Toronto 137-141 Isabella Street | 231.55m | 69s | Pinedale | BDP Quadrangle

TossYourJacket said:
Somehow the "bicycle parking" sign above the doorway is killing me. It's like they're trying to be like "please don't hate the ugliest part of this render" 😆
Click to expand...
Couldn't they put that squat elder house there they're planning to raise? It still be odd looking regarding massing, but a darn site more pleasant to look at in the end, IMO.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Pinedale gonna Pinedale. It'll be a decade before anything actually happens here, unless they JV and give majority control to someone else.
Click to expand...
I lived in this building, moved out 3 years ago. Pinedale was renovating every single unit and pouring a lot of money into common areas, the landscaping, brick repair, the lobby, balconies, and the ground floor exterior.

I think this is just their attempt at protecting their future rights to develop since the application for the property next door came in.
 
Tuscani01 said:
I lived in this building, moved out 3 years ago. Pinedale was renovating every single unit and pouring a lot of money into common areas, the landscaping, brick repair, the lobby, balconies, and the ground floor exterior.

I think this is just their attempt at protecting their future rights to develop since the application for the property next door came in.
Click to expand...
Yep, that makes sense. Increases their potential borrowing power if the asset is entitled for huge density.
 
The treatment to the south and west is bad. Goldman writes the following in the BCP and then doesn't bother showing a tower to the south, because they know they would conflict. They must know they are sterilizing...

1709832783989.png

1709832839975.png
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Couldn't they put that squat elder house there they're planning to raise? It still be odd looking regarding massing, but a darn site more pleasant to look at in the end, IMO.
Click to expand...
They've done this to similar effect with a number of developments on Sherbourne, James Cooper Mansion comes to mind. Would be a shame to lose that house, it's quite pretty.
 
ProjectEnd said:
On what legislation? It's cute, sure, and probably should be incorporated, but it's unlisted / not designated so what legal ground does the City have to take that stance?
Click to expand...

I personally don't feel the house needs to be incorporated here, in as much as I tend to value history with context, and preserving a single house on a street filled with modern towers completely decontextualizes the house.

That said, if others place a premium on it, there is nothing stopping the City from designating it now. They've designated buildings w/far less merit, that much is certain (see some of the crap on Danforth).

Actually I found a nice spot, just around the corner on Earl to park it, on a Church parking lot!

1709849923775.png
 
UrbanAffair said:
Sounds about Trump to me, only legal.
Click to expand...

A good case for use it or lose it zoning; any change, approved by Council, not acted upon within 3 years, the zoning change is cancelled and reverted to its former permissions.

That would free up so much of Planning's time if we made the Kingsett's of the world go away.
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
On what legislation? It's cute, sure, and probably should be incorporated, but it's unlisted / not designated so what legal ground does the City have to take that stance?
Click to expand...
Probably none. But that’s not point of venting, though… 😸
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top