News   Apr 25, 2024
 299     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 954     3 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 997     0 

Riverside Towns (was Leslieville Lofts, Hyde Pk/Lamb Dev, 140-162 Broadview, 3s, ?)COMPLETE

So do we know for sure if the sales office is the location of the building? Are they tearing down that hall thing next door? I still don't see how they can build on that site, it really doesn't look big enough.

My bad!!

When I first posted the aerial map(s) and outline of the site I based it on the Leslieville Lofts website (which had little information since it was pre-launch) and sales information that indicated only the vacant lots and 140 Broadview had been purchased by the developers. I hadn't looked at the Leslieville website since the sales office opened and logged in today to check out the floor plans. I immediately realized I had the site outline quite wrong, and confirmed it with another source that detailed the land assembly all the way up to Kintyre Ave. So paraone .... you were quite correct to be questioning the sales office site and the project as it appears in the marketing material. The sales office site is big enough for a condo building, just not the one that they designed and are now selling.

Updated map here:

LeslievilleLofts-1.jpg


I also deleted one of my earlier posts and corrected the other one with the above map.
 
It will be a welcomed change from the strip that's there now, I think there is a nice small row there, but if it means the end of that shitty looking chop shop, alls good then!
 
Not quite sure why you are so worked up. As for it being "hardly debatable", I am a little puzzled why you think that. There is no neighbourhood boundary commission, nor any statute or by-law, nor any edict from God, that says the tracks form the boundary for all time. It's certainly fair for you to believe that the "west/north side of the tracks are in no way, or ever will be Leslieville", but unless you have been granted dictatorial powers of which I am not aware, it's all just opinion. And those "recent transplants" that seem to have you agitated are entitled to have their opinion too.

Neighbourhood boundaries are what people say they are. Not only do various opinions differ at any given point in time, but opinions also change over time. These things are in flux. You can come up with all the ridiculous examples you want about Rosedale, but the truth is a lot of people are calling the area west of the tracks Leslieville. And just because you strongly disagree does not make them wrong.


Have to disagree here. This particular example of the phenomenon under debate has nothing to do with organic changes in neighbourhood boundaries, and everything to do with marketing condos.

This development is only called Leslieville Lofts because it's a marketable name and buyers associate it with the "up and coming" area of Leslieville. Problem is, that area is actually further east.

These neighbourhoods we speak of have real histories based on real events and real people. No developer with a big advertising budget should be able to rewrite those histories to suit themselves.
 
It's probably true that Toronto's various neighbourhoods don't have legal boundaries, but many of them, such as Forest Hill and the Annex, had legal boundaries at the time they became part of Toronto.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that the City of Toronto does have a map indicating these neighbourhoods with - yes - boundaries.

http://www.toronto.ca/torontomaps/pdf/hoods2004.pdf

You could say Leslieville Lofts is in Riverdale or South Riverdale perhaps, but not in Leslieville. Not saying it's in South Riverdale is smoke-stack-and-Jilly's denial for the purposes of marketing.
 
You mistranscribed the url w/2 https.

Oh, Forest Hill had "legal boundaries" because it was an independent community. The Annex, however, never was (though the East Annex was part of the former Village of Yorkville)
 
Thanks - fixed the link.

I meant that The Annex was a more or less precisely defined patch of ground when it was annexed, which you can see on old maps, and had boundaries in that sense. I didn't mean to suggest it was an independent municipal entity.
 
from today's National Post, article touches on some broader financial issues: (my highlights)

Leslieville Lofts dead, Brad Lamb goes to Plan B

Posted: October 20, 2008, 6:05 PM by Rob Roberts
Real estate


By Natalie Alcoba, National Post

A major Toronto developer says his condo projects are on track despite the global credit crunch and real estate downturn, but one east end loft has been scrapped after losing a zoning battle.
The sign has come down for Lamb Development Corp and Hyde Park Homes’ Leslieville Lofts, located off Queen Street East, after the Ontario Municipal Board ruled against the nine-storey proposal.
The city had opposed the project, Brad J. Lamb (pictured above) said in an interview today. Mr. Lamb says he still intends to build at 134-162 Broadview Avenue, but it will be in the form of a stacked townhouse, and the project won’t bear the name “Leslieville,” since the address is actually in neighbouring Riverside.
“If we had won, we would be going for financing now, and there’s no doubt it’s a more challenging environment. Any development in the city that has achieved 70% of their pre-sales, and the budget makes sense — in other words, they sold them at a high enough price that protects the bank — banks are lending developers money,” said Mr. Lamb. “All our projects that we’ve been involved with have got financing.”

On Friday, city budget chief Shelley Carroll revealed that a “handful” of Toronto developers were placed in tricky positions when the investment bank Lehman Brothers collapsed and cast doubt on their financing. “They’re domesticating now, and so the projects will go ahead,” Ms. Carroll said. Still, the city moved last week to freeze development charges in the midst of the credit crisis.

Toronto Building, the city office that issues development permits, said it has not seen the number of building applicants drop. Ann Borooah, chief building official, said the office is not usually appraised of projects that went sour. “They would take more time to proceed to the next stage of approval, or more time to proceed to construction. It would be some time before it’s confirmed that a project was in trouble,” she said.

In the case of the Leslieville Lofts, it was the city and the neighbourhood that came out against the development, said local councillor Paula Fletcher.
“Not only did people not like the height, they were very annoyed that they were trying to market Leslieville into the Riverside district,” said Ms. Fletcher (Toronto-Danforth).
She said other projects have respected the four-storey limit on Broadview, north of Queen Street, which is zoned as “neighbourhood.”
Mr. Lamb said his team believed the city had erred in its zoning, and that it in fact made sense to be able to “frame” the intersection with buildings of similar height on both the north and south side. Another Lamb project, called The Ninety, is nine storeys high and set to be located south of Queen.
“It’s actually quite typical for a project to be approved at twice or many times three or four times higher than the current zoning,” he said. “What’s strange is this very sacrosanct zoning in the city that’s called neighbourhood, and they fight very hard when you try to change a neighbourhood zoning,” he said.
He said most of King Street West has a zoning of 18 metres, “but they easily allow 30 metres.”
Anyone who had purchased a Leslieville Loft can get a refund, can buy at another Lamb development or sign up for the Leslieville reincarnation, said Mr. Lamb. About 50% of the units had been sold since it went on the market nine months ago.
 
Too bad about the lofts being scrapped. I think it would've looked way nicer than town houses, which in Toronto usually means faux-Victorian with aluminum siding.

Hopefully BJL will come up with something better than the norm.

I wonder if people who bought in the cancelled project lost much $ on appreciation, or is it a blessing in disguise in today's market.
 

Back
Top