Automation Gallery
Superstar
If your from out of town dont worry. Your most likley already contributing to park renos in your jurisdiction.
Toronto Aura at College Park | 271.87m | 78s | Canderel | Graziani + Corazza
If your from out of town dont worry. Your most likley already contributing to park renos in your jurisdiction.
Exodus
Active Member
the reason why i ask about the funding for this renovation project is because I think it is unfair for residents of the area (primarily CP) to be forced to pay out of their pockets for a park that is open to the public. Should the residents not have a say in whether they want to contribute to renovation of the park?
argos
Active Member
become a board member in your condo. CP2 are looking for candidates right now if you happen to be a resident in that building.
BobBob
Senior Member
It's not the residents, but the developer, who directly pays for it. The developer typically does so as part of the deal in which the city grants them increased density/height in exchange for such public realm benefits. The cost is then naturally passed on to buyers. This is why they have no say.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
argos
Active Member
ah, gotcha.
"under-the-table" money to the city
....no wonder they are approved to build a project this scale on a site that seemed to have difficulty building anything in the past.
BobBob
Senior Member
It does sound "under the table" but the section 37 agreements are a pretty standard part of most new developments nowadays. The city can't afford to fund such renovations, so they use what power they do have to make them happen.
casaguy
Senior Member
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
Wow, this thread was plucked out of the depths.
As has been said, Section 37 agreements are very common and their is no "under-the-table" activities. It is perfectly legal and transparent.
Section 37 of the Planning Act permits the City to authorize increases in permitted height and/or density through the zoning bylaw in return for community benefits, provided that there are related Official Plan policies in place. If you want to know more about the protocol, check the City's Website or give your councilor a call.
The owners/residents of ROCP do not pay for this. Nor do the taxpayers, per se. The developer agrees to pay a sum to the city (which the City earmarks for a specific, pre-arranged purpose) that will go towards community benefit. This includes, but is not limited to, renovations of parks, libraries, street appearance, lighting, community centres, etc. The funds usually go towards a community site that is close in proximity to the developer's site but this is not always the case. The important thing to know is that the city still retains ownership of these properties/amenities despite the developer's Section 37 contribution.
The public art component of an application is separate from Section 37 and so are agreements for the developer to pay for new traffic lights, a share of new roads and other aspects of infrastructure that are usually co-financed by the developer but then turned over to the city.
As for this park itself, refer to the Aura at College Park thread for more info on the renovation of the park. The developer has incorporated a lot of its renovation exercise into rebuilding Hayter Street (as a pedestrian mall) and providing a proper entry-point to the park from Yonge. A huge glass atrium is to front the park and the public art will look out onto the park. What is unknown is the specific changes the City plans to make to the park with the Section 37 funds. Perhaps the City hasn't decided and will wait until after Aura is built to put the earmarked funds towards area improvements.
Also, there was some confusion earlier. The City, not the developer, pays for and maintains the park. For example, it is the City's budget that supports the rink maintenance and park grooming. That won't change. However, given the park's grungy underbelly, it is not known as the safest place in town. Given that I live overtop of it, I can tell you from experience that beatings, drug abuse and other unfriendly activities take place here on a nightly basis. For that, the property managers of the surrounding buildings, especially College Park and 777 Bay, provide security personnel that patrol the park. The Police Station is just across the street and it is not uncommon for horseback cops to patrol the park as well.
Other info on the park: the new town homes are hideous.
As has been said, Section 37 agreements are very common and their is no "under-the-table" activities. It is perfectly legal and transparent.
Section 37 of the Planning Act permits the City to authorize increases in permitted height and/or density through the zoning bylaw in return for community benefits, provided that there are related Official Plan policies in place. If you want to know more about the protocol, check the City's Website or give your councilor a call.
The owners/residents of ROCP do not pay for this. Nor do the taxpayers, per se. The developer agrees to pay a sum to the city (which the City earmarks for a specific, pre-arranged purpose) that will go towards community benefit. This includes, but is not limited to, renovations of parks, libraries, street appearance, lighting, community centres, etc. The funds usually go towards a community site that is close in proximity to the developer's site but this is not always the case. The important thing to know is that the city still retains ownership of these properties/amenities despite the developer's Section 37 contribution.
The public art component of an application is separate from Section 37 and so are agreements for the developer to pay for new traffic lights, a share of new roads and other aspects of infrastructure that are usually co-financed by the developer but then turned over to the city.
