Yes, if you don't own a few streets over. You can only seek to maximize the density (redevelop) on property that you own.
42
Toronto 522 University Avenue | 232.35m | 64s | IA Financial Group | WZMH
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
42
TRONto
Active Member
After a few more walk-bys I've changed my mind. At street level I think it's better the way it isStrongly agree. I pass by this building quite often and it's definitely a negative as far as street engagement is concerned and the new building will be better (largely because of retail at grade).
My kids would disagree with me as they use the space to parkour. They will have grown out of that phase by the time this is torn down and won't care by that point
The Preservationist
Active Member
University Ave in my opinion is our premier street downtown. I just think we can do better...
MichaelZ
Active Member
I assume ownership of this office building didn't just land in their lap by happenstance. In other words, if they are not the original owners, they must have made an active decision, against the unbounded spectrum of other possibilities, to have bought this building in the first place.
A more explicit version of the question:
Assuming the developers are not the original building owners, when they were making the decision to buy this building, in whichever year, was it projected to be that much more difficult to assemble a similar sized piece of land a few streets over and get it through the city rezoning/approval process?
…a few streets over, where you'd be asking the same question because there would be some other building/buildings on that property. In the meantime, it doesn't really matter what year they bought it, any landowner can propose a redevelopment at any stage, and the City will test the application against the prevailing policies and eventually things will be settled one way or the other by Council or OLT. Landowners everywhere are looking to maximize the return on their investments, and will try to get what they can out of them. Unless there are laws declaring "though shalt not redevelop, period", there will be applications to do just that.
42
MichaelZ
Active Member
Surely the opportunity cost of redeveloping a few townhouses, 2 storey commercial buildings, parking lots, etc., is far less than that of a 15 storey office building?
Is the paperwork so much more involved for rezoning that it dissuaded them from doing the lower cost option?
Northern Light
Superstar
First, can we acknowledge that you're asking for speculation. Many of us here are very knowledgeable about the development pipeline in the city but only a few can speak to discussions of motivation at the time of a property purchase some years back, and then only on a small number of parcels.
***
In a generic scenario there are lots of things that enter into buying a building, including, for instance, the steady stream of income it may provide an investor who may wish to buy and hold the asset for an extended period of time.
But certainly, the potential for redevelopment may well be a factor depending on the buyer and the purchase.
That potential is about zoning, its about precedent, its about market demand, its about ease-of-assembly, amongst many other things.
If a building is already zoned for Mixed-used/Multi-Res, then that may serve to eliminate the need for an Official Plan Amendment; if the existing building is 10 storeys, you know you can build that (in most cases);
but if the area permissions or precedents are for 35 storeys you know you can likely achieve that or at least something close.
Where a building zoned neighbourhoods or employment is much more of a pain to get rezoned, its not a sure thing by any means (higher risk) and if achieved, will almost certainly add 1 or more years to the process and many millions of dollars;
If a building is in or next to a high demand area/subway, you know you will pay more to buy, but also receive more when you sell. Even if the margin were similar on a smaller development, the (potential) absolute return is higher. (albeit higher risk)
Buying one building which provides a sufficient lot for a project is generally much quicker, and sometimes cheaper, than taking much longer to buy multiple smaller properties.
Potential opposition matters. Propose a midrise, never mind a tower on a small side street of SFH and typically expect you will go to the OLT and there may be a very prolonged cycle to getting a project done. Propose something in an office/hirise district and mostly, blowback is considerably less.
****
In addition to all of the above, you can also only buy what someone is selling (of course you can cold offer to push, but its more of an effort with a less clear outcome, particularly if you need multiple properties)
Last edited:
MichaelZ
Active Member
Thanks. I didn't even consider that anyone could effectively set up serious roadblocks for building dense a 3 minute walk from University & Dundas.
It seems strange because somewhat less tall proposals are regularly approved in the middle of suburbia that are farther away from any transit stations and opposite SFH too.
For example, extrapolating this to somewhere like North York, how did any of the towers get built at all? After all the folks living in suburbia over there would have experienced an even more dramatic change than any neighbourhood of SFH near University & Dundas could possibly experience, and would have had 10x the reason to push back.
Last edited:
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Others already mentioned the difficulties in developing a few streets over from the planning (and er ownership) perspective. I'd add that brand new double or triple A office space can achieve higher rents and lower vacancies than the existing office building at this location could, in addition to the windfalls from plopping 47-storeys of residential development on top.
