Toronto St Lawrence Condos at 158 Front | 91.44m | 26s | Cityzen | a—A

I might be naive, but I don't get much of the controversy. I think this condo would inject a nice amount of diversity and eye-interest into the area. I was heading east on the Esplanade the other day and when I got to Lower Sherbourne I looked up to the north west and thought that this building would look great from there. Likewise looking east down Front from Church.
 
DSC said:
. Hardly a sign they are interested in an open-minded discussion.
Click to expand...

Lets not forget that Cityzen payed the City of Toronto big bucks with intentions to develop this site....Strange, the city must have known this was coming.

Mike in TO said:
The City of Toronto owned site at 154 Front Street East is currently identified as one of Build Toronto's surplus sites to be sold to the private sector. The site located at Front Street East and Sherbourne street is nearing a final deal with the site is expected to close on December 20th. A residential condo is the anticipated future use of the property.
Click to expand...
 
Automation Gallery said:
Lets not forget that Cityzen payed the City of Toronto big bucks with intentions to develop this site....Strange, the city must have known this was coming.
Click to expand...

Of course the City knew there would be a development on the site and I don't think anyone seriously does not want one but Cityzen also paid a very high per square foot price - far more than any other recent sale in the area. This would seem to explain the very high density they are requesting, they want a profit.
 
DSC said:
Of course the City knew there would be a development on the site and I don't think anyone seriously does not want one but Cityzen also paid a very high per square foot price - far more than any other recent sale in the area. This would seem to explain the very high density they are requesting, they want a profit.
Click to expand...

LOL...of course they want a profit, isn't that the whole point of business?!?
 
Why should the city make concessions if the developer paid too much for the property? The city should take a higher moral ground even if there are conditions on the sale allowing the developer to back out.
 
It would probably make more sense for Build Toronto to incorporate planning objectives in the sale of the City's "surplus" properties and sort these things out with purchasers before the sale to increase the City's ability to advance its planning objectives.

That said, while I didn't care for the original design I think the new one is very interesting and existing development west and southwest of this intersection is not a good guide as to what should be done. The bland midrise condos along Front between Church and Jarvis are one thing as they don't detract attention from the great historical buildings in the area. But the street gets very bland between Jarvis and Sherbourne. After Sherbourne, with the exception of the very nice Canadian Opera House building and the back of the Toronto Sun (Coca-Cola) building there is almost nothing there. The Esplanade area, while good from a neighbourhood perspective, is no architectural darling and is not a good model for a street like Front that is bound to become a major connection between the CBD/Market and the West Don Lands/Distillery.

The stretch of Front between Sherbourne and Cherry is a very large nearly clean slate right in the middle of the great Market/King East/Corktown/West Don Lands (when done)/Distillery/Esplanade neighbourhoods. There are not enough historical buildings on this stretch to justify faux-historical midrises like Berczy, and it is a large enough pocket that it can stand on its own with the development not impacting the historical neighbourhoods adjacent to it. Turning this stretch, with its massive sites like Greyhound/Staples/Acura/Sobeys etc. into a pocket of great, interesting, modern buildings, such as the one proposed, would be far preferable to a string of more bland 5-10 story brick condos with small hidden retail like you find immediately to the west. Given the apparent interest in King East as a destination for companies (SAS/Coca-Cola) there may be some ability to bring good mid-rise office space here too.
 
Grimace:

Well, the new mandate of BuildTO is to maximize monetary intake - and I have a feeling it will conflict with planning objectives. The partnership with private sector also poses the difficult question of just how separate the body will be - and whether it pulls the rug under all the other considerations that are legitimate. Tough questions that should be asked.

AoD
 
^^Yes, my comment was more directed to the suggestion that the City should take the "high moral ground" as planner when it acts like free-market player as seller. If I were a developer and BuildTO just extracted the highest possible price out of me I could see myself having less patience for the City's planning department proposing a density limit that is unprofitable or insufficiently profitable to be worth doing. I do not know if that is what is happening in this case, but if it is I could see the temptation to tell the planning department where to go and take it quickly to the OMB.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Grimace:

Well, the new mandate of BuildTO is to maximize monetary intake - and I have a feeling it will conflict with planning objectives. The partnership with private sector also poses the difficult question of just how separate the body will be - and whether it pulls the rug under all the other considerations that are legitimate. Tough questions that should be asked.

