250 Front St. E (Greenpark Homes, 12 + 2x 46s, SvN)

[DSC]

Why is it that the city allows buildings where almost 2/3 of units are tiny 1 bedrooms when there is a huge demand for family sized units. Why not force developers to have more 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units. It should be 1/3 1 bedroom, 1/3 2 bedroom and 1/3 3 bedrooms.

The City has certain standards and tries to enforce them ("family units") but developers say there is no demand for them. Though I am surprised, developers are in this to make $$ so I doubt that they would NOT build larger units if they could sell them.

 

[interchange42]

It's not that they build no larger units—the City has been asking for 10% of them to be 3 bedrooms for the past few years, and they've been adding them—and now the market is catching up, demanding incrementally more 2 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms. They can still only sell so many of any particular type of unit, however, so developers tend to jig their plans for that. You wouldn't see the mix we do see otherwise.

This one may only have 4% 3-bedrooms now, but it'll never get approved with that few.

42

 

[lead82]

Of course developers are there to make money. It’s likely that the profit on larger units is less than the smaller ones but there must be erficiencies of scale. Maybe 3 bedrooms with only 2 bathrooms. Put them in lower floors for families. Reduce the amenities that most people don’t use that cost a lot. Maybe no fancy lobbie. Somehow previous generations of developers built both rental and condos that were large enough for families. Now it’s mostly greed that they don’t. That and ridiculous zoning that prevents development on less expensive land.

 

[TheKingEast]

Someone asked why do we see clunkers in this area? Height restrictions probably have something to do with it. Some builders are greedier than others as well. The lots are larger so they find a design that pushes profits to the limit. In this kind of area the city should be pushing for higher grade of architecture.

We really are missing the boat here with this opportunity to rebuild Toronto but we aren’t learning from our mistakes

 

[maestro]

Very true on the height limits. Aura and YC aren't clunkers at all. Okay. YC is fairly slim. It's a clunker for its small site.

 

[Torontovibe]

Someone asked why do we see clunkers in this area? Height restrictions probably have something to do with it. Some builders are greedier than others as well. The lots are larger so they find a design that pushes profits to the limit. In this kind of area the city should be pushing for higher grade of architecture.

We really are missing the boat here with this opportunity to rebuild Toronto but we aren’t learning from our mistakes

Our politicians just don't care! I've spoken to enough of them to realize that. Yes, we are missing out on a tremendous opportunity to transform our city into an architectural and cultural showcase but nobody really cares. Profit$ are what this city and its leaders care about!

 

[Lenser]

@TheKingEast: height limits have zero bearing on the quality of architecture in our city. We may be suffering more from a paucity of imagination or daring, but height itself (or the alleged lack thereof) does not factor into the equation.

And again, how do we come to a sensible agreement as to what constitutes a "higher grade of architecture?"

 

[TheKingEast]

@TheKingEast: height limits have zero bearing on the quality of architecture in our city. We may be suffering more from a paucity of imagination or daring, but height itself (or the alleged lack thereof) does not factor into the equation.

And again, how do we come to a sensible agreement as to what constitutes a "higher grade of architecture?"

Well, if we're talking about a giant clunker of a project, the height restriction does have something to do with it. Maybe not entirely but it does. It's simple math. Jam as much as you can into a particular space. Without a height restriction we would see much taller and perhaps slender buildings. Typically slender buildings have better design from what I can see.

As for your question..a practical solution? In Toronto? No idea.

 

[Lenser]

I refute your idea that "typically slender buildings have much better design." Please substantiate - I'm not seeing it. Tall and/or buildings are every bit as capable of pure clunkerdom as shorter ones. Take Aura, for example. The Theatre District is chalk full of relatively slender buildings but precious few of them are real knockouts, looks-wise.

 

[bmiller]

It's been iterated here many times, but builders don't have to construct " higher grades of architecture " as the lower grades sell fast and furious, so why spend the extra cash.
Mirvish & Gehry, 1 Yonge, and i gather The One will be a litmus test to how many are willing to fork over crazy amounts for living space. It appears The One did ok in this
department. Most buyers though are looking for economical living downtown, and these cookie cutter, plain boxes fill the bill. Until buyers demand better, don't expect
anything to change. Politicians don't care all that much.

 

[DSC]

They are doing core-sample drilling on site this week.

 

[richsherb]

A Community Consultation meeting invitation was received in the mail today.
"250-260 Front St. E. & 383 King St. E."

Scheduled for Monday, April 16.
7-9 pm @Little Trinity Annex, 403 King St. E.

 

[DSC]

Coming to Council this week: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2019.CC1.29

 

[innsertnamehere]

There is a "city planning analysis" attached to that item.. never seen that. Typically anaylsis comes through the form of a staff report on the project, it isn't in the staff report this time, but as a separate attachment.

 

[DSC]

There is a "city planning analysis" attached to that item.. never seen that. Typically anaylsis comes through the form of a staff report on the project, it isn't in the staff report this time, but as a separate attachment.

I think this is because it is going straight to Council - these normally go via Community Council.