Toronto

Union Park | 303m | 58s | Oxford Properties | Pelli Clarke Pelli

Peepers

Banned
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
2,042
Reaction score
0
Funny, he seems fine with the Mirvish/Gehry project, which is almost as huge and only a few blocks away. Sounds like grandstanding to me.
I never believed that Vaughan supported the Gehry project 100% without reservations and an entry in his newsletter which I saw in a tweet from Jonathon Goldsbie confirms that Vaughan has serious concerns about the Gehry project:

http://twitpic.com/b7djt3


Notice Vaughan says that he never says "yes or no" to a project at the beginning and yet he has condemned the Oxford proposal from the very start. Adam Vaughan is an obnoxious idiot. I just can't understand why people would vote for someone like him.
 
Last edited:

unimaginative2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
Wow. Gotta say...the 13-year-old boy in me is pretty excited.

Vaughan's become a parody of himself. He has approved of literally dozens of massive condo towers in the area and now he's complaining about congestion? The wrong place for large development? It's hard to imagine a better place than adjacent to the largest transit hub in the city and next to the DRL. I'd be baffled if it weren't so patently obvious that he's hoping that this casino will be his island airport issue to propel him to the mayoralty.
 

000

Senior UT Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
379
Reaction score
28
Vaughan is better than someone that just rubberstamps everything. The ultimatum Oxford is giving the city is ridiculous and enough to give anyone a negative bias (why do you need a casino to build an office tower? those are two completely independent uses) and he's rightfully worried about a bait and switch and the developer delivering nothing like what was proposed.
 

cruzin4u

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
26
Location
Citadel
Adam Vaughan needs to just go away. Nothing he says makes much sense to me. What part of the city should this go if not here? It's pretty much perfect for this spot.
What do you expect from Mr. Fun Police. I'd like to know where the "right" part of the city is. Of course it'll bring more people to the area - is that a BAD thing? Where do you want the people to go, Mr. Fun Police (Mr. Vaughan)?

There's no doubting congestion is an issue in the city and will remain an issue, but if there's any place that's a perfect spot for such a development - it's THIS spot.
 

Sir Novelty Fashion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
2
"None of it is real. It’s a fantasy proposal designed to snare a casino.”

Sounds about right to me. If they have major tenants lined up that they'd care to talk about, then that would be one thing. But remember, this is the same developer that made a park over railroad tracks they don't have air rights to sound like a done deal. Seems a bit too early to get into a lather about this one.
 

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
The two towers would be 1,070 feet tall — 92 feet taller than the country’s current tallest building, First Canadian Place, according to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.

The towers would be 70 storeys each — 40 for office space below and 30 for residences above, which would more likely be rental apartments than condominiums. But the residential component may be abandoned entirely if demand isn’t thought sufficient, said Michael Kitt, Oxford Properties Group’s executive vice president for Canada.
It sounds strange in Toronto to hear a developer worry about insufficient interest in downtown residential. But then again, Oxford is an office developer, not a condo developer.



Oxford, owned by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System pension fund, has projected two hotels on the site at 836 and 605 feet. The former would be taller than all but five buildings in the country. But these figures are also mere estimates, Kitt said, and may change when a hotel company comes into the picture.
No component of this project appears to be serious.



The $3 billion Front St. W. proposal may never become reality at any height. Kitt said Oxford will abandon the entire plan if council rejects the casino component
.

Everyone knows Oxford is going to develop that site regardless. With that kind of lame bluffing technique, perhaps they should distance themselves from the gambling business.
 

WiddleBittyKitty

Felis catus
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
579
Reaction score
128
What a fascinating time to be a Torontonian (in spirit or in fact). There is so much to consider now regarding our future. With the speed the proposals are arriving at, and at their incessantly increasing scale, are we equipped to make the right decisions? The number of considerations we have to deal with strike me as multiplying while the projects add up. The need to start the DRL asap now seems to be a given; whatever gets approved, it is needed now.

What a fascinating time to be an UrbanToronto member. Don't you feel like you're right in the middle of the swirl? We got the scoop on Mirvish. Now UT reports the height of this proposal and the Globe and Star are playing catch-up. I want a UT pin to wear.
 

fouronesix

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
111
Reaction score
0
Everyone knows Oxford is going to develop that site regardless. With that kind of lame bluffing technique, perhaps they should distance themselves from the gambling business.
My suspicion is that the casino or nothing argument is indeed a bluff. Oxford purchased the convention centre in October 2011, prior to the Provincial government's announcement in January 2012 that they wanted to rationalize province-wide gambling and encourage the development of a casino in downtown Toronto.

I doubt that Oxford would have purchased the convention centre to sit on it long term, so I think they had every intention of redeveloping it when they purchased it, and the purchase price probably reflected this intention.

If that is the case, then either Oxford knew that the Province wanted a downtown casino months before this information was made public, or the "everything" rides on the casino statement is a bluff.

I don't think that a pension fund is inclined to play a big game of craps on a $200 million plus purchase.
 

DHLawrence85

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
677
Reaction score
6
It sounds strange in Toronto to hear a developer worry about insufficient interest in downtown residential. But then again, Oxford is an office developer, not a condo developer.
It may also be that the demand for the kind of residential they have in mind may be insufficient. This strikes me as being rather high-end; the demand in need of meeting may be more mid-range than higher-end.
 

neubilder

Banned
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
1
Now this is a supertall project I can get behind. Horrid brutalist block is the only cost, and a block from the major transportation hub - perfect. Only problem is the casino component, but better here than at the exhibition grounds where it will spread like a cancer and could despoil the whole area - at least here the casino is contained.
 

neubilder

Banned
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
1
I never believed that Vaughan supported the Gehry project 100% without reservations and an entry in his newsletter which I saw in a tweet from Jonathon Goldsbie confirms that Vaughan has serious concerns about the Gehry project:

http://twitpic.com/b7djt3


Notice Vaughan says that he never says "yes or no" to a project at the beginning and yet he has condemned the Oxford proposal from the very start. Adam Vaughan is an obnoxious idiot. I just can't understand why people would vote for someone like him.
Adam Vaughan doesn't blindly fall for pitches by mobsters - were this proposal not presented as contingent upon the casino I'm sure Vaughan would have no major issue with it. He's a very smart and reasonable guy. If anything he is a bit too willing to bend to the wishes of developers for the sake of section 37 funds.
 

Tewder

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
5,401
Reaction score
150
It may also be that the demand for the kind of residential they have in mind may be insufficient. This strikes me as being rather high-end; the demand in need of meeting may be more mid-range than higher-end.
I thought I read somewhere that the residential would in fact likely be rental, whether high-end or not I don't recall. Seems to make sense to have rental here for longer term business stays, being adjacent to the financial core, the entertainment district, and what will likely be the largest tourist attraction zone in the city.
 

fedplanner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
572
Reaction score
18
Location
NYC
I thought I read somewhere that the residential would in fact likely be rental, whether high-end or not I don't recall. Seems to make sense to have rental here for longer term business stays, being adjacent to the financial core, the entertainment district, and what will likely be the largest tourist attraction zone in the city.
I'm surprised there has been no mention of any condos in the hotel component.
 

Big Daddy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
1,698
Reaction score
215
Location
El Toro
Maybe the whole project was thrown together simply to get the attention of the casino operators - they could easily cut a sweet deal with one of them if Oxford gets the approval for the casino.
 
Top