The discussion about embodied carbon in the existing building is also ignoring the potential that redevelopment with carbon efficient and cost-saving building infrastructure over a multi-decade timespan might have in long-term sustainability. I cannot comment on this building in particular, but some of these older office buildings are shockingly inefficient.
70Challenger
Active Member
Get WZMH off this site immediately, and have HPA recreate what they are doing at 350 Bloor.
FormerTorontonianBackInTO
New Member
WZMH should not be allowed to touch any of these office tower redevelopments/recladdings....the damage they're doing to this city is inexcusable
Northern Light
Superstar
This one was before the City's Design Review Panel today. It's the lead item.
From the above:
From the applicant's presentation:
This is the vision for the University Avenue frontage:
Trees no longer in ugly small boxes, but in a continuous bed of soil.
New stairs at southern extent of frontage to access retail area, which will no longer be Scotiabank, an 'active' retail use is desired.
Office and Residential lobbies front Elm; accessibility ramp shifts to Elm frontage, main stairs move north towards Elm.
Coffered Ceiling treatment retained/restored and uplit.
Reverse view from the north:
Intent is to retain 2/3 of the original building intact. (ish); southern 1/3 would be completely demolished for the replacement building, which would be office on the lower levels and residential above.
Intent to fix the terrible pedestrian crossing at Simcoe by bumping out the sidewalk.
****
Replacement would be sympathetic to the original, but not a copy.
****
Panel Comments:
A lot of favourable views; but some real critiques too.
Some concern that renders don't entirely reflect the discussion.
A lot of question as to the facade treatment on the new building. Some dislike the idea of the tower being curtain wall. Could it more closely emulate the original materiality.
Concerns about reflectivity and about dimension.
One panel member took a contrary view and argued the architecture on the new should contrast rather than emulate the original.
The idea of including mass timber is under consideration by the applicant; one panel member didn't feel this was a good idea here, that it would be a distraction.
An interesting suggestion Anna from BDPQ about whether the tower soffit could be special, as a homage to the soffit on the existing building.
A lot of like for public realm on University.
A suggestion that perhaps the accessibility ramp could be inverted (ie. the entry at grade could be from the University side, rather than the Simcoe side, and then end up on the opposite side) the suggestion would be this would better serve those using/living in the building.
Panel voted 10-1 in support.
But clearly wanted to see this proposal again, with refinements and clearer renders of materiality.
From the above:
From the applicant's presentation:
This is the vision for the University Avenue frontage:
Trees no longer in ugly small boxes, but in a continuous bed of soil.
New stairs at southern extent of frontage to access retail area, which will no longer be Scotiabank, an 'active' retail use is desired.
Office and Residential lobbies front Elm; accessibility ramp shifts to Elm frontage, main stairs move north towards Elm.
Coffered Ceiling treatment retained/restored and uplit.
Reverse view from the north:
Intent is to retain 2/3 of the original building intact. (ish); southern 1/3 would be completely demolished for the replacement building, which would be office on the lower levels and residential above.
Intent to fix the terrible pedestrian crossing at Simcoe by bumping out the sidewalk.
****
Replacement would be sympathetic to the original, but not a copy.
****
Panel Comments:
A lot of favourable views; but some real critiques too.
Some concern that renders don't entirely reflect the discussion.
A lot of question as to the facade treatment on the new building. Some dislike the idea of the tower being curtain wall. Could it more closely emulate the original materiality.
Concerns about reflectivity and about dimension.
One panel member took a contrary view and argued the architecture on the new should contrast rather than emulate the original.
The idea of including mass timber is under consideration by the applicant; one panel member didn't feel this was a good idea here, that it would be a distraction.
An interesting suggestion Anna from BDPQ about whether the tower soffit could be special, as a homage to the soffit on the existing building.
A lot of like for public realm on University.
A suggestion that perhaps the accessibility ramp could be inverted (ie. the entry at grade could be from the University side, rather than the Simcoe side, and then end up on the opposite side) the suggestion would be this would better serve those using/living in the building.
Panel voted 10-1 in support.
But clearly wanted to see this proposal again, with refinements and clearer renders of materiality.
just east of the creek
Active Member
Picture this on top of the Canada Life Building…….
Northern Light
Superstar
Hard Pass
Towered
Superstar
At least they're not intending to entirely demolish the original office building, which I believe was the case previously.