Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

Why is mid-rise cost prohibitive?

  • Official plan amendment fees same as high-rise
  • Zoning by-law amendment fees same as high-rise
  • Permit fees same as high-rise
  • Planning process just as long as high-rise
  • Political discourse and neighbourhood planning issues often just as contentious as high-rise (I.e. beaches, 109oz)
  • Unlike B.C. Six-storey wood not permitted in OBC, builders must utilise part 3 of code just like high-rise
  • Land costs and land assembly difficult along avenues often more suitable to point towers
  • mid-rise often adjacent to low-rise communities - buffers can be a challenge on shallow lots along retail main avenue streets
  • Fire code requiring stairwell exits same at high rise
  • Elevator costs significant when dispersed over few units
  • Parking ratios and cost of underground parking difficult to disperse over fewer units
  • loading facility requirements often same as high-rise, again costs are dispersed over fewer units
  • Site plan agreements same for mid vs high-rise
  • Many other soft costs I haven't listed are fairly static whether constructing 75 units or 350 units, therefore cost per unit is significantly lower in larger buildings
 
let's see this proposal happening, and increasing storeys from 82, 84 and 86 to 92, 94 and 96 and that will be awesome for toronto's skyline! i believe the higher building is, the lower cost will be per square footage to lure more buyers into buying one to keep up with market demand.
 
mrezwayz said:
the higher building is, the lower cost will be per square footage to lure more buyers into buying one to keep up with market demand
Click to expand...
The less construction costs the more money they have for marketing? That sounds rational: "We've done radios ads and print ads, but what was really missing to sell people on our condos, the secret sauce, was TV ads. Our old budget couldn't afford commercial time during the Super Bowl"
 
Instead of constructing the tallest piece of concrete in the world and giving all the money away to marketers I think developers should invest their time in stuff people might actually care about, location/price are obvious.. how about fast networks and home automation, imagine being able to control your washing machine, fridge, lighting and curtains from a smartphone. How about fingerprint readers as an optional alternative to bulky key fobs. Seoul has been doing this for at least a decade.
 
Last edited:
Grump said:
A little OT, but does anyone know anything about this building? I saw it mentioned in an article about Toronto skyscrapers.


http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/headline_news/2012/11/05/4744.html

2C667C81-BDF3-4F13-BDBF-9BB7E0B7465E-714-000000B2B858C895.jpg

D6E03655-38D6-4ECC-88C1-04908B17601F-714-000000B3EC094542.jpg
Click to expand...


That's the TIFF site so I'm assuming its an old fantasy proposal - the article didn't seem well researched.
 
Last edited:
City planning came out today with the application for this one.....266-270 King West
Sorry i am nowhere near the website to post it, but what i do know is that it consists of a total of 2709 units and 311 parking spaces
height is unknown on the 82s, 84s, 86s buildings
 
Here you go

266-270 KING ST W
OPA / Rezoning 12 276890 STE 20 OZ Ward 20
- Tor & E.York Nov 9, 2012 --- --- --- ---
Rezoning application to permit the redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 266 -322 King Street west for the purposes of a new mixed use development on three parcels. Parcel A would be developed with a 82 storey mixed use building complete with a six storey podium. Parcel B would be developed with a 86 storey mixed use building complete with a five storey podium and parcel C would be developed with a 84 storey mixed use building complete with a six storey podium. Parcels B and C would be connected by a below grade parking facility. A total of 2,709 dwelling units are proposed including the provision of 311 parking spaces to serve the development.
 
With respect to the parking, 311 spaces for three residential towers and the commercial/cultural component is mighty small. The absence of any significant commercial parking also seems odd as this has been a big concern for local merchants for quite a while. The idea is that the commercial/cultural portion would be bringing in people from outside the immediate area, and for quite a few, that would mean driving. For anyone who uses the King car on a regular basis, you do not want to be showing up that way at around rush hour.
 
So now what? Six months for rezoning approval, assuming the OMB doesn't get involved. Then 6 months for the planning application and adjustments to be approved. Then 12 months for sales to get to the magic 60% or whatever they deem necessary for the financial end of it. We could be looking at 2 years before a shovel hits the ground. Does this sound like a reasonable timeline? If there are any major setbacks, then who knows.
 
311 parking spaces - I like this development even more! Who's with me? Heads would explode if planners in America were to review such an application. Toronto the bold!
 
There is already a parking garage under Princess of Wales theatre, entrance off John St. Anyone know how many parking spots are available in this underground lot. Is it possible that they will recycle these spots using the present foundations?
 
Somehow I doubt that the parking garage of the Princess of Wales theatre would be preserved. It would appear to be an unnecessary difficulty to do so. While some may applaud the relative absence of parking spots for a project with that many suites, retail and cultural attractions, it actually will contribute to parking problems on the adjacent streets. To be clear, one way to alleviate the present-day congestion problems on King Street east of Spadina is to remove street parking and to build more commercial underground parking.
 
Oliver Tweed said:
Wrong. While expensive real estate exists in both urban and rural/coastal areas, the highest concentration of expensive homes by far is in large cities. A condo in NYC sold recently for $90 million, to give one example.
Click to expand...

You know, it would be helpful to read someone's post before responding "wrong". I was not commenting on the value of real estate in, either, urban or rural settings. I was just participating in a discussion about what people dream of or aspire too.
 
Adam Vaughan sent out a community consultation notice about this project today.

PDF: http://www.ward20.ca/files/2012-12-11 Mirvish consultation.pdf

Here's the info & text:

Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Time: 7:00 – 9:00 pm
Location: Metro Hall, 55 John Street, Room 308/309

Community Consultation: Mirvish Development Proposal

Dear Residents,

Over the past six years, many of you have participated in our Ward 20 community planning process by attending consultation meetings. Now, we have a development proposal that significantly changes the scale of development being contemplated.

The Mirvish/Gehry proposal has been covered in the press. Many of you have called or written to my office about what you have heard so far.

We have an opportunity to change the way we review development applications. Please join me and City staff to map our way forward. The significant scale of this application raises questions about height density, shadow, heritage, traffic and transit, public realm, infrastructure, construction staging and other impacts to this neighbourhood which is already experiencing tremendous development pressures.

I am inviting you to a preliminary meeting to hear more about the proposal, to hear your questions and to chart our process for reviewing this application. The details of the meeting are below.

Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Time: 7:00 – 9:00 pm
Location: Metro Hall, 55 John Street, Room 308/309
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top