45 The Esplanade (Republic/Silver) - Real Estate -

[DSC]

If I had to choose between the designs for this site, I would rather choose the original one, with the gold fins. That at least looked better than what is currently proposed. Preferably, I would not choose any, and rather keep the current building.

Another parking question…
Would we just keep the current gate, which is the only gate on P2?
With the separation, that means we have P1, P2 and P3 all for our building. P1 will also have some retail and office parking spaces, but the rest will be private for 25. P1 will no longer be entirely public. Would we have to add another gate at P1? Since some residents would probably park at P1, and would like to have it gated like P2/P3.

Those are probably best asked of the Board at 25 The Esplanade (MTCC 850) who presumably know the answers.

 

[Bibi L]

Those are probably best asked of the Board at 25 The Esplanade (MTCC 850) who presumably know the answers.

Our condo board does not own the parking, and whenever I ask questions about it, most of the time they do not know, as they have nothing to do with it. I’ll just wait for the resident newsletter and see what the lawyers have to say about it.

 

[mburrrrr]

Those are probably best asked of the Board at 25 The Esplanade (MTCC 850) who presumably know the answers.

Our condo board does not know. Silver Group Hotel has not communicated their intention.
Both parties are aware of the issues.
This affects more than just parking so the board is aware and will be engaged if project moves forward. It can’t move forward without a negotiation or legal action.

The City does not care that this proposal is stealing the parking allowance from another building. I guess the removal of parking minimums might be the argument. Maybe we can steal the parking allowance back from 45 through the courts? We would need to punch a couple of holes through the wall for walking access.

@Bibi L
If the parking lot is severed there will only be 118 spots left under 25 The Esplanade proper.
We have a contract for up to 244 parking spots if required. I believe the current number of residents requiring monthly parking is over 110 spots for the 571 condo units but I don’t have the current amount or trend.
I’m not aware of the commercial or retail lease allowances if any. Public/visitor would not exist.

I assume Silver Group Hotel’s easiest way out for future parking would be monthly parking for 120 spots for 25 only. One gate at the front entrance and see what the Judge decides.

No point getting all excited if this proposal doesn’t move forward anytime soon or ever.

 

[Bibi L]

Our condo board does not know. Silver Group Hotel has not communicated their intention.
Both parties are aware of the issues.
This affects more than just parking so the board is aware and will be engaged if project moves forward. It can’t move forward without a negotiation or legal action.

The City does not care that this proposal is stealing the parking allowance from another building. I guess the removal of parking minimums might be the argument. Maybe we can steal the parking allowance back from 45 through the courts? We would need to punch a couple of holes through the wall for walking access.

@Bibi L
If the parking lot is severed there will only be 118 spots left under 25 The Esplanade proper.
We have a contract for up to 244 parking spots if required. I believe the current number of residents requiring monthly parking is over 110 spots for the 571 condo units but I don’t have the current amount or trend.
I’m not aware of the commercial or retail lease allowances if any. Public/visitor would not exist.

I assume Silver Group Hotel’s easiest way out for future parking would be monthly parking for 120 spots for 25 only. One gate at the front entrance and see what the Judge decides.

No point getting all excited if this proposal doesn’t move forward anytime soon or ever.

I think P1 might still have to remain partly public, as the residential elevators skip P1, and only go to P2/P3. The only elevator to go to P1 is the office elevator, which is not private residential. Since the current use for P1 is public, the private elevators skip it. Another elevator to P1 only is Novotel obviously. If the parking lot is severed, P1 might still be used as public, assuming Silver Hotel Group retains ownership, as they would also have to sell the office and retail at 25/35.
Would that mean we wouldn’t really have 118 private spots?
I don’t think there are any contracts to allocate parking spots for the offices and retail. P1 is just public, used for hotel and others. So I assume office and retail use it, as it is connected with their own elevator that leads to P1, being a convenient option. We can’t really turn it completely private, as the offices have the elevator that leads to P1.

I’m not excited for this proposal. I hope they can make up their minds and just outright cancel this. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the current building is so much better. It would also just cause too many problems. I’m just worried how it will affect us. And also a loss in architecture.

