Toronto 41 Talara Drive | 147.25m | 43s | Elysium | BDP Quadrangle

[ProjectEnd]

Not much info yet, but another acquisition for Elysium up in North York:

How One GTA Development Firm Is Making Big Moves In A Complex Market

First from the Baltics to Toronto, and now from Talara Drive to student rentals, Elysium’s trajectory reflects more than just speed — it reflects a data-backed approach to housing innovation.

storeys.com

 

[Northern Light]

Not much info yet, but another acquisition for Elysium up in North York:

How One GTA Development Firm Is Making Big Moves In A Complex Market

First from the Baltics to Toronto, and now from Talara Drive to student rentals, Elysium’s trajectory reflects more than just speed — it reflects a data-backed approach to housing innovation.

storeys.com

Oh dear, the flowery description of the site/plan would make a wine label maker blush....
'

Aerial Pic of the assembly:

site size: ~22,000ft2

Streetview of these properties:

This is the magical park next door * street view hasn't been updated since 2007

 

[innsertnamehere]

Yes, all about the park and nothing about the 17 lanes of freeway next door!

Being a 5-minute walk from the infamous Bessarion station is a plus though.

 

[Northern Light]

Article on this one over at Renx. Not much in the way of new detail except that this will have a pre-application meeting in the near future.

Elysium adds to Toronto apartment development site pipeline

Proximity to transit is a guiding principle for Toronto developer Elysium's acquisition strategy, a feature that was again demonstrated by its latest purchase 41-47 Talara Dr. The firm has also launched a student housing division, Yarra.

renx.ca

 

[Northern Light]

This one has arrived in the AIC:

Old AIC link: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=5762675

Height: 43s

Architect: BDPQ

Tenure: Rental

@Paclo

From the above:

Site Plan:

Ground Floor Plan:

Typical Floor Layout:

Description:

Elevator Ratio: 3 elevators to 369 units, or 1 elevator to 123 units.

 

[xy3]

Looks quite utilitarian

 

[mferna]

Read our new update on this development here.

 

[jmi22]

37 parking spaces for 369 units at Bessarion and Shep East is optimistic enough to make even the most devout urbanism booster blush.

Somebody must be very bullish on the market to think these units will pull in rents anywhere near what's needed to make the project worthwhile, as they are essentially targeting only those earning below what is needed to purchase a vehicle in a very car-dependant area. Some ticky-tack midrises to the west and spandrel clad-skyscrapers to the east doesn't mean this is some walkable paradise all of the sudden. The urbanism resembles that of Dubai more than the Annex.

 

[north-of-anything]

What a squeeze. Instead of trying to squeeze in under-500 studios to really stuff those elevators, maybe this property is better served as offsite parkland acquisition for somewhere a little less... nowhere.

It's not like this area has a shortage of low density properties.

 

[Northern Light]

Refusal Report to the next meeting of NYCC:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-285126.pdf

From the above:

This is just the summary, the Planner goes into a great deal of detail here and I would describe the report as a thrashing.

They find the proposal, as constituted is inconsistent with area plans, doesn't follow transition or street wall properly, may not have enough servicing capacity, doesn't expand the adjacent park (which they clear feel it should), they even critique unit sizes! LOL

Ouch.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Units look fine here? Good shapes and decent sizes. Hardly a terrible offender.

The City has already gone and approved 36 storeys down the street.. not sure why it's not appropriate here now.

Appropriate regard for the secondary plan?? It's under appeal. They have no obligation to even look at it.

Introducing on-site parkland is going to kill the entire project as a tower site, it's already tight. There really isn't room for parkland.. maybe if parks staff were willing to budge on the on-site setback.

Servicing capacity is a solvable problem.. if you are concerned slap a hold on it, don't refuse it.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Whole lot of words. The first recommendation states that the City: "use mediation, conciliation or other dispute resolution techniques in an attempt to resolve the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications" because they know they'll get absolutely rinsed at tribunal.

 

[DF416604]

Units look fine here? Good shapes and decent sizes. Hardly a terrible offender.

The City has already gone and approved 36 storeys down the street.. not sure why it's not appropriate here now.

Appropriate regard for the secondary plan?? It's under appeal. They have no obligation to even look at it.

Introducing on-site parkland is going to kill the entire project as a tower site, it's already tight. There really isn't room for parkland.. maybe if parks staff were willing to budge on the on-site setback.

Servicing capacity is a solvable problem.. if you are concerned slap a hold on it, don't refuse it.

If you buy a site next to an existing park and don't expect that the City will require onsite parkland to expand said park, which is their right, then you don't have a site. I disagree with not accepting parkland within the MTO setback (given the existing park already extends back there), but to make the case that there isn't room, in this context, is silly. The assembly should have included more land and there is an option to buy to the west.

 

[ProjectEnd]

If you buy a site next to an existing park and don't expect that the City will require onsite parkland to expand said park, which is their right, then you don't have a site. I disagree with not accepting parkland within the MTO setback (given the existing park already extends back there), but to make the case that there isn't room, in this context, is silly. The assembly should have included more land and there is an option to buy to the west.

There is?