Toronto 450 Dufferin | 57.6m | 15s | Hullmark | superkül

WislaHD

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
10,036
Reaction score
9,619
Location
Midtown Toronto
No development proposal yet, but the site was just sold to Hullmark.

1597112823353.png


1597112805895.png
 
From my understanding, Lotus Fitness are still the tenants here so the building will likely remain intact for some foreseeable time. Otherwise, with Hullmark being the new owner, they could very well be planning for future intensification. Especially with the now established development precedents set just south of here.
 
450 Dufferin

The 450 Dufferin site is 16,000 square feet and occupied by the 4,000-square-foot Lotus Fitness and Thai Boxing facility. Hullmark’s goal is to build its third purpose-built apartment building, with a size of close to 100,000 square feet, on the property.

“We felt that it was a good mixed-use development site, albeit with some zoning risk to it because right now it’s designated employment,” said Hull.

“Based on our expertise and internal capabilities, we would prefer to pay less to buy a site where we could actually add the value, rather than buying a fully approved and zoned residential development site or mixed-use site.”

Hull said Hullmark had 450 Dufferin under contract to conditionally purchase after the arrival of COVID-19 and was “looking to extend the condition date further so we had a little bit more certainty about what the new world looked like.

“But, the vendor really wanted us to make a decision so, in order to do that, we were able to get some consideration considering the environment we were waiving it in. That was a combination of a purchase price reduction and a vendor take-back mortgage.”

Hull said his firm had previously considered purchasing properties south of 450 Dufferin, which are now under development by Fitzrovia Real Estate, and he regrets not buying them.

 
Hull said his firm had previously considered purchasing properties south of 450 Dufferin, which are now under development by Fitzrovia Real Estate, and he regrets not buying them.
Thinking of an alternate universe where Hullmark had developed those other lots along Dufferin and hired a real architect instead of G+C and sighing wistfully...
 
Good decision, but we need to drop the "provide the appropriate transition in scale" requirement here. If anything the single family homes to the north of the site should be upzoned to allow mid-rise by right.

Why is Dufferin not considered an "Avenue"? The City should do everything possible to encourage this street to become a North-South version of Dundas or College.
 
Why is Dufferin not considered an "Avenue"?

The not very satisfying answer is that when the City introduced the 'Avenues' designation, it largely applied to areas that were already mixed-use/commercial in character and largely left significant stretches of SFH untouched.

There were a couple of exceptions. But really, the Avenues program did not 'rock the boat' ; it simply added some as-of-right permissions to areas already likely to get them via OPA/ZBA.

The City should do everything possible to encourage this street to become a North-South version of Dundas or College.

I'm inclined to agree. But this particular report is one generated by requests from property owners, not a pro-activity, city-initiated look at Dufferin.

Until we get the latter, default wording will almost always seek to protect the status quo.
 
Planning and Housing Ctte should amend it! If they're asking for "prescribed rates of affordable housing" (as they should!) they should not handcuff the developers to some pointless "step down" architecture which lowers total GFA all for the sake of protecting one single backyard from a little bit of shadow. If The City if serious about building housing, these are the interventions they need to make.
 
Planning and Housing Ctte should amend it! If they're asking for "prescribed rates of affordable housing" (as they should!) they should not handcuff the developers to some pointless "step down" architecture which lowers total GFA all for the sake of protecting one single backyard from a little bit of shadow. If The City if serious about building housing, these are the interventions they need to make.

You should send in a communication on the item (or depute) to that effect! (seriously, no snark implied). You can either compose a letter/written submission and submit it per the contacts below, or seek to speak via an in person/virtual deputation.

This is the report item: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-227762.pdf

1656349674749.png


Alternatively, you can email any/all members of the Ctte w/your thoughts.

The membership list is here:

1656349947759.png
 

Back
Top