 

[mburrrrr]

I think P1 might still have to remain partly public, as the residential elevators skip P1, and only go to P2/P3. The only elevator to go to P1 is the office elevator, which is not private residential. Since the current use for P1 is public, the private elevators skip it. Another elevator to P1 only is Novotel obviously. If the parking lot is severed, P1 might still be used as public, assuming Silver Hotel Group retains ownership, as they would also have to sell the office and retail at 25/35.
Would that mean we wouldn’t really have 118 private spots?
I don’t think there are any contracts to allocate parking spots for the offices and retail. P1 is just public, used for hotel and others. So I assume office and retail use it, as it is connected with their own elevator that leads to P1, being a convenient option. We can’t really turn it completely private, as the offices have the elevator that leads to P1.

I’m not excited for this proposal. I hope they can make up their minds and just outright cancel this. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the current building is so much better. It would also just cause too many problems. I’m just worried how it will affect us. And also a loss in architecture.

Good point. We would loose up to 31 spots down to a total of 77 spots for 110+ users of 571 condo owners if the P1 level was not dedicated for 25 The Esplanade.

I assume SHG will still own the new hotel and their current assets. If not, could they convert and sell the 2nd floor offices as condos and open the residential elevators to the new 2nd floor? Doesn’t help the parking numbers but it does help access and security. Someone would still need to own and manage the retail.

Maybe 45 should dig down an extra floor for the additional parking. Haha.

Fun stuff trying to server an existing property for this project.

 

[DSC]

Our condo board does not know. Silver Group Hotel has not communicated their intention.
Both parties are aware of the issues.
This affects more than just parking so the board is aware and will be engaged if project moves forward. It can’t move forward without a negotiation or legal action.

The City does not care that this proposal is stealing the parking allowance from another building. I guess the removal of parking minimums might be the argument. Maybe we can steal the parking allowance back from 45 through the courts? We would need to punch a couple of holes through the wall for walking access.

@Bibi L
If the parking lot is severed there will only be 118 spots left under 25 The Esplanade proper.
We have a contract for up to 244 parking spots if required. I believe the current number of residents requiring monthly parking is over 110 spots for the 571 condo units but I don’t have the current amount or trend.
I’m not aware of the commercial or retail lease allowances if any. Public/visitor would not exist.

I assume Silver Group Hotel’s easiest way out for future parking would be monthly parking for 120 spots for 25 only. One gate at the front entrance and see what the Judge decides.

No point getting all excited if this proposal doesn’t move forward anytime soon or ever.

Though I am not sure that this is best discussed on this thread (or even this Forum); this is an interesting issue. Surely there must be legal agreements about the parking arrangements - who pays to maintain the structure? , who cleans it?, was rent charged? If there is a contract for 244 parking spots as you note, does it have an end date and who are the parties (MTCC 850 and the Silver Group?)? It is certainly an interesting 'property dispute' and I can see some lawyers getting rich over it. Presumably MTCC 850 has been noting the existence (if not the details) of this 'contract' in Status Certificates and the whole contract should be available to owners (and potential owners) as a "Core Record' of the Condo Corp.

 

[Bibi L]

Good point. We would loose up to 31 spots down to a total of 77 spots for 110+ users of 571 condo owners if the P1 level was not dedicated for 25 The Esplanade.

I assume SHG will still own the new hotel and their current assets. If not, could they convert and sell the 2nd floor offices as condos and open the residential elevators to the new 2nd floor? Doesn’t help the parking numbers but it does help access and security. Someone would still need to own and manage the retail.

Maybe 45 should dig down an extra floor for the additional parking. Haha.

Fun stuff trying to server an existing property for this project.

I think opening up the current elevators to the office floors would be a lot of work. Even if the condo board were to buy back the offices, I think they would keep it as office space? You would have to convert the offices to condos, create the lobby, make holes in the concrete core for the elevators, and then also program and add buttons to the existing elevators to stop at floor 2. The 2nd floor is also accessible in a separate lobby. When you enter the foyer of the building, left is “offices” right is “residential” the 2nd floor is accessible through stairs or its own elevator. The second floor was originally built as office space so I don’t think they want to compromise that. Offices are considered separate from 25 with its own address (35). It wouldn’t make sense for two different lobbies for both residential purposes. One having 5 elevators that stop at every floor, and one having a single elevator stopping just at level 2, and P1, with some stairs. Residents who would live on floor two probably would like to access through the new lobby, but would also not have access to P2 and P3, and no concierge. However, if they do take the tower elevators, then they can access P2 and P3, and the amenities. Elevator lobby would be strange for the second floor. The only floor with 6 elevators. And one random elevator that is very limited with floors.

