Peepers
Banned
Obviously 8 condo units with an average size of just over 900 sq/ft each are worth much more than $800,000. I don't know why the city staff would deliberately understate the value of the units.
Toronto 159SW Condos | 118.87m | 36s | Alterra | Richmond Architects
- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
Obviously 8 condo units with an average size of just over 900 sq/ft each are worth much more than $800,000. I don't know why the city staff would deliberately understate the value of the units.
AlbertC
Superstar
Ramako
Moderator
I'm a big fan of the brick and curved podium. This will add some nice character to the intersection.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I am a huge supporter, no secret there but your correct, my comment was unnecessary. I'm just really tired of this woman being recklessly attacked when there is no basis to do so on these pages. When there is valid criticism, go for it. Section 37 can make problems go away in every Ward in this city, downtown is no exception. KWT was supportive of the proposal in the beginning if the property to the south could be purchased but it's not for sale. The Planner writes in the staff report that the property to the south would be far too small a property to build up on so with that cleared up (and presumably other issues) KWT shifts gears for the better good of the community.
That's what I was just going to say, this area needs more injections like this. I wonder if KWT is spending some time talking building materials with Councillor McConnell? If so, it's a good start.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
That's a very idealistic way to deconstruct the situation. Why did the Planner suddenly "realize" the property South was too small AFTER it became apparent that Diamondcorp would not come to terms on a purchase agreement for the land? All the facts were there from the time of the first application. Also, don't you think it is weird that 159 Wellesley itself is "too small" to support a tower, as per Staff guidelines, yet they are willing to bend rules left and right to allow a tower on this small site? Keep in mind that Staff asked for a tower separation agreement, which Wong-Tam nixed.
Everything points to the fact that Section 37 funds decided how the application would be evaluated by both Staff and the Councillor.
As an aside, how the hell does 900 sq ft = 3 bedrooms??
Anyways, IF this thing can sell (I have my doubts) it is coming. Hopefully it doesn't disappoint. It has already left me jaded about the whole approvals process.
Last edited:
thecharioteer
Senior Member
One could also ask the question why the planners thought that the site south of 159 Wellesley was too small to be redeveloped , while treating the site south of Massey Tower (193 Yonge) as a potential development site, when it is almost the exact same size, thereby resulting in a refusal report for Massey Tower.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Tinpot-dictators, over-zealously guarding what little influence over policy they have left? Planning by administration or planning by vision? It's pretty clear which agenda holds sway in this town.
urbandreamer
recession proof
Nah. Probably just a sign we're at a market top. When KWT has zero development proposals coming in she'll be happy that her resident nimbies won't be emailing her nonstop (like ppl read this crap lol) but otoh, sad that her part of town has no cranes to feed....
urbansuburban
New Member
bottom line is, almost every application in the core is too small to be deemed a site to meet the tall buildings guidelines. So, for staff to say that the adjacent site is too small is laughable. What else would they say. Someone can do a tall building with a blank wall on one side and suddenly they have a perfectly good development site over there. I am sure staff wouldnt agree...Like u said, i am sure staff didnt think this was a tall building site, theatre park wasnt a tall building site, museum house wasnt a tall building site, RCMI building wasnt a tall building site, massey tower wasnt a tall building site....etc etc etc. (thanks yul brenner). Seriously, this site is only all of 13,000sf in land area. I would really treat anything in staff reports with a grain of salt depending on which ever way the wind is blowing up their skirt.
fedplanner
Active Member
It's a good looking building, but the inclusion of the Habitat units has me most excited. It does mostly benefit Habitat, but it will also provide housing for 8 needy families for the long term. It's a step in the right direction, a form of inclusionary housing. I do a lot of work with Habitat. Their model is to hold a deed restriction to ensure the unit remains affordable. Habitat also holds the mortgage so the payments are affordable to the homebuyer. If the homebuyer of a Habitat unit sells for more than the bought, the appreciation is shared with Habitat and/or the property is sold to another family earning less than the maximum income. Since Habitat is a non-profit, any revenue they get goes into creating additional affordable units, in theory anyway.
Peepers, your idea is sound. I would first like to see zoning changed so it reflects reality. For example, it's silly to have 20 meter height limit, that was established in 1970, overlaying an area consisting of 150 meter buildings today. In this case, it's wrong for the city to demand Section 37 payments for building above the 20 meter height limit. This is probably why the OMB smacks the city down on S37 payments from time to time.
If the zoning was increased to say 100m, and anything in excess of 100m required a financial contribution to TCHC, according to a pre-defined schedule, that would be a great idea to fund housing. What's holding back is the lack of vision and a reluctance to change the status quo.
DtTO
Active Member
Wow. Just wow. From taking a swing at immigration reforms, to now making multinational deals, it seems council not realize that their role is city politicians. Toronto is not a country, and these councillors should not be able to make these ridiculous laws/deals. Here's an idea. KWT and the rest of her councillor entourage can all go live on and rule the islands and leave Toronto alone.
Did you read the article? The Habitat for Humanity CEO formerly worked at Tridel, and is a good friend of upper level Tridel execs. There is something very fishy about all of this. They could've just given the money equivalent to TCHC or something, and that would've been much more beneficial.
Last edited:
fedplanner
Active Member
Yes I read the article, and your analysis is fair. I still think it's a step in the right direction. The city likely has the legal authority to use Section 37 monies to fund TDHC towards the preservation of affordable housing. The politicians choose the Habitat units instead. If funding TCHC instead of Habiat is something you and others believe strongly in, contact your councilor and demand change. The mods on this site are nice enough to allow me to vent my ideas, but I'm not a resident of Toronto so my opinions on this matter have no weight. You and other Torontonians on the other hand can influence change by letting your voice be heard by the planners and the politicians, like we seen with Massey Tower.
Last edited:
DtTO
Active Member
Good point, fedplanner. Sadly, out of the many emails I've sent to KWT, I've never received a single response. Phone calls are usually answered by her staff, and they often have no idea what I'm talking about, directing me to call back at a later time instead, which just causes the cycle to repeat.
fedplanner
Active Member
Your location says you live in Cityplace. If that's the case, then you're not in KWT's ward. She's only accountable to residents in her ward. You may have better luck contacting Adam Vaughan or the Mayor.
DtTO
Active Member
While this is technically true, as a councillor, she also makes decisions that influence the entire city. I've contacted her about her insistence of getting rid of the OMB in Toronto, for example. She absolutely will not respond. Adam Vaughn, on the other hand, almost always responds. Out of curiosity, how long has it been since you left Toronto?