Toronto Gibson Square Condominiums | 137.46m | 42s | Menkes | Rafael + Bigauskas

City tries to stop condos in NYCC

Community, builder quarrel over condo

Paul Moloney
city hall bureau

Toronto's ability to shape the North York city centre is on the line as a major developer seeks to build two condominium towers on a key site long slated for two office towers.

This week, the North York community council voted unanimously to preserve the office designation on the site at Yonge St. and Park Home Ave., steps from the heart of North York's downtown.

Councillor John Filion expects city council to uphold the designation, but the developer has taken the issue to the Ontario Municipal Board, which can overrule the city and will hear the issue in March.

"If the OMB rules against the city on this, you might as well take all the planning that's been done over 25 years in North York, and the city's new official plan, and toss it all in the recycling bin," he said.

But there's no market for office development in that location, said consultant George Belza, who appeared before the community council on behalf of the developer, Menkes Gibson Square Inc., which acquired the site in 2006.

In 1992, the site was approved for two office towers of 27 and 31 storeys. Menkes is now looking at building two 45-storey condos.

Filion said the switch has major implications for the area, which has traffic congestion and a crowded subway line.

The Toronto District School Board buses children out of the area because local schools are full, said trustee Mari Rutka.

There are other benefits to office development on the stretch of Yonge St. around Sheppard Ave., which Filion argues has more than its share of condos already.

"You need enough office so people go out to lunch, and that's how you get high quality restaurants. People go shopping after work and that gives you high quality retail. A condo corridor gives you none of that."
 
I'd love to see one big office building + retail on the bottom go on the parking lot next to Gibson House, and have them actually increase the parkland by adding to, not removing, the Rose Garden. Maybe the city could give Menkes density/height/whatever (like "most favoured builder" status when the time comes to dole out air rights for condos above TTC stations?) bonuses on other sites in exchange.

Perhaps it's also time for condos in North York Centre to be built a bit higher...20/30 storey towers fill up land a lot quicker than 40/50 storeys.
 
Maybe they could do one office and one condo, or mixed use for both towers.

This area should be for office, but it seems it hasn't had either much luck in the past, or no takers at the present moment.
 
Blame Imperial Oil!

The problem with two towers is that one of the two will almost certainly be built upon the Rose Garden. It's not like plunking a tower down in the middle of Central Park, but, still, what exists there now is a million times better than whatever condo will replace it.
 
This area should be for office, but it seems it hasn't had either much luck in the past, or no takers at the present moment.
Click to expand...

Menkes built an office tower just a block south only a few years back. TransAmerica Life is the main occupant.
 
^ If memory serves me correctly, the Yonge Hearts daycare next to this site was already built to help get residential uses past council...but that may have been for the Sorbara lands immediately to the north of the Menkes/Imperial Oil site.
 
The city should ensure that this remains office space. Otherwise downtown North York will just be another residential node. As Toronto's commercial tax rates start to come in line with those in 905 there will be new demand for office space in places like this along the subway. Same goes for Yonge and Sheppard.
 
Has there been anything other than the Transamerica building? I never get the impression much in the way of any large office towers are going up in North York.
 
Since Transamerica, no office towers have been built (or are planned, as far as I know). The exception is Hullmark, which has an office component.

The fact that the city wants to try their luck at the OMB with Gibson Square is good news on the retention of employment space front.

I'm itching to see what the rumoured Bazis complex at the SW corner of Yonge & Sheppard will be. Currently, there's 6 full blocks of undeveloped Yonge frontage on the SW corner, so even if Bazis takes up more than one block, there's opportunities for several more office buildings. Unfortunately, the SW quadrant has not been fully rezoned as "North York Centre," so the only thing that may get built is small, low-rise office blocks with retail fronting Yonge...which would still be very good for the area, though.

Hullmark at the SE corner is only part office space, but the retail piazza looks promising. An office tower can still go on the NW corner (including over the bus terminal) in the long term. Extended subways should also spur more office growth at Yonge & Sheppard.
 
In a decision issued July 2, the OMB allowed an appeal by Menkes Gibson Square Inc. against failure of the city to approve an official plan amendment to permit certain uses, including residential, on a development site at 5170 Yonge Street. The board insisted that while policies may encourage offices in the south section of the secondary plan area, the city has not always enforced these policies in full. The board noted that a number of recent city approved developments did not compromise the function of the secondary plan area (There are still 3.3 million square feet of office development space available in the immediate area according to the city) and have allowed the appeal, granting the official plan amendment.
 
By the logic of the OMB, what is there to prevent a progressive erosion of the remaining 3.3 million sq. ft. of office development left? How can it draw the line between acceptable erosion (which is what it is supporting now) and unacceptable ones - especially in light of the argument that because of limited enforcement of policies, that there is now practically no reason to enforce them at all?

Time to ignore the OMB.
 
nice to see buildings of this height coming to NYCC ... however disappointing that the OMB decision did not enforce any element of the existing office land use designation
 
ridiculous once again! I think the logic of basing decisions on prior developments allowed by the city is not the best practice. The point is that city council should have the ability to approve or reject projects on an individual basis. I have no great interest in this specific case, but as someone pointed out above, the official plan may as well be put through the shredder.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top