I think the current layout is fine. Residential lobby on the right (25 The Esplanade), with 5 elevators, stopping from P2/P3, skipping P1 and floor 2, and going all the way up to floor 33. On the left, offices (35 The Esplanade). Elevator leading only to P1, lobby, and floor 2. Some stairs if you don’t wanna take an elevator. It’s separated.

When you take the ramp down to P2, there are still a couple parking spots right before you hit the gate, that are publicly accessible. My guess is that we could add another gate at the same spot as P2, but on P1. Add it a little bit after the elevator lobby for 35 The Esplanade, and the offices have some public spaces, and we have a little bit of private spaces on P1 too. Although accessibility won’t be great, the security is better.

If 45 were to dig another floor, I don’t even know how it’s possible to dig another floor for us. That would be unfair! They have 4 parking levels while we have very limited 3 parking levels.

This is definitely an interesting development.

Though I am not sure that this is best discussed on this thread (or even this Forum); this is an interesting issue. Surely there must be legal agreements about the parking arrangements - who pays to maintain the structure? , who cleans it?, was rent charged? If there is a contract for 244 parking spots as you note, does it have an end date and who are the parties (MTCC 850 and the Silver Group?)? It is certainly an interesting 'property dispute' and I can see some lawyers getting rich over it. Presumably MTCC 850 has been noting the existence (if not the details) of this 'contract' in Status Certificates and the whole contract should be available to owners (and potential owners) as a "Core Record' of the Condo Corp.

Okay. Silver Hotel Group owns the whole parking lot. As well as the Novotel hotel, retail and office of 25 The Esplanade (35 The Esplanade) of course, the residential part of 25 The Esplanade (floors 3-33, including residential lobby) are owned by MTCC 850. However, the parking is run by different companies, like Impark, or now, TargetPark. The condo board has nothing to do with the garage. The only thing they have is a contract with Silver Hotel Group to reserve P2 and P3 behind a gate for residents of 25 The Esplanade. The maintenance of the garage has some finger pointing. Residents of 25 The Esplanade have often complained about the condition of the garage, but the condo board can’t do anything about it, they’ve forwarded the complaints to Silver Hotel Group and Impark (the parking operator at the time) and Impark had argued that they do not own the parking, and just run it, they said that Silver Hotel Group is responsible with the condition of the parking. Silver Hotel Group just said the same thing, they said Impark should be the ones to maintain it, since they’re running it. The contract to reserve 244 spots for 25 The Esplanade has been breached from time to time, thanks to TargetPark and how they want to make an extra buck. When the P1 level is at capacity, they often open P2 and P3 to the public, and anyone can park there. This is only done for a period of time, and not all the time. Somebody who parked behind the gate after being redirected by TargetPark, came back to the parking lot only to find their car behind a gate, locked. Lol. This parking lot is… interesting. I don’t understand why Avro (the developer of 25/35/45) didn’t just separate the parking? Why does it have to be shared under 25/35/45? Why did they retain ownership of the whole thing.

 

[DSC]

I think opening up the current elevators to the office floors would be a lot of work. Even if the condo board were to buy back the offices, I think they would keep it as office space? You would have to convert the offices to condos, create the lobby, make holes in the concrete core for the elevators, and then also program and add buttons to the existing elevators to stop at floor 2. The 2nd floor is also accessible in a separate lobby. When you enter the foyer of the building, left is “offices” right is “residential” the 2nd floor is accessible through stairs or its own elevator. The second floor was originally built as office space so I don’t think they want to compromise that. Offices are considered separate from 25 with its own address (35). It wouldn’t make sense for two different lobbies for both residential purposes. One having 5 elevators that stop at every floor, and one having a single elevator stopping just at level 2, and P1, with some stairs. Residents who would live on floor two probably would like to access through the new lobby, but would also not have access to P2 and P3, and no concierge. However, if they do take the tower elevators, then they can access P2 and P3, and the amenities. Elevator lobby would be strange for the second floor. The only floor with 6 elevators. And one random elevator that is very limited with floors.

