Toronto JAC Condos | 108.5m | 34s | Graywood | Turner Fleischer

The shadow study has been done. The following are notes from tonight's meeting:

Les Klein of Quadrangle is the lead architect on this.

The tower is 750 sq m per floor, a point tower, along the north edge of the side, set back from Jarvis behind the Sheard Mansion. The Mansion will be restored, and is proposed to be treated similarly to how the James Cooper Mansion was on Sherbourne. The house would be moved temporarily while the garage were dug out underneath where it is now, and then the house would be moved back within approximately a metre of where it sits now, just slightly south to allow a widening of the public lane which runs along the north edge of the site: McLear Place will be reconstructed to be wide enough to run two ways without conflicts.

There is no substantial shadowing of Allen Gardens from March 21 to Sept 21 between 10am and 4pm. That does not mean no shadowing - but only a small percentage added to areas already shadowed. By being moved back from Jarvis, the 50-storey tower would have less shadow impact on the Allen Gardens greenhouses than would a previously approved 18-storey building to be built right at the Jarvis sidewalk. Where that previously approved building would rise is now planned to be a terraced podium, stepping back above the 3rd, 5th, and 7th floors. An amenity terrace would sit atop the podium on the 10th floor. The main Jarvis entryway would separate the podium from the Sheard Mansion.

On Mutual, the tower would be set back slightly behind a line of five 3-storey townhomes to be built along the that street.

The total residential GFA would be a little over 47000 sq m, while commercial GFA would be only 580 sq m.

* * *

The planning department has concerns about the height - in regard to shadows - amongst other things. Traffic studies are still at the City, but the consultant was present and all-assuring. No wind study was presented. There's a long way to go with this one still.

It seems the owner of the land is Duration Investments, the same hard-to-get-more-info-on company that wants to move on the large plot of land they own at Mutual/Queen/Dalhousie/Shuter.

42
 
^Why would city planners object to this tower based on shadowing when the proposed tower will cast less shadows on the park than the already approved 18 storey building that would front on Jarvis :confused:

It just proves that the city planners are obstructionists doing more harm than good.:mad:
 
Shadowing is only one of many issues to be worked out when a 50-storey tower is proposed. If shadowing were the only issue in densifying a city, we wouldn't need planners at all, only computers. Sorry, but there's still much to be considered here, your rah-rah-rah attitude notwithstanding.

50 storeys is a number that has been literally been plucked out of the air, and the intendant lot coverage and density has to be considered. It's much higher than anything neighbouring it, and a little higher than anything approved only Jarvis yet (49 for X2 near Bloor is the highest, while south at Dundas Pace has been approved at 43). Locally, the highest things are closer to 30 storeys.

42
 
Shadowing is only one of many issues to be worked out when a 50-storey tower is proposed. If shadowing were the only issue in densifying a city, we wouldn't need planners at all, only computers. Sorry, but there's still much to be considered here, your rah-rah-rah attitude notwithstanding.

50 storeys is a number that has been literally been plucked out of the air, and the intendant lot coverage and density has to be considered. It's much higher than anything neighbouring it, and a little higher than anything approved only Jarvis yet (49 for X2 near Bloor is the highest, while south at Dundas Pace has been approved at 43). Locally, the highest things are closer to 30 storeys.

42


sorry, interchange - what's the issue regarding lot coverage/density that needs to be considered? this proposal is currently at 14.98x coverage. if you were familiar with the comps in the area you'd understand that the number 50 was not "plucked out of the air" (be it "literally" or otherwise).
 
sorry, interchange - what's the issue regarding lot coverage/density that needs to be considered? this proposal is currently at 14.98x coverage. if you were familiar with the comps in the area you'd understand that the number 50 was not "plucked out of the air" (be it "literally" or otherwise).

With these real estate prices in Toronto, i doubt anyone is plucking anymore.:D
 
sorry, interchange - what's the issue regarding lot coverage/density that needs to be considered? this proposal is currently at 14.98x coverage. if you were familiar with the comps in the area you'd understand that the number 50 was not "plucked out of the air" (be it "literally" or otherwise).

It would depend on how large one defines the area. What's the closest property with 15 times coverage?

42
 
It would depend on how large one defines the area. What's the closest property with 15 times coverage?

42


X2 is 15.4x. A few blocks north yes but similar in many respects (and in fact it can be argued that this one is superior as it's setback further off of Jarvis).
 
It's more than a few blocks north - it's several blocks north - and what applies at Jarvis & Charles (& Bloor) does not necessarily apply here. I maintain that the number has been plucked out of the air when it comes to this site. I don't expect massive reductions from the 50 storeys when this building is approved, and I like the design (sorry, was not able to get a shot at the meeting last night), but just because the proponent for 308 Jarvis believes that Jarvis/Charles zoning levels should apply here does not mean that they are right. What may be context several blocks north or south is not so here - not yet anyway. The context here currently is around 20 to 30 floors. Anything beyond that should be negotiated, and not considered as-of-right.

42
 
Agreed on two counts, Jarvis & Charles is a world away from this sensitive area with the historic park and conservatory located across the street and 20 to 30 stories is more in line along this stretch as opposed to the insanity of 50 stories.
 
Agreed on two counts, Jarvis & Charles is a world away from this sensitive area with the historic park and conservatory located across the street and 20 to 30 stories is more in line along this stretch as opposed to the insanity of 50 stories.

I appreciate (but disagree with) the argument that 50 storeys is inappropriate here because it would be much taller than any other building in the neighbourhood, but I can't understand how Allen Gardens being next door is relevant to the debate. Given the lack of shadowing on the park by this proposal, I'm not sure how a difference of 20 or 30 storeys would make a lick of difference to people's use or enjoyment of the park. There's nothing inherently unsuitable or uncommon in having a very tall tower adjacent to a park. In fact, I'd welcome the additional foot traffic from the new residents.
 
There is a small increase in the shadowing. Given that the local context is 20 to 30 storeys, if this came in at 40 storeys that increase might be beaten back to next to nothing… so why not pick that number instead? You'd still have a new local landmark with more coverage than anything else nearby. I'd even say give'em 42.

42
 
308 Jarvis Street, Toronto, 50 storeys


From BlackTowerTV:

6941113103_51dc8596c6_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
People here have been piling on AG for his opinions,

People are piling on because he sounds like a broken record. We get it you want tall buildings. Does every thread have to be same rant by AG?
 

Back
Top