Toronto 90 Isabella Street | 228.1m | 69s | Capital Developments | Diamond Schmitt

New rendering was taken from the architectural plan via rezoning. The height changed from 222.10m to 228.10m. The total unit count was reduced from 837 units to 831 units. Total car parking was reduced from 78 car parking to 77 car parking. Finally, the total bike parking changed from 838 bike parking to 915 bike parking.

Architectural Plans 1 of 2 - Architectural Plans Part 1_90 Isabella_June 30 2023-1.jpg
 
Art Tsai said:
New rendering was taken from the architectural plan via rezoning. The height changed from 222.10m to 228.10m. The total unit count was reduced from 837 units to 831 units. Total car parking was reduced from 78 car parking to 77 car parking. Finally, the total bike parking changed from 838 bike parking to 915 bike parking.

View attachment 496749
Click to expand...

@Art Tsai Can you please post the AIC link here. I don't see it elsewhere in the thread.
 
Ok, I had a chance to look over the cover letter; the changes here are more extensive than may seem to be the case at first blush:

1690919143236.png

1690919171959.png

1690919197170.png


It appears I got some of my wish list here. Notably;

Greater setbacks from the heritage buildings; and also, the silly on-site park space is gone!

Revise Site Plan below:


1690919326497.png


Of note in the Cover letter is that it's clear that the proponent and Planning have come to an understanding and that this will be the subject of an Approval (decision) report.

"We are pleased that both our client and City Staff have arrived at a final design
which will allow City Staff to bring forward a final recommendation report in support of the revisions set
out below."

****

My only real complaint that remains is the material palette of the podium and tower, especially the former.

It just seems terribly meh; and neither compliments, nor contrasts the heritage.

Ah well, can't win'em all.
 
Yeesh, the integration of those homes looks really bad. Not sure why they couldn't push the tower portion towards the back of the site, where the 6 storey podium sits, giving the houses a bit more breathing room. I've compared facadectomies to skin masks before, but this looks more like a deer mounted deer head. They've kinda hacked off the front half of the homes and stuck them on a wall.
 

​

See: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.PB11.8​


PB11.8 - 90, 90A, 92 and 94 Isabella Street - Alterations to Designated Heritage Properties and Authority to Enter into a Heritage Easement Agreements​

Consideration Type: ACTION
Ward: 13 - Toronto Centre

Origin​

(October 16, 2023) Report from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning

Recommendations​

The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that:

1. City Council approve the alterations to the heritage properties at 90, 90A, 92 and 94 Isabella Street, in accordance with Part IV, Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to allow for the construction of a new 69-storey building on the lands known municipally as 90, 90A, 92 and 94 Isabella Street, with such alterations substantially in accordance with plans and drawings dated June 26, 2023, prepared by Diamond Schmitt, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), dated September 25, 2023, prepared by GBCA Architects, all on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, and all subject to and in accordance with a Conservation Plan satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and subject to the following additional conditions:
 
:)

My quick way to calculate heights based on the number of floors - Number of floors X 3 (for residential) plus 10%

In this case it was 69 X 3 - 207 metres, plus 21, total is 228!

In the vast majority of cases it works to within 5 - 6 metres... some towers are taller than my estimate, some are shorter, it really comes down to ceiling heights.
 
Last edited:
egotrippin said:
Yeesh, the integration of those homes looks really bad. Not sure why they couldn't push the tower portion towards the back of the site, where the 6 storey podium sits, giving the houses a bit more breathing room. I've compared facadectomies to skin masks before, but this looks more like a deer mounted deer head. They've kinda hacked off the front half of the homes and stuck them on a wall.
Click to expand...
I agree. Even with the new setbacks, it still doesn't look great. Perhaps, in addition to the new setbacks, if they also moved the houses closer to the street(thus saving more of them), it might have helped with the illusion of conservation. This bodes poorly for those remaining mansions on Jarvis St.(including the 'Keg' Mansion). Continuing your taxidermy analogy, I liken this more to steer horns on the hood of a '73 Cadillac Eldorado.
 
Last edited:
Doppleganger said:
I agree. Even with the new setbacks, it still doesn't look great. Perhaps, in addition to the new setbacks, if they also moved the houses closer to the street(thus saving more of them), it might have helped with the illusion of conservation. This bodes poorly for those remaining mansions on Jarvis St.(including the 'Keg' Mansion). Continuing your taxidermy analogy, I liken this more to steer horns on the hood of a '73 Cadillac Eldorado.
Click to expand...
This....thing, this forced hybrid, is utterly ridiculous. The house cuttings insult preservation even as they bite the ankles of the tower they're supposed to grace. Fused unhappily together, apologetics and routine explanations aside, the whole things is just lousy architecture.
We've really got to do better than this.
 
CanadianNational said:
This....thing, this forced hybrid, is utterly ridiculous. The house cuttings insult preservation even as they bite the ankles of the tower they're supposed to grace. Fused unhappily together, apologetics and routine explanations aside, the whole things is just lousy architecture.
We've really got to do better than this.
Click to expand...
It looks as though it will still have to go before the 'Toronto Heritage Preservation Board' on Nov. 6., so there might still be a chance to save more of the houses. Mind you, considering the epidemic of 'facadectomies' that they've already pawned off on us as preservation these past few decades, I'm not terribly optimistic.
 
Doppleganger said:
It looks as though it will still have to go before the 'Toronto Heritage Preservation Board' on Nov. 6., so there might still be a chance to save more of the houses. Mind you, considering the epidemic of 'facadectomies' that they've already pawned off on us as preservation these past few decades, I'm not terribly optimistic.
Click to expand...
I'm not optimistic either. The biggest issue here is the ornamental rooflines with their gables and spire really enhance how ridiculous the integration looks. It looks like a clipping error in an old video game, to add to our list of metaphors. Flat roofed buildings typically tend to fare better as facades.
 
I put an offer in for one of the 8 infill condo townhouses about 15 year ago. It was rejected.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top