Real estate is playing within the boundaries city staff set for it. If you want midrises in a rapidly growing city, they have to be actually buildable everywhere. Otherwise if a developer knows they could sell 700 units on a site, instead of the 200 suggested by staff why would they not push for greater heights? Midrise construction is cheaper on a per unit basis, but doing so on the very small % of developable land is simply leaving money on the table from the developers perspective.
They are certainly going dense here, but in my experience of visiting buildings the build quality at Reserve's projects are significantly higher than a lot of the other garbage that has been built around Yonge + Eg.
+/-60 storeys and $138 PSF
Agreed. I find it curious they're going so high here. I expect some pushback here, certainly some kind of negotation (which is likely why the proposal is aiming higher).
Out of curiosity, what are a few obvious things that would stand out to indicate higher build quality when viewing a unit?
To think that 44 storeys was unthinkable here less than a decade ago.
And do tell, why are multi family units cramped? Is there some kind of floorplate restriction, put in place by perhaps....City staff? We will never know the answers to these truly cosmic questions.
This is the real problem. This growth has been a policy choice and it's clearly wrong. We don't need this kind of growth.
Is was thinking the exact same thing and I live just down the street!
Definitely that, yeah. Certainly not that smaller units net more psf and generally sell faster so in an investor-driven market, on a per floor basis, the developer is making more money.
They're just as difficult to zone, are often harder to build, and earn far less return. Why bother when you can just go tall?
For sure, but the payoff is just so much greater with an added 20 floors, and that appears to have become the norm, not the exception. As for planning risk, it strikes me as pretty small with the OLT seemingly all in on high rises.