I think the current layout is fine. Residential lobby on the right (25 The Esplanade), with 5 elevators, stopping from P2/P3, skipping P1 and floor 2, and going all the way up to floor 33. On the left, offices (35 The Esplanade). Elevator leading only to P1, lobby, and floor 2. Some stairs if you don’t wanna take an elevator. It’s separated.

When you take the ramp down to P2, there are still a couple parking spots right before you hit the gate, that are publicly accessible. My guess is that we could add another gate at the same spot as P2, but on P1. Add it a little bit after the elevator lobby for 35 The Esplanade, and the offices have some public spaces, and we have a little bit of private spaces on P1 too. Although accessibility won’t be great, the security is better.

If 45 were to dig another floor, I don’t even know how it’s possible to dig another floor for us. That would be unfair! They have 4 parking levels while we have very limited 3 parking levels.

This is definitely an interesting development.


Okay. Silver Hotel Group owns the whole parking lot. As well as the Novotel hotel, retail and office of 25 The Esplanade (35 The Esplanade) of course, the residential part of 25 The Esplanade (floors 3-33, including residential lobby) are owned by MTCC 850. However, the parking is run by different companies, like Impark, or now, TargetPark. The condo board has nothing to do with the garage. The only thing they have is a contract with Silver Hotel Group to reserve P2 and P3 behind a gate for residents of 25 The Esplanade. The maintenance of the garage has some finger pointing. Residents of 25 The Esplanade have often complained about the condition of the garage, but the condo board can’t do anything about it, they’ve forwarded the complaints to Silver Hotel Group and Impark (the parking operator at the time) and Impark had argued that they do not own the parking, and just run it, they said that Silver Hotel Group is responsible with the condition of the parking. Silver Hotel Group just said the same thing, they said Impark should be the ones to maintain it, since they’re running it. The contract to reserve 244 spots for 25 The Esplanade has been breached from time to time, thanks to TargetPark and how they want to make an extra buck. When the P1 level is at capacity, they often open P2 and P3 to the public, and anyone can park there. This is only done for a period of time, and not all the time. Somebody who parked behind the gate after being redirected by TargetPark, came back to the parking lot only to find their car behind a gate, locked. Lol. This parking lot is… interesting. I don’t understand why Avro (the developer of 25/35/45) didn’t just separate the parking? Why does it have to be shared under 25/35/45? Why did they retain ownership of the whole thing.

You note: "I think opening up the current elevators to the office floors would be a lot of work. Even if the condo board were to buy back the offices, I think they would keep it as office space?"
Under the Condo Act, the Condo board could not 'buy back' any space and certainly could not use the Reserve Fund to do so or to make changes to it. . Any change to the common elements or the services offered by the Corporation would require over 66% of ALL Owners to agree. I realise there is a serious problem but the idea of the Corporation simply buying space is unrealistic. There clearly is a contract of some sort about the garage/parking and the first step would surely be to ensure it was being followed and, if not, ensure it is. I assume (and hope) that all your Status Certificates have info on the parking situation and the contact with Silver - perhaps you can post exactly what the Status Certs say? Any Agreements are supposed to be listed in a Status;

 

[Bibi L]

You note: "I think opening up the current elevators to the office floors would be a lot of work. Even if the condo board were to buy back the offices, I think they would keep it as office space?"
Under the Condo Act, the Condo board could not 'buy back' any space and certainly could not use the Reserve Fund to do so or to make changes to it. . Any change to the common elements or the services offered by the Corporation would require over 66% of ALL Owners to agree. I realise there is a serious problem but the idea of the Corporation simply buying space is unrealistic. There clearly is a contract of some sort about the garage/parking and the first step would surely be to ensure it was being followed and, if not, ensure it is. I assume (and hope) that all your Status Certificates have info on the parking situation and the contact with Silver - perhaps you can post exactly what the Status Certs say? Any Agreements are supposed to be listed in a Status;
View attachment 581948

So would that mean the condo would not be able to buy back the parking, which should have always been ours? Condo board never owned it in the first place, but I think most residents would want the parking to be under the condo’s management. As I think they would fix a lot of problems there. Clearly Silver and TargetPark aren’t doing enough to maintain the garage.

