Toronto Forêt | 144.95m | 41s | Canderel | BDP Quadrangle

AlbertC said:
Every so often I'll get voicemails or phone calls from agents trying to reel in schmucks like me to attend some sales event seminar for this project. I just play it off and pretend I'll go but I never do. 🥲
Click to expand...
Imagine waking up every day and heading to your job of trying to sell pre-con condos at $1,600+/sqft in Toronto in 2026... bleak
 
I don't understand spending money here to circle the drain.

There is a viable condo market in Toronto, but it's limited to luxury and ultra luxury, the suites here aren't configured for that; alternatively there's a rental market, but the prices aren't configured for that.

Take a write-down, and/or configure this into a viable form. Will the market recover? Sure.......but spending money until then, for at least the next 2, and maybe the next 5 years hardly seems like a prudent plan.
 
Northern Light said:
I don't understand spending money here to circle the drain.

There is a viable condo market in Toronto, but it's limited to luxury and ultra luxury, the suites here aren't configured for that; alternatively there's a rental market, but the prices aren't configured for that.

Take a write-down, and/or configure this into a viable form. Will the market recover? Sure.......but spending money until then, for at least the next 2, and maybe the next 5 years hardly seems like a prudent plan.
Click to expand...

The land basis is probably $300 PSF at this point. It's not just a write-down, it's a wipe-out plus a guarantee call on the land loan. As a rental the density here is worth maybe $100 PSF on a great day?

Realistically you probably need to dump in $120M in equity to build this out as a rental. Plus you need $140M?? in equity to get out of the land loan hole. Not to mention the condo cancellation.

If you blow out the remaining condo sales to get started on a project where you "lose some money on paper", you eliminate a world where historic purchasers can close, and then you lose a lot in reality.
 
DF416604 said:
The land basis is probably $300 PSF at this point. It's not just a write-down, it's a wipe-out plus a guarantee call on the land loan. As a rental the density here is worth maybe $100 PSF on a great day?

Realistically you probably need to dump in $120M in equity to build this out as a rental. Plus you need $140M?? in equity to get out of the land loan hole. Not to mention the condo cancellation.

If you blow out the remaining condo sales to get started on a project where you "lose some money on paper", you eliminate a world where historic purchasers can close, and then you lose a lot in reality.
Click to expand...

I hear ya.

Of course, the land loan is likely accruing interest, and every day in delayed revenue adds to the depth of the hole.

There is no way they are selling condos in this market at those prices for this product.

So yeah, it's rock and a hard place. Frying pan and fire, choose your analogy. But the existing non-plan doesn't make sense to me either.
 
Northern Light said:
Take a write-down, and/or configure this into a viable form. Will the market recover? Sure.......but spending money until then, for at least the next 2, and maybe the next 5 years hardly seems like a prudent plan.
Click to expand...

That and they're also keeping this part of my neighbourhood hostage, as they have been since I moved here 7 years ago. Nothing is being done. It's just an empty lot with a fence that shoves pedestrian traffic including myself right up against cars while we walk to and from the Loblaws and the subway station.
 
Canderel missed the boat on when to launch this project, same can be said with Madison's Alfie Condos. If they got into the market sooner, similar to the Camrost Felcorp project on Raglan, then at least the first phase of Foret would be underway already.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
The Variance above is detailed here, in the Decision Notice of January 20th, granting same:

View attachment 715295


www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca


While I was looking.............

No key permits, ie. shoring/foundation/site service are issued as yet; none show recent progress either.
Click to expand...
I've been wondering if and when we'd get reports from developers on how full the bike lockers are in buildings that have been opening with one locker for every suite. Are we about the hear that they are seeing half empty bike locker rooms across the city? Because if there's way less uptake than expected, the developers will definitely argue for that. Those lockers will gradually fill over time though, maybe slowly, but if the size of these rooms are cut in half, it'll be tough to make space in the future once the spaces are full. The City should be careful when considering this.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Are we about the hear that they are seeing half empty bike locker rooms across the city?
Click to expand...

We already have those reports, which is they city is now allowing fewer bike parking spaces.

interchange42 said:
Because if there's way less uptake than expected, the developers will definitely argue for that. Those lockers will gradually fill over time though, maybe slowly, but if the size of these rooms are cut in half, it'll be tough to make space in the future once the spaces are full. The City should be careful when considering this.

42
Click to expand...

For sure.

The result of the previous complaints was this process:

1773069810928.png

Link: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...uidelines/payment-in-lieu-of-bicycle-parking/
 
Northern Light said:
We already have those reports, which is they city is now allowing fewer bike parking spaces.



For sure.

The result of the previous complaints was this process:

View attachment 720369
Link: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...uidelines/payment-in-lieu-of-bicycle-parking/
Click to expand...
Providing funds to the City for bikeshare in lieu is smart, but removing up to 50% of the bike parking space seems overboard to me. Somehow I doubt enough bikeshare spaces will show up to meet the demand if that reduction becomes routine.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Providing funds to the City for bikeshare in lieu is smart, but removing up to 50% of the bike parking space seems overboard to me. Somehow I doubt enough bikeshare spaces will show up to meet the demand if that reduction becomes routine.

42
Click to expand...
The bike CIL is a godsend. Bikes take up a ton of space and it would be generous to say the facilities are half used. Our bike rates are well-intentioned, but terribly implemented and nobody with even a decent bike uses them. I spent a decade and a half slowly building my dream bike which I always kept in our unit, then when we moved to a condo I started putting it in our assigned bike room which was on P2, through two card accessed doors and one physically locked door. The bike itself was double locked but was still stolen within 2 months of us moving in. Heartbreaking.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The bike CIL is a godsend. Bikes take up a ton of space and it would be generous to say the facilities are half used. Our bike rates are well-intentioned, but terribly implemented and nobody with even a decent bike uses them. I spent a decade and a half slowly building my dream bike which I always kept in our unit, then when we moved to a condo I started putting it in our assigned bike room which was on P2, through two card accessed doors and one physically locked door. The bike itself was double locked but was still stolen within 2 months of us moving in. Heartbreaking.
Click to expand...
I'm too freaked out to have a good bike in the city too — but more for where on a street I would leave it locked up when out on it for any reason, moreso even than having it in a condo locker. There should still be locker space for beaters though. Figuring out the quantity though will be tough, and will also be a time-will-tell question. Maybe 50% will be enough over time. Bikeshare should appear in front of every building with reduced spaces though.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top