Toronto Emerald Park Condos | 128.92m | 40s | Bazis | Rosario Varacalli

Sunnyray - everything you say is right but you kind of skip over a key answer to the question you raise, even while answering it :)

The government of Metro Toronto is probably the main reason Toronto has the structure being discussed here: scattered highrises (and social housing) through the entire fabric, oriented largely around the transit system. And, as you point out, the tax structure of Metro encouraged mutual dependence. The reason there is more sprawling development in the regions around Toronto is because they didn't have that same tax structure or the same mature transit to build around. Don't underestimate the importance of governance in establishing these patterns.

Back on thread, NYCC is doing a decent job living up to its vision, even if employment hasn't materialized quite as hoped. Those Emerald Park condos are very sharp indeed.
 
The thing about 905 cities is that their land area is fixed as well,... and now that development isn`t allowed in places like the Oak Ridge Moraine those 905 cities can`t really expand land-wise. What few farms they have left they can convert to higher property tax generating industrial-commercial-residential usage. But the way for them to maximize their property tax revenue is via high-density development going upward. But where do they build a downtown especially when transit is limited,... generally, they`ll just try to build a downtown close to their city hall (as is being done in Markham),... or Vaughan near new Subway and Hwy7 which is currently big-box store galore,... Mississauga has been doing a better job building a downtown around SquareOne than Scarborough around ScarboroughTownCentre but neither are walkable with all those huge parking lots.

TJ O'Pootertoot,... let's talk about the money! Let me show you,... the money!!!

Now back to EmeraldPark, the EmeraldPark land is about 350 feet from Beecroft to Yonge Street - that`s enough to fit 7 bungalows on 50-feet frontage lots (which is what we still have on south side of Poyntz). 7 on Poyntz and another 7 on Bogert for a total of 14 bungalows. From after WW2 to 1990s, the 4 most eastern bungalow lots along Yonge was actually a commercial stip plaza as shown in one of my previous post. Thus, this EmeraldPark lot could hold 10 bungalows on 50-feet frontage lots and a commercial strip plaza along Yonge Street with 100-feet depth lots from Poyntz to Bogert. A typical bungalow on 50-feet frontage lots in this area pay about $6,000 in property tax per year (many brought a long time ago and tax are based on original purchase price with market value assessment); multiply that by 10 of those bungalow properties and the city get about $60,000 in property tax per year. Let`s say the commercial strip along Yonge pays 50% more in property tax; thus, $9,000 for 4 lots will generate $36,000 in property tax. Thus, if the EmeraldPark lot was to remain 10 bungalows on 50-feet frontage lots with strip plaza along Yonge Street (as it was from after WW2 to 1990) then the property tax generated by this land would have been about $96,000 each year.

EmeraldPark 2 towers have 567 units, each unit originally sold for about $300,000 to $500,000,... some are now selling for $600,000. Let`s say average is $400,000 and with property tax rate at about 0.9%; that means average EmeraldPark units pay about $3,600 per year in property tax. Multiply $3,600 by 567 units,... and now the city is getting $2,041,200 in property tax each and every year from the residents of EmeraldPark,....that`s already over 20 times the property tax that was generated when their was bunaglows and commercial strip on the same land! Oh, we haven`t even added the commercial retail and office tax yet! So let`s say the 3 storey podium with 2 storey retail and 1 office floor will generate $400,000 in property tax each year. Thus, the city will now get about $2,441,200 in property tax revenue from EmeraldPark development,... which is about 25 times the property tax revenue generated when the same land was occupied by the bungalows and commercial strip plaza that was previously there.

Let`s put it this way,... if you`re making $100,000 per year (typical salary for a Toronto cop or TTC worker!),.... and another company offers you $2.5 million per year (typical salary for 2nd line NHL player),... to do the exact same job,... which one would you choose,... This is exactly why the city loves condo development,... it`s the exact same land but now occupied by condo towers it`s generating 25 times as much property tax revenue! This is exactly why the city keeps building more condo towers and why 905 cities want to build their own downtowns,... it`s for the property tax revenue,... its all about the money!!!

Keep in mind, in typical NYCC development where the former property is all houses going to condo tower with no-retail component, that 25 times ratio is usually closer to 40 to 50; for every dollar in property tax that the city got before, the city gets about $40 to $50 after it`s converted to condo towers!

Oh,... and don't even get me started on the service the city provides when it comes to house VS condos,.... for 567 houses, the city would need to maintain 567 water-in pipes and 567 water-out pipe,.... but for 567 unit EmeraldPark, it's only one big water-in pipe and one big water-out pipe. Ditto for sidewalk and road infrastructure, etc,....


Here`s the interesting part about a development like EmeraldPark - condo towers with office and retail base; in many cases its set up so that the rental revenue from retail-office component help offset building maintenace fee and thus residents benefits by paying lower maintenance fees; that`s how it usually works when the retail and office space belongs to the building and are being rented out. But I`m pretty sure EmeraldPark actually sold off all the retail space VS renting them out.
 
There was a fire incident at this site on Sunday morning. Saw at least 3-4 trucks responding, with smoke billowing from the top of the east building podium.
 
speaking of landmark for a city, only this Emerald Park and Absolute in Mississauga impress me

These don't impress me at all. Gimmicky crown on a poorly massed development made of cheap window wall and spandrel galore. Had me worried over E Condos until Exhibit stared to be clad.
 
Looking at the buildings on Sat, LBCO going in on the 3rd floor with shelving going up for it now.

It would be nice to see a taller version (45-65s), with a wider top somewhere else in the city using a colour not used before or a combination of 2/3 colour.
 
From yesterday evening:

DSC00010.jpg


DSC00031.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • DSC00010.jpg
    DSC00010.jpg
    154.6 KB · Views: 8,488
  • DSC00031.jpg
    DSC00031.jpg
    143.8 KB · Views: 6,749
It's funny to think that's what a suburb looks like in Toronto. It looks more urban than most of the larger cities I've seen down south, in the USA.
 
A bunch of tall buildings in one area does not make it urban though. Looks can be deceiving.

Yes indeed. Many large American cities have impressive skylines but in reality they are riddled in seas of parking lots and do not have anywhere near the density of buildings or population when looked up-close.

I highly doubt development of condo-towers is going to stop in NYCC and along the Sheppard line anytime soon, so NYCC will probably surpass other American and Canadian cities in urbanity in due time.
 
If you've ever tired to park in NYCC you will realize that the area is indeed very urban.
 
From yesterday evening:


42

These are absolutely incredible photos. Easily the densest looking shot I've seen of the NYCC skyline, which is not the easiest to photograph; but this seems to be the perfect angle. Emerald park really stands out from some very unexpected places around the city, more so than I thought it would. For example when driving up Mount Pleasant north of Eglinton, one of the towers anchors itself deep in the horizon, and you can't miss that curved feature.
 
These are absolutely incredible photos. Easily the densest looking shot I've seen of the NYCC skyline, which is not the easiest to photograph; but this seems to be the perfect angle. Emerald park really stands out from some very unexpected places around the city, more so than I thought it would. For example when driving up Mount Pleasant north of Eglinton, one of the towers anchors itself deep in the horizon, and you can't miss that curved feature.

OH so that's what it was!

My dad and I thought we were losing our minds seeing that on the horizon up Mount Pleasant south of Eglinton.
 

Back
Top