Our condo board held a meeting with the decision to open up the private parking. This is what they had to say.

On November 2023, our board addressed concerns about the parking garage. The operator's decision to open gated areas to transient parkers across P2 and P3 sparked discussions during an informal Town Hall. MTCC 850 clarified they don't own the garage but have an agreement for 244 priority spaces behind a security gate, allowing the operator to monetize unused spaces. The Board of Directors is holding ongoing meetings with the owner and operator to resolve issues. To ensure safety and security, residents were asked to report any unauthorized building entries, monitor gated area access, refrain from granting entry to strangers, and promptly report incidents to both TargetPark and the management office.

That’s the most up-to-date newsletter I have from our board. Not sure what the update is. But I do know that opening P2 and P3 to the public is still the case.

 

[DSC]

So would that mean the condo would not be able to buy back the parking, which should have always been ours? Condo board never owned it in the first place, but I think most residents would want the parking to be under the condo’s management. As I think they would fix a lot of problems there. Clearly Silver and TargetPark aren’t doing enough to maintain the garage.

Our condo board held a meeting with the decision to open up the private parking. This is what they had to say.

On November 2023, our board addressed concerns about the parking garage. The operator's decision to open gated areas to transient parkers across P2 and P3 sparked discussions during an informal Town Hall. MTCC 850 clarified they don't own the garage but have an agreement for 244 priority spaces behind a security gate, allowing the operator to monetize unused spaces. The Board of Directors is holding ongoing meetings with the owner and operator to resolve issues. To ensure safety and security, residents were asked to report any unauthorized building entries, monitor gated area access, refrain from granting entry to strangers, and promptly report incidents to both TargetPark and the management office.

That’s the most up-to-date newsletter I have from our board. Not sure what the update is. But I do know that opening P2 and P3 to the public is still the case.

Though I agree that having parking either as "Exclusive use common elements" or actually owned by individual Unit owners would be good, I doubt STRONGLY you can get to either of these situations. As an Owner (I assume) you can apply for a copy of all Corporation Records and the Parking Contract is clearly a Core Record. There is an official process and Form at: https://www.condoauthorityontario.ca/resource/guide-to-condo-records/ Let us know what you find, it is an unusual arrangement AFIK.

 

[3Dementia]

I guess this is on topic.

Link

 

[Bibi L]

Though I agree that having parking either as "Exclusive use common elements" or actually owned by individual Unit owners would be good, I doubt STRONGLY you can get to either of these situations. As an Owner (I assume) you can apply for a copy of all Corporation Records and the Parking Contract is clearly a Core Record. There is an official process and Form at: https://www.condoauthorityontario.ca/resource/guide-to-condo-records/ Let us know what you find, it is an unusual arrangement AFIK.

I wonder if we did buy back the parking, our maintenance fees might go up. Yes, it’s very unlikely that we would actually buy it back. The condo board might also not want to buy it, so they don’t have to maintain it, adding costs. At least the maintenance fees in our building are great. For 1.4k sqft, maintenance fees are 1k. 803 sqft, $667 fees. Monthly parking is $250. Amenities are great and plentiful. So I’m happy with that.
Right now, I’m not going to bother with filling out the form. At least this proposal isn’t moving forward anytime soon. So I’m not going to worry too much. I might bother with it later. I’ll also wait for what the board has to say. At least it’s good to know so you can prepare if something happens. Like if we do lose our parking spot during construction, we could apply for monthly parking at the Green P garage on The Esplanade for example.
It’s definitely an unusual arrangement. Looking at a next door building, London on The Esplanade, there are two towers. Six parking levels. It also features public parking. I’m assuming the first couple levels are public, and the rest are private, for 1 Scott St, and 38 The Esplanade. In that building, the parking is owned by the condo, and each unit owner has their own private parking spot, that they own. Not the case with 25 The Esplanade. The whole parking is owned by Silver Hotel Group. And is “public” with just a contract to have some limited parking reserved privately for us on lower levels.

