SonyPayStation said:
Everyone - don't worry - this ain't getting built in this market.
Click to expand...
I suppose what worries me most is the seeming alacrity with which the city approved this. The precedent was set long ago and is based on a false premise of historical/architectural conservancy that has now become dogma at city hall, namely that by preserving a facade or two or incorporating a portion of an existing structure into a new build, we are somehow paying stewardship to our past. Taken to its extreme, this same disregard for our built heritage is what led to the loss of some of this city's finest architectural treasures, including the old art deco 'Toronto Star Building' in 1972, the Georgian terraced 'Walnut Hall' in 2006, and now, potentially, even the 1958 mid-century modern 'Shell Oil Building' at 505 University Ave.
 
Last edited:
Doppleganger said:
I suppose what worries me most is the seeming alacrity with which the city approved this. The precedent was set long ago and is based on a false premise of historical/architectural conservancy that has now become dogma at city hall, namely that by preserving a facade or two or incorporating a portion of an existing structure into a new build, we are somehow paying stewardship to our past. Taken to its extreme, this same disregard for our built heritage is what led to the loss of some of this city's finest architectural treasures, including the old art deco 'Toronto Star Building' in 1972, the Georgian terraced 'Walnut Hall' in 2006, and now, potentially, even the 1958 mid-century modern 'Shell Oil Building' at 505 University Ave.
Click to expand...
Yes this is a bad result caused by City Hall, but not in the way you are suggesting. By restricting new density to a few small pockets of the city under the banner of “protecting” low-density neighborhoods, they’ve created a perverse incentive. Demand for housing becomes so high that eventually it becomes accretive to build on top of already dense properties because that is the only place the CIty will allow new density. At some point we have to accept that time moves forward and old buildings will need to be torn down to build new ones. We have to decide as a city if we want stuff like this to keep happening or lose a few victorian semis.
 
Dark Tower said:
Yes this is a bad result caused by City Hall, but not in the way you are suggesting. By restricting new density to a few small pockets of the city under the banner of “protecting” low-density neighborhoods, they’ve created a perverse incentive. Demand for housing becomes so high that eventually it becomes accretive to build on top of already dense properties because that is the only place the CIty will allow new density. At some point we have to accept that time moves forward and old buildings will need to be torn down to build new ones. We have to decide as a city if we want stuff like this to keep happening or lose a few victorian semis.
Click to expand...
Can you please explain to me how it is possible than you can find houses from the 1300’s, 1100’s in perfect condition in the UK? Isn’t it beautiful to see such old heritage buildings in England, right in the middle of the city, in an island which have limited land area to build, and still they have managed to preserve a great ammount of their beautiful heritage and historical buildings, so why is it that in Toronto is way too expensive to preserve Victorian houses? Why do they have to keep destroying beautiful architecture and craftsmanship to put a generic, cheaply made, ugly glass tower with cramped shoebox sized apartments and no parking spaces in an already overcrowded downtown Toronto when there are huge empty areas ready to be developed around the GTA, where there are warehouses and generic small houses that have no historical value at all, why aren’t we protecting the very very very small heritage architecture we have left? I have to say, I gave up and have resigned my self to the idea that this is not gonna stop and in the next 10 years or so, there won’t be any historical heritage houses other than the sad ghost facades morbidly used as a veneer entrance in glass towers where the elevators are never enough, water pressure is low, flooding is common, no common areas to walk by and sit down with an ice cream scoop and enjoy the sunset, which by the way, we are loosing the sky, look up and you will see just ugly glass towers facing each other….but yeah….there is a way to preserve, honour and respect the past we just chose to not care
 
On Charles Street, right behind this site. I am assuming it may be related since there is no other thread for the Charles-facing building... Taken today:

PXL_20260319_164640991.jpg
 
This one has been resubmitted.

@Paclo

1776765054497.png


Close up of street level:

1776765146740.png


Updated Stats:

1776765867014.png

The changes, from the Cover Letter:

1776765680690.png

1776765712334.png


Project Data Sheet continues to show the tenure here as condo.

Unit sizes continue to be unreasonably small, and not sell-able in the current market.
 
The new design limits the width of the tower to the width of 90 Isabella. This leaves room behind 92 Isabella for a third tower.
Tower 1: 88 Isabella
Tower 2: 90 Isabella
Tower 3???: 92 Isabella
 
donmayne said:
The new design limits the width of the tower to the width of 90 Isabella. This leaves room behind 92 Isabella for a third tower.
Tower 1: 88 Isabella
Tower 2: 90 Isabella
Tower 3???: 92 Isabella
Click to expand...

As @ProjectEnd notes above, this is not workable.

If you look up page at my post, you will see the discussion of setbacks, and separation distances.

The rules have some fudge factor and variation, but for simplicities sake, a new tower behind 92, would require the same setbacks from the north and west, but would also have to be at least 20M from the tower behind 90.

There is simply nowhere near enough room, and its not close either. No tower 3 here.
 
Community consultation meeting coming up for this on May 25th:

haveyoursay.toronto.ca

90-94 Isabella Street

The application proposes to amend the Zoning By-law to permit revisions to the previously approved a 69-storey residential building with 818 residential dwelling units, 54 car and 902 bike parking spaces.
haveyoursay.toronto.ca haveyoursay.toronto.ca


90-94 Isabella Street​


The application proposes to amend the Zoning By-law to permit revisions to the previously approved a 69-storey residential building with 818 residential dwelling units, 54 car and 902 bike parking spaces.

Application Information Centre:
Application Details - File Number: 26 141806 STE 13 OZ

Contact:
Tiffany Ly - Tiffany.Ly@toronto.ca

Date and Time​

May 25, 2026, 6:30 p.m. - May 25, 2026, 8:00 p.m.

Location​

Wellesley Community Centre (Multi-Purpose Room 2)
495 Sherbourne Street, Toronto, ON, Canada
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top