Toronto 30 Huntley Street | 198.1m | 60s | Osmington Gerofsky | Diamond Schmitt

Unless they're rentals it really wouldn't make sense market timing wise.
 
1Ć0 said:
You know what this area is missing?

A pair of 60+ storey proposals
Click to expand...
Why stop at a pair?

Let's get 5 towers on site here, because St.James Town can more than handle the residential overload even more than the area already does today.
 
Was I the only one who knew what was coming here, or did @1Ć0 also get a preview? LOL

The application is now public-facing via the 'Old' AIC:

2 residential towers, 56s + 60s

Architect is Diamond Schmitt

Given the search issues w/old AIC links.....

I'll stick the Application Number here up front: 25 265180 STE 13 OZ


@Paclo

****

Oh, you were wanting some renders?

From the above:

1766145361877.png


1766145424866.png


1766145484239.png


1766145527142.png


Site Plan:

1766145582553.png

Ground Floor Plan:

1766145617717.png


Typical Floor:

1766146338251.png



Stats:

1766145650859.png


1766145681868.png

1766145701033.png

1766145733009.png


1766145777713.png


1766145811663.png

1766145885487.png


Elevator Ratio:

North Tower: 705 units - 6 elevators; 1 elevator per 121 units

South Tower: 657 units - 6 elevators; 1 elevator per 114 units


Comments: Architecture is mostly fine, though the east elevation between the heritage homes is.......umm.........needs refinement would be the polite choice. I'm also not taken w/the bizarre niche/overhang treatment on the south tower.

Unit sizes vary but are broadly too small, 812ft2 for a 3-bedroom isn't funny or silly, its cognitive dissonance, which is to say, there is no such thing as a viable 3 bedroom at that size.

Further thoughts later.
 
PL1 said:
Fewer units per floor would make for better livability and elevator ratio

Edit: this could probably apply to most of these new developments!
Click to expand...
It's an entitlement. I do agree with your point if this were a real project, but the name of the game here is pack em in and max out that GFA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
ProjectEnd said:
It's an entitlement. I do agree with your point if this were a real project, but the name of the game here is pack em in and max out that GFA.
Click to expand...

Setting to one side my aversion to 'fake' projects and the waste of time and money they represent for all involved....

What's the point of stacking density as a non-builder if what they really want is PE to come along and take it off their hands............and when you look at it, you're going to apply a discount to that density because you wouldn't build it that way?
 
Northern Light said:
Setting to one side my aversion to 'fake' projects and the waste of time and money they represent for all involved....

What's the point of stacking density as a non-builder if what they really want is PE to come along and take it off their hands............and when you look at it, you're going to apply a discount to that density because you wouldn't build it that way?
Click to expand...

It's actually quite perplexing to me that in the current state of the market, we continue to see massive 50+ storey proposals. I understand planning for the long term, but I don't think we'll see a lot of 50+ storey buildings built in the GTA for probably the next 10 years.

Condo market is oversupplied. Rental market is only persisting bc of government incentives. And I'm hearing a bunch of developers (likely the inexperienced ones) are rescinding on the City's recent PBR incentives bc they likely couldn't make the numbers work, lenders didn't want to lend to them, they didn't qualify for CMHC, etc. The feds released population estimates and we're anticipated to see 0 pop growth during 2026 and 2027.

Not to mention that OGDC already has another entitled site in an arguably better location (Bloor/Jarvis) that I understand still hasn't sold or been tied up?

So I really don't understand the motive lately...
 
I am thinking they should project high rez holographs of these towers that will likely never be built give this city a more robust "richness" to our density and skyline. The only thing here that it would be obvious they are such on really snowy or foggy days.. /s
 
Why would we ever need to widen the sidewalk with a 10x in density on the site? Just keep that good old 2.1m slab rollin
 
jmi22 said:
Why would we ever need to widen the sidewalk with a 10x in density on the site? Just keep that good old 2.1m slab rollin
Click to expand...

One problem here, there are others.

But I agree w/this one.

Though, it really depends how you mass the site, and where you position an entrance or the entrances.

I've modelled something different, and am awaiting feedback. Though as this is vapourware, I wouldn't get too worked up about it..........

But I must admit, lazy thinking irritates me.
 
Northern Light said:
Setting to one side my aversion to 'fake' projects and the waste of time and money they represent for all involved....

What's the point of stacking density as a non-builder if what they really want is PE to come along and take it off their hands............and when you look at it, you're going to apply a discount to that density because you wouldn't build it that way?
Click to expand...
Value. The value of the land zoned at 60 storeys is more than the value of the land at homes. That's it. OGDC is happy to syphon fees from them to do so, and I'm just jealous I wasn't the one to get the contract.
1Ć0 said:
It's actually quite perplexing to me that in the current state of the market, we continue to see massive 50+ storey proposals. I understand planning for the long term, but I don't think we'll see a lot of 50+ storey buildings built in the GTA for probably the next 10 years.

Condo market is oversupplied. Rental market is only persisting bc of government incentives. And I'm hearing a bunch of developers (likely the inexperienced ones) are rescinding on the City's recent PBR incentives bc they likely couldn't make the numbers work, lenders didn't want to lend to them, they didn't qualify for CMHC, etc. The feds released population estimates and we're anticipated to see 0 pop growth during 2026 and 2027.

Not to mention that OGDC already has another entitled site in an arguably better location (Bloor/Jarvis) that I understand still hasn't sold or been tied up?

So I really don't understand the motive lately...
Click to expand...
I mean, it's not, really. Folks keep talking about the 'zoned density' of Toronto, but because we work in a site by site system, the overall gross of all of those zonings means bupkis. Nothing.

OGDC does not "have a site", they DM'd a site on behalf of Rogers Communications Inc. who are the ultimate owners of the land. There is a CIM for that land, but you're correct, no interest to date.

All these exercises are doing is moving the broader rezoning of the City forward site by site. Absent a blanket zoning reform, this is how it's going to work for the next half decade. Once in awhile something will get built, but those things will be few and far between. In the meantime, folks looking to increase the paper value of their land will (rightly) continue to do so.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top