Toronto 19 Bloor West | 317.4m | 99s | Reserve Properties | Arcadis

It seems like a 360-380 m building would be more feasible at Bloor & Church since it's far away from Jesse Ketchum and there are already a bunch of relatively tall buildings nearby.

The Trinity Evangelical Church site seems like a perfect fit.
 
Why would the historic church a block away from the intersection jump out at you as the perfect site when there's a surface parking lot right there at the corner?

Are there any servicing issues at 15-19 Bloor W? It seems like that block is already generating tremendous demand on sewers and water and gas and such. Could the block support another major tower without requiring large infrastructure investments?
 
I've been wondering just why Jesse Ketchum schoolyard gets such preferential treatment, compared to other schoolyards. I've seen plenty of schoolyards surrounded by buildings that shadow them much more than any of the proposed buildings around Yonge/Bloor would -- not as tall perhaps, but right next to the schoolyards, which is actually worse because their shadows impinge on the schoolyards all day.

The answer is rather obvious, just look at who goes to Jesse Ketchum. It's full of the children of wealthy or politically important people. These children are clearly considered much more worthy of attention than the children of ordinary people.

Never mind that I think the entire justification of preventing shadows is absurd -- if anything, shadows would be a net positive, by reducing the likelihood of eventual skin cancer or other UV-related issues.
 
whatever said:
Why would the historic church a block away from the intersection jump out at you as the perfect site when there's a surface parking lot right there at the corner?
Click to expand...

(raises eyebrow); the Church in question is on Sherbourne; there is no parking lot at Sherbourne and Bloor, that is at Church and Bloor and is owned by the hospital.

Grace will have to be replaced sometime soon, possibly even as part of another (full-service) downtown hospital as all the existing ones are very large and getting rather unwieldy but population continues to skyrocket.

It wouldn't have to be on that site, of course, but any new hospital will require a very large land holding, and we don't seem to be planning for one in the Portlands or East Bayfront areas.
 
Mongo said:
I've been wondering just why Jesse Ketchum schoolyard gets such preferential treatment, compared to other schoolyards. I've seen plenty of schoolyards surrounded by buildings that shadow them much more than any of the proposed buildings around Yonge/Bloor would -- not as tall perhaps, but right next to the schoolyards, which is actually worse because their shadows impinge on the schoolyards all day.
Click to expand...

Virtually every school yard receives similar protection, it comes up semi-regularly.

It came up when the new Regent Park was laid out, protecting the school yard at Nelson Mandela, it came up for the new hostel/affordable housing site in relation to Lord Lansdowne school.

Ketchum gets mentioned more, because there are more large applications directly to the south of it than any other school yard.

Mongo said:
The answer is rather obvious, just look at who goes to Jesse Ketchum. It's full of the children of wealthy or politically important people. These children are clearly considered much more worthy of attention than the children of ordinary people.
Click to expand...

Please identify the school yards in low or lower-middle income areas where you feel shadowing protection was ignored. (keeping in mind that shadowing protection has existed in some form for a few decades, but didn't exist before that)

Mongo said:
Never mind that I think the entire justification of preventing shadows is absurd -- if anything, shadows would be a net positive, by reducing the likelihood of eventual skin cancer or other UV-related issues.
Click to expand...

You want a tree-less, grass-less, flower-less city that's entirely sterile and bereft of life? Seems an odd goal. To each their own, but I like trees and flowers and it turns out they require sunlight. As do I. Seasonal Affective Disorder is a real thing, people get more depressed, some acutely with lack of sunshine in the darkest months.

Sunshine is a necessary of life.
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
I've been wondering just why Jesse Ketchum schoolyard gets such preferential treatment, compared to other schoolyards. I've seen plenty of schoolyards surrounded by buildings that shadow them much more than any of the proposed buildings around Yonge/Bloor would -- not as tall perhaps, but right next to the schoolyards, which is actually worse because their shadows impinge on the schoolyards all day.

The answer is rather obvious, just look at who goes to Jesse Ketchum. It's full of the children of wealthy or politically important people. These children are clearly considered much more worthy of attention than the children of ordinary people.