 

[mburrrrr]

Though I am not sure that this is best discussed on this thread (or even this Forum); this is an interesting issue. Surely there must be legal agreements about the parking arrangements - who pays to maintain the structure? , who cleans it?, was rent charged? If there is a contract for 244 parking spots as you note, does it have an end date and who are the parties (MTCC 850 and the Silver Group?)? It is certainly an interesting 'property dispute' and I can see some lawyers getting rich over it. Presumably MTCC 850 has been noting the existence (if not the details) of this 'contract' in Status Certificates and the whole contract should be available to owners (and potential owners) as a "Core Record' of the Condo Corp.

I agree with everything you are saying. The topic was probably better discussed over a beer too. Do you want to join us?
The parking agreement with the original owner is provided with the status certificate. There are documents transferring this agreement to the 2nd owners.
MTCC850, Olde Yorke Parking and Yonge-Esplanade Enterprise Limited (AVRO companies) and registering documents with the CIty. I have not seen the transfer document to SHG but they appear to be abiding by the terms of this agreement.

Oh and 16 spots are for commercial. So possibly 77-16 = 61 spots to fight over?

 

[Bibi L]

I agree with everything you are saying. The topic was probably better discussed over a beer too. Do you want to join us?
The parking agreement with the original owner is provided with the status certificate. There are documents transferring this agreement to the 2nd owners.
MTCC850, Olde Yorke Parking and Yonge-Esplanade Enterprise Limited (AVRO companies) and registering documents with the CIty. I have not seen the transfer document to SHG but they appear to be abiding by the terms of this agreement.

Oh and 16 spots are for commercial. So possibly 77-16 = 61 spots to fight over?
View attachment 582302

View attachment 582310

View attachment 582309

View attachment 582308

View attachment 582307

View attachment 582306

Haha, I was going to say that! Did you read my mind? It's never too late.
Thanks for this. Love reading these kind of things. This is also helpful.
They mention that the parking operator shall guard all parking levels at their own cost, but I never really see them guarding P2 and P3 anymore? MTCC 850 sometimes sends our concierge down to do checks, which is not mentioned there, as MTCC 850 has nothing to do with the garage (expect for notifying the garage operator of a burnt out lamp, so they can replace it). Did that change?
Another thing I want to point out, if Silver Hotel Group does continue to own the garage, and keeps it in its current state, including not changing any gates, that means the only gate we'll have will be located on P2, potentially losing all of P1 and basically half of P2. Changes will have to be made to secure more private parking for MTCC 850. Including adding a gate like I previously mentioned, probably on P1 after the elevator lobby for 35 The Esplanade.
I guess my drawing of the parking floor plan by memory was pretty accurate!

 

[DSC]

I agree with everything you are saying. The topic was probably better discussed over a beer too. Do you want to join us?
The parking agreement with the original owner is provided with the status certificate. There are documents transferring this agreement to the 2nd owners.
MTCC850, Olde Yorke Parking and Yonge-Esplanade Enterprise Limited (AVRO companies) and registering documents with the CIty. I have not seen the transfer document to SHG but they appear to be abiding by the terms of this agreement.

Oh and 16 spots are for commercial. So possibly 77-16 = 61 spots to fight over?
View attachment 582302

View attachment 582310

View attachment 582309

View attachment 582308

View attachment 582307

View attachment 582306

Thanks, the Agreement is very interesting but it does not appear to have a clause allowing anyone to end it. I am not a lawyer but this seems a serious defect to me because, as appears to be happening, situations change and what worked in 1997 may well NOT work in 2027 (??) if/when 45 The Esplanade is built.

I think we are now all agreed that (under the Condo Act and because they undoubtedly do not have $$ available) MTCC 850 cannot 'buy the parking'. In essence, the Agreement allows up to 244 residents of MTCC 850 (including 16 commercial tenants) to rent parking at a 'bulk rate'. I am not clear how the Silver Hotel Group can unilaterally decide to 'dispose of' part of the parking area covered by the Agreement - though doubtless paying $$$$ to someone might be the solution. The question is..... would the payment be to MTCC 850 (with whom they have an Agreement) or with the current 'parking renters' with whom they presumably have contracts. I can see lawyers getting quite rich over all this!

I would be happy to discuss over a beer (if 'the dog' is also invited) but really have little more to contribute. Were I on the Board at MTCC 850 I would be talking to the Corporation's lawyers and getting ready to start paying large legal bills.