News   Jun 21, 2024
Tenblock to Transform Tower-in-the-Park into Vibrant Urban Community
 137     0 
News   Jun 21, 2024
Vaughan, QuadReal Shake Hands on Performing and Cultural Arts Centre
 287     0 
News   Jun 21, 2024
News Roundup for June 21, 2024
 413     0 

Sapphire Update, out-of-business (Stinson)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would the developers pay more for faster service? The extra could go towards hiring more planners.
 
They are paying more now for in some cases slower services. Bill 124 came into full force on January 1 and was supposed to ensure Building Permit Fees only covered the costs of the serivce (municipalities were in the past actually gaining significant revenue by inflating many permit costs) and to have certainty with timelines. Although this isn't occuring as many planning departments are dancing around complete applications and a host of other issues. The fact is that plannign departments in many locations can't handle theworkload volume, yet council continues to increase fees and not provide corresponsing service increases.

Planning Fees in many municipalities across Ontario have been increasing by upwards of 100% in many jurisdictions with service levels remaining the same (in some cases I've heard of increases in the 200% - 500% range)

I'm sure many developers would be prepared to pay more for faster service. However they wouldn't necessarily embrance further increases, as they are currently grappling with recent significant increases that have not resulted in faster service.
 
What I find is that it takes forever for any project to get approved in this city. Somehow it appears as if city coucil resists change and is very conservative. Personlly, I didn't see anything wrong with the previous rendering with the globe and spire. The current rendering looks too conservative and very mediocre. I agree better off going for the old downtown plaza rendering than the current piece of trash.
 
I think we should not focus on the end result in this instance (as it is a matter of opinion ultimately) but on the process of how we got there (though if we are consistently getting to the wrong place, as some argue we are, then that could be considered too).
 
okay here's how i think the latest chapter in the sapphire saga might have gone: stinson has approval for a 50-something storey tower. stinson applies for a height increase. staff don't like the shadows on NPS and give comments to stinson saying that. stinson makes some minor tweaks but ignores the big issue, and resubmits. staff gives him comments again but it's not really a priority - they have other, more co-operative developers they can work with. it goes back and forth for a while with no real progress. eventually it goes to council, stinson knowing he doesn't have staff support. sure enough, council turns down the application. stinson whines and complains. finally stinson decides maybe he should just build a shorter tower like he's had approval for all along. right back to square one, a whole lot of wasted time. if you can't tell, i blame stinson, not "red tape."
 
if you can't tell, i blame stinson, not "red tape."
Click to expand...

^ My comments on red tape in the development industry were general comments and not specific towards Sapphire and Stinson.

I agree 100% with Brighter Hell's comments. Stinson seems to prefer the path of most resistance.
 
I was at the community council meeting where Sapphire was rejected. Kyle Rae mentioned that since 1973 City Hall has had a policy of not allowing additional shadowing on NPS (1973 was when they realized the Sheraton was a big mistake). Right away I knew he was fighting a losing battle. Why he thought he could push this through is beyond me.
 
Apparently Stinson is at a crossroads. If the shadowing NPS was the issue to begins with, how on on earth did he think he'd get the 90 storey Sapphire Tower approved in the first place? I think Stinson never really got his facts and history straight to begin with. At this site, even 73 stories will probabally be rejected. The only real option on this site is 55 storey tower. And I don't mean to be a drag or anything, the current renderings look horrible. Better off just going back to the old downtown plaza rendering.

Another option for Stinson, although I wouldn't recommend it unless he's serious in abouut pulling of something meaningful would be to sell off the current land and build his 90 storey project at some other site where he has a realistic chance of getting approval. However the cost would be lost in potential buyers interested in the present site. It's an opportunity cost for Stinson.
 
The problem with harry, is that by the time he ever gets his act together, the condo boom will be over...there are already signs that the U.S. market is slowing big-time, and we usually follow their trends by about six months....although nothing is ever certain..:smokin
 
The problem with Harry... is ... there's always a problem.

Imagine any other developer generating so many pages of apologies and excuses (aka new opportunities!).

I know I have your money but you don't know how hard this is, without having a proper education... and this isn't about you anyway, it's about ME.
 
At this site, even 73 stories will probabally be rejected.
Click to expand...

Not really. The new version is designed to shadow the same amount that a 55 storey Downtown Plaza would shadow. No more and no less. Since he's already approved for a 55 storey Downtown Plaza he should have much easier time getting this past council.
 
Somehow this new approach doesn't seem very appealing. Better off with the previous Downtown Plaza rendering
 
10134534.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top