Toronto 115 Jarvis Street | 168.55m | 51s | Suncor | Arcadis

[Dr. Snoot]

Exactly this.

And it's not like we're moving into an EV economy (as much as some people have wishful thinking about, and are fully expecting to happen).

Whether we like it or not, gasoline is going to be around for quite a while longer. I cant believe these words are coming out of my mouth; but the city needs to ensure that there is a sufficient number of gas stations in the downtown core, and that they arent all eradicated.

I don’t see any imperative for the government to ensure there are gas stations within the downtown core. If it’s so necessary, the market will provide even if it’s at higher prices.

There are still plenty of stations on the fringes. If people need to drive 10-15 minutes to get gas or plan their trips to ensure they pick up gas on the way back to their homes downtown, that’s no different than any consumer good.

A tank these days offers 500-800km of range. People will be fine.

 

[ComptoirGeneral]

These would almost certainly be occupied by 2nd - 3rd year TMU students and young professionals, no? I don't see much issue with the sizes.

We should not be constructing 50 story towers with the assumption that they will only ever be occupied by students. That's what student housing is for.

 

[ComptoirGeneral]

This project will likely be sold off...Suncor isn't in the development business. This is likely considered a surplus site and if they can do a lot of the legwork to get a development moving, they can turn a bigger profit the further down the development process it goes.

So what's the point in doing the application if they don't intend to build it? Are they hoping to get the rezoning so it can be sold for it's development potential with the zoning already approved?

 

[RyanD]

We should not be constructing 50 story towers with the assumption that they will only ever be occupied by students. That's what student housing is for.

Students *and young professionals*. TMU doesnt have residence beyond first year so they all need to go somewhere. Pace, Grid, Dundas Square Gardens, Social, 252 Church, were all built to serve this need. With the new residence building at 100 Bond there will be an annual churn of thousands of new students moving to the City which will put pressure on these secondary rental options. I don't see this location as ideal for families, downsizers etc in the near term, so right sizing the product to the dominant future demographic here seems like the right move.

You can do really efficeint roomate-oriented layouts in 670 sft for 2 bed, or 950/100 for 3Bed/2+Real den you just gotta be strategic.

Anyways, this is a zoning exersize by a non developer and part of that is getting the highest unit count you can to have flexibility during detailed design - who knows where the market will be when something is built here.

 

[Northern Light]

Students *and young professionals*. TMU doesnt have residence beyond first year so they all need to go somewhere

But they should.

Pace, Grid, Dundas Square Gardens, Social, 252 Church, were all built to serve this need. With the new residence building at 100 Bond there will be an annual churn of thousands of new students moving to the City which will put pressure on these secondary rental options. I don't see this location as ideal for families, downsizers etc in the near term, so right sizing the product to the dominant future demographic here seems like the right move.

You can do really efficeint roomate-oriented layouts in 670 sft for 2 bed, or 950/100 for 3Bed/2+Real den you just gotta be strategic.

I'm not developer bashing in the least when I say this is a bad way to serve this market. The desire ought o be to keep housing costs for students as low as possible and that starts with a non-profit business model.

Long-term quality of life also matters, and institutions with experience running student housing are better suited to that as well.

Anyways, this is a zoning exersize by a non developer and part of that is getting the highest unit count you can to have flexibility during detailed design - who knows where the market will be when something is built here.

As I just noted in another thread, this just shouldn't be an acceptable way to do business; first, because owning property should not be a casino play where there is a constant incentive to juice land value. That ultimately just makes the next
purchase more expensive for builders and the public and supports run-away pricing.

At the same time, if you're ultimate buyer, an actual builder, looks at that density and says, that's not workable, they'll pay for the site based on what they perceive to be their ROI which is to say, they will discount the density, so you achieved nothing.

This is the case, again, for Use it or Lose It zoning......you building within 2 years over the zoning reverts to its previous form.

 

[3Dementia]

This is the case, again, for Use it or Lose It zoning......you building within 2 years over the zoning reverts to its previous form.

100% with you on this.

The only downside is 90% of PE's posting volume here would evaporate.

Wait...

 

[RyanD]

But they should.



I'm not developer bashing in the least when I say this is a bad way to serve this market. The desire ought o be to keep housing costs for students as low as possible and that starts with a non-profit business model.

Long-term quality of life also matters, and institutions with experience running student housing are better suited to that as well.