Never mind that I think the entire justification of preventing shadows is absurd -- if anything, shadows would be a net positive, by reducing the likelihood of eventual skin cancer or other UV-related issues.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's that obvious...as there's lots of schools without tall buildings around shadowing them. And there's also that park with the name sake right by there. As well as, do all the important people send their kids there...when there is a number of private schools options available to them?

And...oh, whatever Northern Light-san just posted when I was typing this all up. >.<
 
whatever said:
Why would the historic church a block away from the intersection jump out at you as the perfect site when there's a surface parking lot right there at the corner?

Are there any servicing issues at 15-19 Bloor W? It seems like that block is already generating tremendous demand on sewers and water and gas and such. Could the block support another major tower without requiring large infrastructure investments?
Click to expand...
Who owns the surface parking lot? Why has it never been developed?
 
UrbanFervour said:
Who owns the surface parking lot? Why has it never been developed?
Click to expand...

The parking lot at Bloor + Church is owned by the Grace Hospital.

The revenue supports its operation, and it's always been the potential site of reconstruction of that aging facility.

This is what @androiduk had to say sometime ago:

androiduk said:
........ There are no plans to sell the parking lot to the north on the corner of Bloor & Church. Apparently the property was bequeathed to the hospital so there may be limitations on what can be done with that lot.
Click to expand...

Taken from:

Toronto Grace Hospital @ 650 Church St. (2 year renovation)

Renos for this hospital are supposed to begin next year and will take approx. 2 years. As well as new windows and interior renos, the Church St. entrance will be opened up again. Patients and workers will be moved to Hillcrest Hospital during the renos. There are no plans to sell the parking lot...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
Northern Light said:
Ah, since this is becoming public................

I'm going to say a small something...............

I may have heard whispers.............

That will make the height fanboys very happy.
Click to expand...

What i promise.............

The app, is in:

1678521455966.png


app.toronto.ca

Application Details

app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca

Note: Proponents are both Reserve and Westdale

Architect: (take a deep breath everyone) IBI ( @AlbertC wasn't kidding...)

1678521646259.png


1678521702365.png


1678522418693.png


Material Board:

1678522632967.png


1678522710072.png


1678522753249.png

1678522802834.png


Didn't see any quality street-level renders, what follows is a 'zoom' on the above focused on the lower levels, Bloor elevation:

1678523143007.png


Site Plan:

1678521763704.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1678521810653.png


1678521900429.png

1678521945593.png


Of note, they are serious hedging on Separation Distances, but with area precedent:

Further, the Proposed Development provides for tower separation distances in line with area specific
design direction (minimum 15.0 metres) that specifically recognize the highly urban nature of the block
and broader “height peak” area. The proposed 15.0 metre tower separation is also consistent with other
tall buildings within the block, including the separation between 21 and 35 Balmuto Street (14.75 metres).

**

The floor plate is surprisingly big, owing to the reduced separation distances above:

1678522932441.png


On Shadowing (and yes, Jesse Ketchum)

1678522283580.png



Comments - in brief (it is 3:30am, afterall)

Height, I was expecting, Despite what is stated above, I expect some pushback both due to Jesse Ketchum and the fact the City has formally rejected the 94s next door (though this is actually shorter than 'The One's' proposed height.

The separation distances have precedent, but in service a very large floor plate, this may also get some push, not just from the City, but the neighbours. Of note here, Mizrahi, and Reserve are already chirping at one another.

On design, this is IBI's 'A' team; it's solid and not inappropriate broadly speaking, though in respect of the material I feel the lack of close-up renders and ground-floor renders leaves one wondering about detail execution. For this spot, one might have hoped for more.

On Landscape: NAK/the proponent have lost their mind. LOL They are proposing NOT to put back the BIA-mandated standard granite, in favour of interlock. That is so not happening. As yet, no proposal to narrow Balmuto, which is essential if trees and widened sidewalks are to be provided. While this requires City permission, it would certainly be a positive to have included this as an idea.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top