As for this park itself, refer to the Aura at College Park thread for more info on the renovation of the park. The developer has incorporated a lot of its renovation exercise into rebuilding Hayter Street (as a pedestrian mall) and providing a proper entry-point to the park from Yonge. A huge glass atrium is to front the park and the public art will look out onto the park. What is unknown is the specific changes the City plans to make to the park with the Section 37 funds. Perhaps the City hasn't decided and will wait until after Aura is built to put the earmarked funds towards area improvements.
Also, there was some confusion earlier. The City, not the developer, pays for and maintains the park. For example, it is the City's budget that supports the rink maintenance and park grooming. That won't change. However, given the park's grungy underbelly, it is not known as the safest place in town. Given that I live overtop of it, I can tell you from experience that beatings, drug abuse and other unfriendly activities take place here on a nightly basis. For that, the property managers of the surrounding buildings, especially College Park and 777 Bay, provide security personnel that patrol the park. The Police Station is just across the street and it is not uncommon for horseback cops to patrol the park as well.
Other info on the park: the new town homes are hideous.
Exodus
Active Member
lol, yeah i was sifting through the forums to find information on ROCP3 Aura and found this thread way back in 2007.
thank you CSW2424 for your informative post. i always thought the park was privately owned by College park. Also, I never realized that the park was really that sketchy given that the police station is so close-by. hopefully with the revamping of the park, it will deter such activities in the future.
and i agree, the new town homes are fugly on the exterior. but the interior is very nice.
iamthegucc
New Member
Financing in place?!?
its not all about sales.... financing for a project this large and in these times is nearly impossible. Im in the condo finance biz.... and I can tell you that this is the one piece of the pie that is equally important... ok - more important - than sales.
its not all about sales.... financing for a project this large and in these times is nearly impossible. Im in the condo finance biz.... and I can tell you that this is the one piece of the pie that is equally important... ok - more important - than sales.
androiduk
Senior Member
The real point of this post was, why does Aura seem to be being held to more stringent requirements than other condos that are being built with less sales. I don't think 1BE, Trump or Shangri-La are 80% sold are they.
grey
Senior Member
Probably not, but all three of those are mixed-use developments with large hotel components.
A more apples-to-apples comparison might be ICE condos, L Tower, U Condos, or Market Wharf. As far as I know, all of those are currently in the same boat as Aura. For developers lucky enough to have begun construction before September, the answer to your question is still credit crunch.
AKS
Senior Member
I don't know about the other projects, but I'm pretty sure Ice will go through. They could probably finance their own projects. Power to the teachers
I'm quite shocked how much value they have to own MLSE, Cadillac Fairview and Lanterra Developments. After MLS closes and purchases pay their bills, they should have a lot of earnings. I also read MLSE seems to have made a lot of money this year.
I'm quite shocked how much value they have to own MLSE, Cadillac Fairview and Lanterra Developments. After MLS closes and purchases pay their bills, they should have a lot of earnings. I also read MLSE seems to have made a lot of money this year.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Credit markets are rather complicated at the moment and the availability of credit is very scarce in the development industry right now. Sales have become a smaller part of the equation as both domestic and international players have pulled out from residential markets - the banks aren’t even lending to each other let alone developers with a solid business plan.
Trump had difficulty with financing and had to go off shore and that was prior to all the problems in recent months. Shangri-La achieved a deal many many months ago and has not been impacted by current market turmoil. I'm not even going to get into any discussion on 1BE and the financing saga they've been through the past several months.
Aura had over 800 sales out of the 935 units by the end of the summer. The unit count is in flux however due to the amalgamation of some units and potential increases in total floor count. Canderel has a fairly solid reputation among lenders, but even that isn't a solid bet right now as many lenders just don't have any liquidity to provide any credit and while some mezzanine lenders have a bit of liquidity, they charge significantly more, which creates distortions in the pro formas for large projects such as this, thus impacting feasibility. Also lenders are asking developers to increase their equity portion on deals, so 1. you need deep pockets and 2. even for those with deep pockets it means they have to focus in on fewer projects since they can’t spread their equity portion over a number of projects.
So to answer your question Aura/Canderel is in no different position from other major players at this time - except for the pure size of the project, which makes lenders rather wary - asking for $400m+ is a bit different than say a $25m loan. Smaller players will have difficulty in the current market and some of the major players who have lost financing for projects would surprise many of you... the good news is that credit is starting the ease up and the worst may be behind us (in terms of credit, not the overall market and slowing sales volumes).