AoD
Click to expand...

When the property was put onto the market by Build Toronto they commissioned a Real Estate Study from Barry Lyon. This is available at: http://www.slna.ca/slna-news-pdfs/Barry Lyon Report.pdf

Apart from looking at all the new buildings in the area and their heights and densities and describing the neighbourhood, this study (see page 27) has the prices paid per buildable square foot and I understand that Cityzen paid considerably above the average price to get this site. As they want a profit this probably explains why they want (or need) to cram on so much height/density. The price of this site per square acre was $23.75 million.
 
Last edited:
Grimace said:
^^Yes, my comment was more directed to the suggestion that the City should take the "high moral ground" as planner when it acts like free-market player as seller. If I were a developer and BuildTO just extracted the highest possible price out of me I could see myself having less patience for the City's planning department proposing a density limit that is unprofitable or insufficiently profitable to be worth doing. I do not know if that is what is happening in this case, but if it is I could see the temptation to tell the planning department where to go and take it quickly to the OMB.
Click to expand...



Fair enough however usually, in the free market, it's up to the buyer to make sure they pay a fair price.
 
^^I agree. Developers may be willing to pay prices for sites that only make sense if the developer can get major variances on the expectation or as a gamble that they will obtain that, either with the support of the City or through the OMB. If the developer buys from BuildTO without any planning assurances then I suppose it's all fair game. The City is dealing from both sides of the deck, but the developers know it. However, if the City placed a higher priority on its planning goals than on obtaining maximum price for its surplus properties BuildTO would not be selling its properties at prices that it knows will lead the developer to go to the OMB, where the City stands a fair chance of losing.
 
Last edited:
True, but keep in mind that the City is not some monolithic entity. BuildTO may very well have a goal of selling its properties at the highest possible prices, regardless of whether the purchaser is able to make a profit given existing zoning for that particular site. They may even lead the purchaser on, by implying that the land could be granted higher densities (which is true, it COULD be), disregarding the fact that City planners might be opposed to increased densities on that site.

Borderline ethical, for sure, but caveat emptor.
 
Mongo said:
True, but keep in mind that the City is not some monolithic entity. BuildTO may very well have a goal of selling its properties at the highest possible prices, regardless of whether the purchaser is able to make a profit given existing zoning for that particular site. They may even lead the purchaser on, by implying that the land could be granted higher densities (which is true, it COULD be), disregarding the fact that City planners might be opposed to increased densities on that site.

Borderline ethical, for sure, but caveat emptor.
Click to expand...

No more borderline ethical than some things developers do when it comes to final product in order to make coin.
 
Mongo said:
True, but keep in mind that the City is not some monolithic entity. BuildTO may very well have a goal of selling its properties at the highest possible prices, regardless of whether the purchaser is able to make a profit given existing zoning for that particular site. They may even lead the purchaser on, by implying that the land could be granted higher densities (which is true, it COULD be), disregarding the fact that City planners might be opposed to increased densities on that site.

Borderline ethical, for sure, but caveat emptor.
Click to expand...


This is nonsense, to think someone would - especially a savvy real estate developer like Cityzen - would put up that kind of money without some way of either getting a particular return on their investment (density) or a way to get out of the deal if they don’t get it - is ridiculous. These guys aren't fools.

Consider:

A) The city doesn’t want (can’t afford) a reputation of ripping off developers (it's partners in this case) or they will have trouble selling land in the future and that would be counter intuitive to this entire BuildTO program

B) the city wants (read "needs") as much as possible from the sale of these sites - or BuildTO wouldn't exist - every developer in the region will be watching to see how this works out and TO has more at stake than anyone.

Together this means the city must, in some way, assist the purchasers in acquiring the necessary densities to make these sales work. Even if that means having Planning turn a blind eye or not object too vigorously.

To think otherwise is simply naive.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top