59-81 Lawton Boulevard

Developer: Gairloch Developments, Fairway Developments
Architect: architects—Alliance
  
Address: 59-81 Lawton Blvd, Toronto
Category: Residential (Unspecified)
Status: Pre-ConstructionCompletion: TBD
Height: 468 ft / 142.60 mStoreys: 43 storeys
Project Forum 27 posts
Real Estate Forum
Follow 2 followingUpload 10 photos
Official WebsiteReport Error


Toronto 59-81 Lawton Boulevard | 142.6m | 43s | Gairloch | a—A

Ok....time for some thoughts on this......

Lets start where you might expect.........I do not want a useless, tiny park too small to program. I'm happy to support the developer acquiring the lot that is actually adjacent to Lawton Parkette, so it can be consolidated to same. But not a stranded lot.

Buy this:

1741215391178.png


And add it to the park.

Then.....

I will support expanding the floor plates of one or both proposed towers, on to the land currently proposed for a dumb park.

As both towers are sub 700m2 in their floor plates, there is ample room to add 2 suites per floor or 70'ish to the development. At a value of ~70M I think that can easily finance the acquisition in question.

Buying the remaining in between building.........and further extending the floor plates could easily double the above take.......and I still only require the one lot next to the existing Park.

Please and Thank you.

***

Next item. Tenure is not mentioned, but the proponent seeks to avoid any replacement rental obligation here since there are fewer than six such units currently provided within the homes in question.

Free pass, if its purpose built rental tenure here; no rental tenure, I don't care what the by-law says, you need to do better than a shrug.

No mention of Affordable Housing.....for two tall buildings within an MTSA? Someone needs to put @HousingNowTO onto that, as there is clearly an adjustment required.

***

Overall, very supportable.............but fix the park and affordable housing issues....... and the proposal would be better off.

If the building I propose is not available, or not at a price the proponent will agree to, I'd prefer cash-in-lieu to a stranded park.
 
Last edited:
Little off topic, does anybody know why their are so many pre-war apartment buildings in the neighbourhood immediately west of this stretch of Yonge? Far north enough to be outside that apartment ban Toronto passed in the 1920's?
 
jmi22 said:
Little off topic, does anybody know why their are so many pre-war apartment buildings in the neighbourhood immediately west of this stretch of Yonge? Far north enough to be outside that apartment ban Toronto passed in the 1920's?
Click to expand...

Oh, that's totally a question for @ProjectEnd he remembers details about developments from decades before he was born (I'm serious, its quite impressive)
 
No joke, I was driving around that area this past weekend and thought to myself, "That triangle is a pretty interesting spot for some development, would be pretty iconic just based on the interesting location".

And Wednesday we have this proposal.
Northern Light said:
Buy this:

View attachment 634640

And add it to the park.

Then.....

I will support expanding the floor plates of one or both proposed towers, on to the land currently proposed for a dumb park.

As both towers are sub 700m2 in their floor plates, there is ample room to add 2 suites per floor or 70'ish to the development. At a value of ~70M I think that can easily finance the acquisition in question.

Buying the remaining in between building.........and further extending the floor plates could easily double the above take.......and I still only require the one lot next to the existing Park.

Please and Thank you.
Click to expand...
And yes - get those stone blocks into the plan and make a better park.
 
I know the majority on this site seem to prefer tall towers, but I just don't understand why every site that is walkable to a transit station seems to be a candidate for high rise towers. To me, this site would be suitable for something in the order of maybe 20 storeys. That would still make it much taller than anything nearby and seeing as they are replacing low rise residential, it has to be profitable for the developer. I guess 40 storeys is just that much more profitable.
 
Midtown Hank said:
I know the majority on this site seem to prefer tall towers, but I just don't understand why every site that is walkable to a transit station seems to be a candidate for high rise towers. To me, this site would be suitable for something in the order of maybe 20 storeys. That would still make it much taller than anything nearby and seeing as they are replacing low rise residential, it has to be profitable for the developer. I guess 40 storeys is just that much more profitable.
Click to expand...
I have heard that because the gov tax and land cost are so costly, and the approval process is so substantial, the developers do tend to want to build higher to cover their margins. And they often expect the feedback to be lowering their height, so the early proposal tends to be higher than what they have in mind - pretty much they treat it as a negotiation.

I also do think that this could be a bit shorter due to the height of the buildings surrounding it, but then again, once you have a couple of tall buildings in the neighborhood, it kinda opens up the area for taller building... So I am not sure if that is a big issue over the long run. And if you want to do tall towers, close to transit is prolly the best area for it, since the burden on traffic is lesser.

@Northern Light - I know you must have answered this questions thousands of times, would be good to hear from you on this again tho :)
 
Tyrang said:
I have heard that because the gov tax and land cost are so costly, and the approval process is so substantial, the developers do tend to want to build higher to cover their margins. And they often expect the feedback to be lowering their height, so the early proposal tends to be higher than what they have in mind - pretty much they treat it as a negotiation.

I also do think that this could be a bit shorter due to the height of the buildings surrounding it, but then again, once you have a couple of tall buildings in the neighborhood, it kinda opens up the area for taller building... So I am not sure if that is a big issue over the long run. And if you want to do tall towers, close to transit is prolly the best area for it, since the burden on traffic is lesser.

@Northern Light - I know you must have answered this questions thousands of times, would be good to hear from you on this again tho :)
Click to expand...

Cost of planning applications are an issue; but really, distributed over the cost of a development of any size, they aren't really a reason to go higher. While some fees are fixed, many rise based on building size, which obviously doesn't work out.

For sure developers tend to come in high with their asks in Toronto, historically expecting to take a hair cut (height reduction), but such reductions are much less common now, and in MTSAs in particular we've seen Planning talk developers up.

I think for the pro planners out there and many builders its just pro forma to look at maximum precedent and try to get more. On a smaller building, if the precedent is 9s ask for 12. If the precedent is 33s ask for 40s and so on.

In the recent market, before the downtown, this made good fiscal sense, in as much as investors were snapping up everything and per ft2 sales prices were constantly rising. The pool of capital seemed nearly unlimited.

In the current market..........less so...... the sales are way down; there's downward pressure on rents too. The pool of capital is much smaller, and the risk appetite lower, but that doesn't mean everyone will go midrise.

This is a very good location, and with the MTSA behind it, a high-density pitch makes sense. The limiting factor for actually building will be the market..........and then, you might see something smaller than permitted built if the economics are preferable to holding the site. I can't speak to what Gairloch's costs are here, in terms of acquisition and servicing if any. (ie is the the assembly debt-financed and what the other carrying costs such as property tax and insurance are). If you're willing to just zone and hold (or flip).....the market will likely recover.

I tend to think this type of site would lend itself to luxury pitch........ but average unit size appears to be only 650ft2, which while not investor box territory is not luxe by any measure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top
NEWSDATABASEMAPFORUM DASHBOARD SERVICESUTProLOG IN
CITIES