Toronto 2 St Thomas | 80.46m | 26s | KingSett Capital | Hariri Pontarini

I guess we haven't learned as this boom will undoubtably leave as many new scars on the landscape as those booms of the past. Those who rather park outdoors (a surprisingly high number) should be happy.
 
Very sad. I am not a lawyer (obviously), but wonder if perhaps the City should be somewhat tougher about issuing demolition permits for new development without an undertaking that construction will begin within a certain reasonable period. The practice of demolishing existing structures with no particular timeframe--or assurance at all--of their replacement by something other than a parking lot is absolutely toxic to urbanism, as far as I am concerned, and the kind of thing we ought to be cracking down on.

On the whole, this last boom will leave us with a much better-filled-in city than that in which it began, but it is obviously not without casualties.
 
allabootmatt said:
Very sad. I am not a lawyer (obviously), but wonder if perhaps the City should be somewhat tougher about issuing demolition permits for new development without an undertaking that construction will begin within a certain reasonable period. The practice of demolishing existing structures with no particular timeframe--or assurance at all--of their replacement by something other than a parking lot is absolutely toxic to urbanism, as far as I am concerned, and the kind of thing we ought to be cracking down on.
Click to expand...

Though granted, there's the whole "nobody saw the financial crisis coming" factor that complicates the "within a certain reasonable period" issue...
 
allabootmatt said:
Very sad. I am not a lawyer (obviously), but wonder if perhaps the City should be somewhat tougher about issuing demolition permits for new development without an undertaking that construction will begin within a certain reasonable period. The practice of demolishing existing structures with no particular timeframe--or assurance at all--of their replacement by something other than a parking lot is absolutely toxic to urbanism, as far as I am concerned, and the kind of thing we ought to be cracking down on.
Click to expand...

All it takes is financial incentives. Developers demolish old buildings because they don't want to pay property taxes for them, and want to potentially make money on parking.

So, if you equalize property taxes on disused buildings to be less than or equal to what they would be on a vacant lot, and slap on more taxes on surface parking, that would go a long way toward changing this behaviour.
 
I was thinking that for sure this one was going ahead. 77 Charles is.

Did this building not get good sales numbers? It's an incredible beautiful project if you see on the website (even the valet area on ground level has a beautiful textured ceiling design). And it was going to match with the McKinsey&Co. building next door.
 
Yes, the crisis was certainly a factor, though I recall these buildings being demolished a long time ago, no? I think the point is that if the City issues demolition permits, it should be with the expectation that demolition will only happen as an immediate prelude to excavation. Look at the Joker nightclub site--demolished long before the replacing project had even applied for zoning approval. Not cool.

All that said, who knows if this one will start soonish. I wouldn't be shocked; Minto are pretty serious developers who are unlikely to fall during the current culling of the herd, and it's a great project in what might be the best location in the whole city for high-end residential. Fingers crossed, I guess.
 
I guess the worst part of this is that they tore down a much needed rental building and then treated the other building with utter contempt by bricking in most of the south facing windows. The units in the proposed building start at $2 million. That's a very tiny market in any economy.
 
androiduk said:
I guess the worst part of this is that they tore down a much needed rental building and then treated the other building with utter contempt by bricking in most of the south facing windows. The units in the proposed building start at $2 million. That's a very tiny market in any economy.
Click to expand...

You raise a good point. I knew two nice, older guys who have worked at Victoria for ages and who have now had to move out to the 427 because they were kicked out by Minto.
 
androiduk said:
I guess the worst part of this is that they tore down a much needed rental building and then treated the other building with utter contempt by bricking in most of the south facing windows. The units in the proposed building start at $2 million. That's a very tiny market in any economy.
Click to expand...


Does Minto own the remaining 'University' building on the lot?
Why are the windows boarded? I thought it was still occupied?
 
The building is occupied but I'm not sure what happened to the units that were bricked in. Could anyone live in an apt. without windows? Everytime I walk by the building I look for someone exiting or entering so I can ask them about it. I don't know who owns the remaining building.
 
Does Minto own the remaining 'University' building on the lot?
Why are the windows boarded?
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, The bricked up side will eventually be incorporated into the 2nd phase of Minto St Thomas; an 8 storey podium like midrise.
 
The southside units on either end of the building lost a couple sets of their windows. The building shrunk from 20 units to 16 units. From what I can tell, the four lost units were bachelors or one bedroom units. I think a part of these units were incorporated into one or two of the southside units.

The lost units were converted to a laundry room, bike room, and storage space.

Minto owns the building (not sure about the land) and the building must remain rental until about 2016 at which time Minto may continue to keep it as a rental, or convert it to condo.

I think the 2nd phase will feature balconies that hang over the current 4 story building.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top