Toronto 170 Roehampton | 160.84m | 50s | Capital Developments | Sweeny &Co

M

Midtown Urbanist

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
10,077
Reaction score
9,684
Location
Where the density is
Site is for sale. Development concept provided in second image below. Apparently the existing building is a co-op building?

1628608372110.png


1628608249407.png


DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY
The Vendor has engaged Urban Strategies Inc. to determine potential built form on site. After review of
the planning policies in place and local area context, it is their opinion that the Site can accommodate a
mixed use development of up to 40 storeys. The development concept is predominantly residential, with
at-grade retail and up to a 5 storey L-shaped podium. Within the general area of the Property are a variety
of proposed and active high density sites with heights ranging from 7-70 storeys, setting strong precedent
in the immediate vicinity.

CURRENT IMPROVEMENTS
The Site is L-shaped and currently improved with a 7-storey residential co-ownership building, with one
level of undergroung parking, a garden area, and surface visitor parking to the rear of the Property. The
Property has frontage on two roads, providing multiple points of potential ingress/egress and making it
efficient for residential redevelopment.
Click to expand...
 
WislaHD said:
Site is for sale. Development concept provided in second image below. Apparently the existing building is a co-op building?

View attachment 340561

View attachment 340559
Click to expand...
Co-ownership, not co-op, there's a difference!

From http://www.vickiborenstein.com/coownershipexplained.html :

Do not confuse Co-ownership with Co-op!​
​
Martin Rumack, is a Toronto lawyer with years of experience in co-ownerships.
He teaches a course on the topic for Toronto real estate agents.He explains the
differences between condo ownership, co-operative ownership and co-ownership:

With Condos, you purchase a unit in a building and gain a percentage interest
in the common areas.You receive a deed to the unit you have purchased.

With Co-ops, you purchase shares of a private corporation that owns and manages
the building. You also receive a leasehold occupancy interest in a specific unit and
the exclusive right to use it. You do not receive a deed; you receive shares in the corporation.

With Co-ownership you purchase an undivided percentage of the building that is registered
on title (your name is on the legal ownership document), along with the exclusive right to occupy
a specific unit and you receive a deed setting out the percentage interest you have acquired.

With condos and co-ownerships (but not co-ops), you can mortgage your interest in the property​
without getting consent from the board of directors.

Co-ownership is a hybrid between co-op and condo,” Mr. Rumack says.​

42
 
Application is into the AIC for this one:

1657107604144.png


* note that height on site plan and drawings is 46s + MPH

Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center
app.toronto.ca

*Docs are Up*

Proponents: Capital and Metropia

Architect: Sweeny and Co.


Site as it is today:

1657107846062.png


Site Plan:

1657107914419.png

1657108017260.png


1657108084195.png


1657108162280.png


1657108191358.png


From the Planning Rationale Report:

1657108311986.png

1657108353069.png

1657108376777.png
 
Investors buying to rent out won't care about elevators. Most of the buyers in such buildings don't live in them, and hence don't care; which means there's no incentive for devs to build well. Not sure how this is still a surprise to anyone after 12 years of boom.
 
innsertnamehere said:
terrible, but I've seen equally bad layouts.. This province desperately needs elevator regulations to ensure adequate elevator access.
Click to expand...
We were well on our way to finally having some standards for elevator access in residential buildings, until Uncle Doug came along. Now it's not even a priority, so developers will continue to come out with piss pour provisions like this. It's really tiring to see, but our governments like to pander to developers at all fronts while residents get the shaft at the end.
 
They are going to get jammed by Matlow on every dimension anyways so I'm sure 4 lifts will work out just fine l
 
Well, I shouldn't be surprised to see this being proposed. I'm glad to see they're at least offering to create daycare spaces and add some retail here. It'll help animate this intersection and tend to the needs of nearby residents. 46 floors is quite tall, but suitable for this area. Here'sn hoping they can design something attractive for this site, considering how many duds we're getting in this area.
It'll be good to see some expanded sidewalks at least, I think most residents nearby are aware of how narrow sidewalks can be in this neighbourhood.
 
development sign appears at 170 Roehampton .. joining the other tear downs along Roehampton including a 20floor brick 80's apartment building. For a city experiencing a housing crisis - with a target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions - this seems so wasteful and misguided considering the multitude of single family houses nearby.
170roehampton.jpg
 
Last edited:
busybeaver said:
development sign appears at 170 Roehampton .. joining the other tear downs along Roehampton including a 20floor brick 80's apartment building. For a city experiencing a housing crisis - with a target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions - this seems so wasteful and misguided considering the multitude of single family houses nearby.
View attachment 435312
Click to expand...
It's easier to blow away a 50 unit tower than blow away 3 single family homes to develop. End the yellow belt. It's stupid.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top