Toronto 295 Jarvis Street | 125.22m | 36s | CentreCourt | Arcadis

interchange42 said:
You've still got it wrong if you think that the City says "more Section 37 if you want that much density". It does not work like that.
Click to expand...

OK.

interchange42 said:
Can you name some residential or commercial buildings that have gone through the approval process within the last 8 years or so which don't have a green roof? (Or a "cool roof".)
Click to expand...

Not 100% certain, but I believe that the artscape building on Adelaide doesn't have a green roof.
 
That building has reflective white pavers which satisfy the green standards I believe
 
295 JARVIS ST
Ward 27 - Tor & E.York District

►View All Properties

Proposal for a rezoning related to a 36 storey residential building with a total of 351 residential apartment units, with 5 levels of below grade parking

Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---

Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 18 161787 STE 27 OZ May 18, 2018 Under Review
 
Core Architects

ybKutXb.jpg
 
Request for Interim Directions Report: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-124144.pdf
This Report responds to an application where staff are currently not in a position to provide a Final Report to Council, but which could be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the "LPAT") due to Council's failure to make a decision on the application within the time prescribed by the Planning Act.

The report sets out issues related to the application and makes an initial determination as to whether or not the application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) and conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017).

The proposed development in its present form is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2014), does not conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017) and does not conform to the City's Official Plan including the in-force policies of Official Plan Amendment 82. More specifically, the proposed tower does not respect the planned context, tower setbacks do not adhere to appropriate development standards, an inappropriate podium form is proposed which additionally impacts adjcent heritage resources and there is a loss of dwelling rooms. There is also a need to locate the mid-block connection, as identified by OPA 82, and to increase the amount of indoor amenity space.

Key issues to be resolved, as outlined in this report, include: tower separation distances, tower setbacks, podium form, heritage adjacency issues and the impacts to the City supply of dwelling rooms.
Click to expand...
 
Tenants at Toronto rooming house worried about eviction say they will fight for housing

Muriel Draaisma · CBC News · Posted: Jan 27, 2020 8:38 PM ET

Tenants at a Toronto rooming house who are concerned about being evicted from their downtown building say they plan to keep fighting for a roof over their heads.

Joseph Da Silva, a tenant at the Inglewood Arms, 295 Jarvis St., north of Dundas Street East, told reporters at a news conference on Monday that the tenants are feeling pressured to move out of their units. A developer wants to tear down the building and build a 36-storey condo tower on the site.

Da Silva said the tenants want guaranteed places to live in the proposed condo, with rent comparable to what they pay now and compensation for being displaced. The rezoning application by Minto Communities Canada, a real estate company based in Ottawa, has not yet been approved by the city.
Click to expand...

 
Funny, if the City permitted development in the goddamn neighbourhoods, you'd only have 2-3 houses displaced (8-12 people) and pressures on buildings such as this one wouldn't be that great. Likewise, if buildings were required to replace these suites on top of a normal application (eg. an extra 5 storeys here), things would be much easier to pro-forma.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Funny, if the City permitted development in the goddamn neighbourhoods, you'd only have 2-3 houses displaced (8-12 people) and pressures on buildings such as this one wouldn't be that great. Likewise, if buildings were required to replace these suites on top of a normal application (eg. an extra 5 storeys here), things would be much easier to pro-forma.
Click to expand...

God forbid we lose a few million-dollar homes and create vibrant mixed-use, mixed-income, sustainable communities, that would be unacceptable.

It's always vulnerable people and small businesses who get displaced by development, never the million-dollar homeowners. The city's approach to development is encouraging and entrenching inequality to a frankly dangerous degree. Literally massive swaths of the city (the greenest and most livable parts) are set aside for the wealthy as everyone else struggles and strives to be able to make ends meet piling on top of each other in the remaining cracks of space. Creating entrenched classes of property owners and everyone else, yeah that's never gone bad in human history. It's just morally unacceptable that the city is proceeding like this.
 
concrete_and_light said:
God forbid we lose a few million-dollar homes and create vibrant mixed-use, mixed-income, sustainable communities, that would be unacceptable.

It's always vulnerable people and small businesses who get displaced by development, never the million-dollar homeowners. The city's approach to development is encouraging and entrenching inequality to a frankly dangerous degree. Literally massive swaths of the city (the greenest and most livable parts) are set aside for the wealthy as everyone else struggles and strives to be able to make ends meet piling on top of each other in the remaining cracks of space. Creating entrenched classes of property owners and everyone else, yeah that's never gone bad in human history. It's just morally unacceptable that the city is proceeding like this.
Click to expand...

And of course the majority will continue to vote for politicians that uphold the status quo. Until the electorate embraces a bold leader unafraid to initiate change (or even has the luxury of such an offering), this regrettable quagmire will continue.

My outlook for Toronto's future is very pessimistic, and I've lived here my whole life.
 
Quality of the existing building aside, I wonder what it used to look like?

It's a weird building that looks like an accumulation over time. It looks as if it had an extra floor added, has the remnants of a cornice, and a front addition that looks simultaneously contemporary to the rest of the building, but which must have been added later on.

Heritage Report:

20180518 - Heritage Impact Statement.pdf

drive.google.com drive.google.com
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top