog pee zone I mean park might get carved out of the site, but what affects my civic well-being (and I know you don't like the doom and gloom without constructive alternatives, but allow me) is the annihilation of some all-too-rare pleasant places (Earl Street, Osgoode Hall's greensward) and frankensteining of architecture (Manulife, Bank of Canada Building), replaced with perfunctory designs, in a vapid non-style and a colossal scale that's impossible to relate to warmly. I value HCDs more and more, not as idyllic private communities for the privileged but as bastions of architectural quality and scale, a respite. I cling to this idea that it's still possible to design a memorable and beautiful city here, but that just ends up sounding pathetic given our particular building and planning culture.

Your suggestion of designing the podium to allude to the scale and form of The Earl is interesting but as you mentioned our homegrown architects (except Audax) are not very good at modern traditionalism: it's all about tight scale, relatable details and deep knowledge of architectural forms. The developers who want the RAMSA effect can't afford (=unwilling to pay) for their magical transformative design services. At least the Danes have a foothold now and we're benefiting from their embedded design culture. Maybe our building culture can evolve to emulate it some day...

 

[DavidCapizzano]

I value HCDs more and more, not as idyllic private communities for the privileged but as bastions of architectural quality and scale, a respite.

Yes, a respite for the wealthy

 

[Broadeaves]

Yes, a respite for the wealthy

Point taken. But I'm very not wealthy and I still find them a respite. Don't have to live there to appreciate 'em

 

[Northern Light]

Yes, a respite for the wealthy

What if we devoted 20% of every HCD to affordable housing?

***

I don't think there's any reason, inherently, that heritage housing or character must be exclusive to the affluent.

The State, in France owns a large chunk of housing in central Paris which includes subsidized units.

 

[DavidCapizzano]

I'm not really sure what the issue is, aside from the fact that you're seemingly uncomfortable with the presence of a tall building (in an area dotted with many tall buildings)

The buildings proposed to be demolished aren't heritage - none of the heritage apartments on Earl are proposed to be demolished or altered as part of this proposal. Change will need to come to all parts of Toronto, and it will regardless of people's level of comfort with higher density.

I like Northern Light's comment re: the state owning a huge chunk of housing in the central city, but unfortunately that is not the reality we live in. For 90% of Toronto, in tact heritage areas usually are affluent, inaccessible to many with retail and services that cater to a (usually) white and wealthy demographic. I'm all for the revolution or whatever, but I also know it's not going to happen in my lifetime as long as we continue to prioritize the monetary gains of existing homeowners.

I've said this before and I will continue to say it - we cannot allow pastoralism to dictate how our cities grow and change.

 

[Broadeaves]

What if we devoted 20% of every HCD to affordable housing?

***

I don't think there's any reason, inherently, that heritage housing or character must be exclusive to the affluent.

The State, in France owns a large chunk of housing in central Paris which includes subsidized units.

Cabbagetown is a good example of this no? Lots of THCH nestled in there

 

[Northern Light]

The buildings proposed to be demolished aren't heritage - none of the heritage apartments on Earl are proposed to be demolished or altered as part of this proposal. Change will need to come to all parts of Toronto, and it will regardless of people's level of comfort with higher density.

True.

I like Northern Light's comment re: the state owning a huge chunk of housing in the central city, but unfortunately that is not the reality we live in.

One must always believe change is possible (without being naive) in order for it to become reality. Toronto is starting to dabble with land trusts and fund co-ops again; that might be the perfect choice for some of the heritage buildings nearby here. Particularly the rental buildings.

Revolutions can be huge violent upheavals; but those rarely last; and the price paid is high.......

But revolutions can also be Quiet (see Quebec in the 1960s) (before the FLQ made it much louder) ..............

Seemingly minor changes to investment plans, gov't expenditures, tax rules and the like can affect surprisingly large change over time.

I'm all for the revolution or whatever, but I also know it's not going to happen in my lifetime as long as we continue to prioritize the monetary gains of existing homeowners.

That's certainly true as it applies the financialization/monetization of housing; including, but not limited to the home-buyer subsidies, capital gains exemptions/low rates, artificially low interest rates, and REITs among other things.

HCDs are an interesting animal, in that they certainly can benefit the perceived quality of life of existing homeowners (and area renters too); but....by somewhat curtailing redevelopment options in an area, they may actually suppress property values at the margins.

It's not Black and White in that regard.

Also important to note, HCDs do not in fact freeze areas as they are, 'neighbourhood zoning' comes closer to doing that than anything else.

HCDs apply in many areas with towers currently rising. What they require is some measure of respect for how the existing area 'feels' at grade.

I've said this before and I will continue to say it - we cannot allow pastoralism to dictate how our cities grow and change.

I certainly agree; but I would equally advocate that it's entirely possible to intensify and densify while keeping much of what people may enjoy in established areas:

(examples)

The use of brick as a building material, particularly for the podium levels, with warm tones not inconsistent w/those from older building periods.

Old-school fine-grained retail, and smaller blocks

Podium-level architecture with a bit of detail; it needn't be all 'Victorian' or 'Arts and Crafts'; though there is nothing wrong with those done properly.
But putting a bit more detailing in around windows/doors and rooflines does wonders.

High quality, mature street trees.

and

The illusion of human-scale. On a main street, keeping a street wall to about 4-5 floors on a sidestreet 2-3 depending on ceiling heights/elevations.

None of that precludes going 20-40 floors higher, just setback from the streetwall enough that you wouldn't notice it all walking on the same side of the street and only marginally from the other side of a narrow street.

 

[Broadeaves]

I'm not really sure what the issue is, aside from the fact that you're seemingly uncomfortable with the presence of a tall building (in an area dotted with many tall buildings)

I was prompted to post not out of uncomfortableness with density or development but from a consideration of aesthetics and placemaking, sim to what @Northern Light outlined above - didn't mean to sound nimby, esp w the HCD comment. I wanted to put it out there that Earl Place is a kindof a rare ensemble and I lamented that a sensitive architectural response that enhances it is probably too much to ask for. Those 3 early 20th century heritage-listed apartment buildings and the Earl Place streetscape they form is like an alternate housing history that didn't come to pass: dense, neighbourly, well-scaled, making a lovely street ....

 

[LemonCondo]

Those townhouses are ugly anyway...

 

[AlbertC]

Originate, Westdale, Cameron Stephens JV on 2 T.O. towers

Originate Developments, Westdale Properties and Cameron Stephens Equity Capital have teamed up on a plan to redevelop a former cultural centre into 48- and 55-storey residential towers on Wynford Drive in Toronto. “All three businesses shared the same vision for

renx.ca

Jarvis & Earl​

Elsewhere, the three development partners submitted an application to the City of Toronto on July 26 to get the ball rolling on approvals for Jarvis & Earl, a mixed-use residential tower planned to have rental apartment and condo components on Jarvis Street between Wellesley Street East and Bloor Street East in Toronto.

Plans are for 58 storeys and 690 one-, two- and three-bedroom units.

The site is currently occupied by 10 row houses and a three-storey, 29-unit apartment building.

“It was an 11-piece assembly and we are also exploring the potential of buying some additional lands in order to build a park adjacent to the site,” said Sheffer. “We really think that would be excellent for the neighbourhood, which doesn’t have a ton of programmed park space.”

Originate spearheaded the project. Work on the assembly began in February and came together very quickly. The price for the 11 properties was $39.39 million.