Toronto Aura at College Park | 271.87m | 78s | Canderel | Graziani + Corazza

but you get much much more customers here... considering yorkville rents for $310 a square foot.

see this WARNING PDF

http://www.jjb.com/Client/JJB/JJBNA%20Web%20Listing%20db.nsf/3ed10205afc3ca4f852570d9000f654d/a5da8848896d6f0385257830001777e6/$FILE/424%20Yonge%20Street%20Toronto.pdf

and this: ($1,450 for 50 square feet) in a much less trendy location in a run down building, with a known proposal to erect a 40 story building in its place in a couple of years)
http://toronto.nowtoronto.com/CommercialForRent/1495-spectacular-yonge-st-retail-space-incl-tmi-utilities-wi-fi/13996518
 
Last edited:
One of the signs on the glass had a rental price written on it (and it wasn't on that really tiny unit besides the stairs). I could be wrong but I'm remembering it as something like $1200 - $1300 a month. In my head I related it to the price of renting an apartment. Would have been along the aisle leading to College Park. If someone is really curious to what they go for it wouldn't be too difficult to find out. There are plenty of numbers down there of investors looking to lease the space.

Here's one listed on Kijiji for $1,400.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
At $20 a square foot per month in rent, (seems reasonable since a simple google search reveals a unit going for $40 a square foot at Yonge/college) for 350 square feet, (smallest units here) you get 7,000 a month. That pays off your $790,000 purchase price in 9 years, assuming no interest. Pretty sound economics there.
Click to expand...

I am a commercial property developer. Commercial rents are stated per square foot per annum, not per month. This space would get no more than $40 per foot per annum, meaning a 350 sq ft unit would yield $14k per year. Assuming a capitalization rate of 5% for downtown retail properties, that would equate to a fair market value of $280k for a 350 sq ft unit. If they paid $790k for one of these small units, "haircut" would be the understatement of the year.
 
And I retract my above statements. I obviously was trying to figure out the figurative rates for these units, and failed miserably.
 
No problem,

Commercial rental rates can be confusing. I fear that many novice commercial real estate investors may have been taken advantage of here.
 
Canderel Stoneridge Equity Group, a leading condominium developer in the GTA, announced details of Canada’s largest new condominium tower called AURA, at a media conference held recently in Toronto.
today’s announcement signified the resolution of a process between the developer, local politicians and city staff which saw the building’s design subjected to Toronto’s first-ever international architectural peer review process.“This is a signature intersection for the city that demanded a signature development,” says Canderel Stoneridge Equity Group’s President Michael La Brier. “As such, both on our own and in cooperation with Councillor Kyle Rae and the City of Toronto, we sought out independent design reviews by some of North America’s leading architects. With only minor revisions, these independent
review panels fully endorsed our project, its architecture and its magnitude.”Designed by the Canadian firm of Graziani + Corazza Architects, in August 2006, Canderel Stoneridge, initiated an independent
architectural review of AURA to support their proposed design. A review was conducted by celebrated architects Eberhard Zeidler of Zeidler Partnership Architects and René Menkès of Menkès Shooner Dagenais Letourneux Architectes, who endorsed the project. Following their positive report, the City of
Toronto then requested a further independent review and KPMB’s Bruce Kuwabara, along with American architects Jon Pickard from Pickard Chilton and Josh Chaiken of Kohn Pedersen Fox Architects joined Zeidler and Menkès for an additional review. Echoing the results of the first review, this panel again reported favourably on Canderel Stoneridge’s proposed
designs.
“The independent review was an important step and served to echo our long-held belief that this was the right architecture at the right location,” says Barry Graziani, of Graziani + Corazza Architects. “We encouraged the developer to challenge themselves, and our firm, by subjecting our vision to the most stringent evaluation possible by some of the best minds in the business. The resulting recommendations made by our esteemed colleagues, particularly in terms of the manner in which the podium meets the street, were welcomed and have made for an even better design.”
Michael La Brier says that the panel first and foremost supported Canderel Stoneridge’s belief that this was the most suitable site for Toronto’s largest condominium tower, adding that “The panel endorsed our designs and requested limited architectural changes which will undoubtedly make a great project even better. The panel’s focus was on the use and application of materials to ensure the reality of the picture. They shared our belief that there can be no shortcuts in a project of this nature.”According to La Brier, however, the greatest impact of the review process may be felt not on the project itself, but in its implications for the city, noting that the process, “Which we entered into willingly, should serve as a model for the city in all its future high-profile, high-impact projects. With a proviso to market conditions, Toronto must continue to demand more of its developers and their designs, and it must subject them to the unassailable scrutiny of an independent review panel as a basic part of doing business.”
 
One assumes they are speaking of the exterior portion of the building, and not the selection of beige tiles or a big-box finishing esthetic within. Also, is there anything forcing the developer to adhere to their submitted plans to the panel? Seems to me that they can make a bunch of little changes and answer to no one for it.
 
I predict that the Aura basement will be a ghost town for years to come. It's quite depressing when a shopping centre appears like a failure off the bat. Small retail mall units have proven to be unsuccessful in downtown/mainstream Toronto, especially at basement level. Metropolis is a dud but at least has Future Shop, AMC Theatres, and three large popular restaurants to facilitate customer traffic. The interior design here is appalling and the lack of aesthetic appeal will certainly be a factor in attracting interesting retailers. This is evident in the increase and emergence of mall renovations in recent years to modernize and engage an upper scale market.
 
If it picks up the vibe of a Pacific Mall, it could be one of the more interesting shopping spots downtown. I have a feeling, based upon the size of the units, that this was exactly what the developers were aiming for (success to be decided though).
 
AlbertC said:
I predict that the Aura basement will be a ghost town for years to come. It's quite depressing when a shopping centre appears like a failure off the bat. Small retail mall units have proven to be unsuccessful in downtown/mainstream Toronto, especially at basement level. Metropolis is a dud but at least has Future Shop, AMC Theatres, and three large popular restaurants to facilitate customer traffic. The interior design here is appalling and the lack of aesthetic appeal will certainly be a factor in attracting interesting retailers. This is evident in the increase and emergence of mall renovations in recent years to modernize and engage an upper scale market.
Click to expand...

Within a decade of opening the Concourse below The Bay at Yonge & Bloor (opened in '76) it saw many units east of the subway entrance turn over and eventually empty out plus the food court quickly fell out of favor and into decline. By the early 1990's most of the east end except the main hallway was empty after the last bargain shop finally moved out and that's how it sat for nearly a decade. Some sort of deal was struck with The Bay, they leased and demolished the retail spaces to create a "below ground" shopping level. An LCBO helped steer some traffic that way plus the food court finally saw a much needed renovation. This is an example of a failed below ground (half a grade down) shopping area which essentially lead to nowhere. That property also went through several owners through those decades too. Another example are the shops below ground at 10 Dundas East, a few do well which cater to impulse purchases as one heads toward the subway but most are barely hanging on. Not having those shops below ground at Aura connected to the PATH (which leads to somewhere and brings lots of traffic through) could be real bad news for future tenants down there.
I"m thinking that the doors leading from the Aura shops to College Park will be propped open eventually using mag locks which release and shut closed should a fire alarm go off at either property, so I'm thinking those doors may be a fire code requirement.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top