As I just noted in another thread, this just shouldn't be an acceptable way to do business; first, because owning property should not be a casino play where there is a constant incentive to juice land value. That ultimately just makes the next
purchase more expensive for builders and the public and supports run-away pricing.

At the same time, if you're ultimate buyer, an actual builder, looks at that density and says, that's not workable, they'll pay for the site based on what they perceive to be their ROI which is to say, they will discount the density, so you achieved nothing.

This is the case, again, for Use it or Lose It zoning......you building within 2 years over the zoning reverts to its previous form.

Sorry I dont know know to split posts but I will respond to the points


- They should have more residence spaces absolutely, but they dont and won't for the foreseeable future, the new spaces will continue to be made for 1st year students primarily. The culture at TMU is predominantly that you live in residence first year and move out with roommates in second year. For many, this is a first entry into understanding the rental market, how to deal with being a tenant etc. It's a valuable learning experience and I see no issue with someone getting introduced to it in 2nd year after learning the ropes in residence.

- I agree that the desire is to keep costs low, and first year residence is an excellent way to achieve that. I dont think it needs to be subsidized housing for all students.. you learn as you get older..

- While im not a fan of the zone and flip fantasy stuff I will say that getting a property rezoned the city these days is extremely restrictive on changes after zoning, they really want to 'shrink wrap' the building into exactly what was proposed at Zoning with little flexibility during SPA without a Minor Variance. This restrictiveness encourages an early proponent to stuff the number of units as high as possible at zoning, only to reduce it when they get to detailed design - its all about opening yourself up to flexibility.

- On use it or lose it zoning, 2 years is waaayyy too tight. We took 265 days on Everston going from Zoning approval to Ground floor slab, but that was going lightning fast. Now, with the City not typically accepting SPA till ZBA is finalized, the ability to overlap different deliverables/permits etc to meet that timeline is ambitious. Depends on the economic climate too cause repositioning these Zoned projects can still take a lot of time. Zone and flip would much faster go away with a comprehensive re-zoning of the City to realistic levels, rather than the site-specific framework that we have now. BTW I think the 'zone and flip' business is dead anyways, you only really provide substantial value these days when you get things through SPA/NOAC.

anyways- thats my two cents!

 

[Northern Light]

Sorry I dont know know to split posts but I will respond to the points

Appreciate your take.

Just to let you know, to split a single quote for the purpose of answering points one at a time, all you do is hit enter with the cursor where you want to make a break. So in this above example, I positioned the cursor one space to the right of 'points' and hit enter; everything else then stays in quote but moves down into a second box.

You can repeat the procedure as much as desired, and if you don't want to respond to a particular point, just delete the text in question.

If you're doing that between two separate points which you are keeping in the same box, use *** to indicate missing text.

- They should have more residence spaces absolutely, but they dont and won't for the foreseeable future, the new spaces will continue to be made for 1st year students primarily. The culture at TMU is predominantly that you live in residence first year and move out with roommates in second year. For many, this is a first entry into understanding the rental market, how to deal with being a tenant etc. It's a valuable learning experience and I see no issue with someone getting introduced to it in 2nd year after learning the ropes in residence.

I'm not opposed to this, I just don't think it should be compulsory due to the lack of a public-sector/school-owned option.

- While im not a fan of the zone and flip fantasy stuff I will say that getting a property rezoned the city these days is extremely restrictive on changes after zoning, they really want to 'shrink wrap' the building into exactly what was proposed at Zoning with little flexibility during SPA without a Minor Variance.

I'm not under the illusion that 'use it or lose it' is likely to happen, but if it were to get serious consideration, I'm open on the details; but I wouldn't want to let the years drag on, I think 3 years max.

But, I'd be happy to agree that the City must be willing to process the SPA roughly in parallel, or that if a builder has submitted a zoning-compliant SPA, within 90 days of ZBA being granted, that the clock starts there, or within 90 days.

We could quibble on the exact numbers, but the idea is good faith, if its not a vapourware proposal, it should be possible to get it to permits within 3 years.

This restrictiveness encourages an early proponent to stuff the number of units as high as possible at zoning, only to reduce it when they get to detailed design - its all about opening yourself up to flexibility.

I know this happens (restrictiveness) at times. I feel mixed on this, I don't think Planning should be entirely inflexible, but a zoning exercise months or years in the making going back to pre-application, really ought not to require substantive amendment during an SPA that immediately follows.

That said, as someone who has informally acted as liaison between Planning and builders on a few occasions, I find almost everyone can be agreeable, usually. Good relationships and people skills are key.