Toronto 2451 Dufferin Street | 93.4m | 27s | Republic | Arcadis

It's perverse and anti-democratic that there are de-facto secret legal requirements. If the City does this as a means of improving negotiating leverage, then they should just stop it and pass by-laws clearly defining what is permissible development and what is forbidden. There is a housing crisis and a climate crisis. Playing cat and mouse games with secret rules is not in the public interest.

This building offers more than 400 units next to higher order transit. I could not care less that it doesn't respect a transition zone towards an "established neighbourhood" of 35 detached homes or that staff aren't sure which of two buckets the building should be slotted in.
 
Cambry Ardship said:
It's perverse and anti-democratic that there are de-facto secret legal requirements. If the City does this as a means of improving negotiating leverage, then they should just stop it and pass by-laws clearly defining what is permissible development and what is forbidden. There is a housing crisis and a climate crisis. Playing cat and mouse games with secret rules is not in the public interest.

This building offers more than 400 units next to higher order transit. I could not care less that it doesn't respect a transition zone towards an "established neighbourhood" of 35 detached homes or that staff aren't sure which of two buckets the building should be slotted in.
Click to expand...

There are no secret rules.

The Tall Building Design Guide lines are very public and very known to the industry, are the Mid-Rise Guidelines.

Totally fair to poke holes in some of the guidelines in terms of their merit, but there is nothing secret about them.

It's funny you should argue for turning those into hard rules as that would stifle more development. Most in the industry, in my experience would prefer greater flexibility not less.

That's why the word guideline was used. It essentially says this is the 'rule' unless you come up with a convincing reason for an exception.

The City does make exceptions, but being mindful of precedent does so in a relative handful of cases each year, generally when the developer can show a compelling public interest in bending the 'rule'.
 
Northern Light said:
I think it's important to note, that the City critiqued a whole lot more than non-compliance with the Tall Building Design guidelines.

There are road widenings required which were not shown on the application, a parkland dedication less than the legal requirement and a few other items on top.

Republic does know this sort of thing, and have previously noted they were in a rush awhile back to get applications in ahead of changing rules/standards and in that rush, what arrived to the City may not have been the final, perfect idea.
Click to expand...
I have to comment on this:

I’m close to this project and know the landowner very well, and my understanding is that Republic has developed 6 or 7 different concepts to respond to the cities concerns, all of which have been rejected because they all contain a tall building. It seems the city wants midrise here so this very well could end up in a contested hearing unless the city comes to their senses. I'm almost guaranteeing this goes to OLT unless the city comes to their senses.
This should be a tall building, mid-rise buildings are 15% more expensive to build and they're more of an energy suck too.
 
CRE said:
I have to comment on this:

I’m close to this project and know the landowner very well, and my understanding is that Republic has developed 6 or 7 different concepts to respond to the cities concerns, all of which have been rejected because they all contain a tall building.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the contribution; always good to get some additional perspective!

**

I certainly don't think a tall building should be rejected out of hand here; having not seen the other concepts put forward, I can't intelligently comment on those.

CRE said:
It seems the city wants midrise here so this very well could end up in a contested hearing unless the city comes to their senses. I'm almost guaranteeing this goes to OLT unless the city comes to their senses.
Click to expand...

This is going to the OLT; the appeal is already in process.

CRE said:
This should be a tall building,
Click to expand...

Quite possibly, maybe even probably so; though the devil is in the details.

CRE said:
mid-rise buildings are 15% more expensive to build and they're more of an energy suck too.
Click to expand...

Uhh, this is not inherently true.

It depends on a host of design considerations, and what height we're talking about.

Price per ft2 on builds over 40 storeys is generally quite a bit higher.

You also add costs the moment you get high enough to require water pumps.

***

That said, terracing over many levels adds construction expense with differential floor plates and terracing absolutely can increase energy loss and leakage issues. But, this is important to say, the amount of terracing require in a midrise, inherently is zero; it's city's guidelines that tend to result in some of the more extreme forms of that we see. I think some terracing, depending what's next door can make sense, but these perpetual terraces where ever floor below 'x' is unique are generally not justifiable.
 
So in effect, the City has a secret requirement for the site (mid-rise buildings), but rather than explicitly state that requirement in by-laws and council-adopted policy, they have an opaque process in which staff apply shifting criteria at their discretion to achieve a preferred outcome.

That's not a fair process that we would accept in other areas of public policy and decision-making.
 
Cambry Ardship said:
So in effect, the City has a secret requirement for the site (mid-rise buildings), but rather than explicitly state that requirement in by-laws and council-adopted policy, they have an opaque process in which staff apply shifting criteria at their discretion to achieve a preferred outcome.

That's not a fair process that we would accept in other areas of public policy and decision-making.
Click to expand...

This is not accurate.

You're way too conspiracy-minded here.

The zoning by law in place clearly limits the height to 5 storeys; any increase is the ask from the proponent. (Which may be entirely reasonable, but again, there are no secrets here).

There is no shifting anything.

What the report says is (my words)

This proposal does not meet the intent of the midrise guidelines or the tall building guidelines; clarify which you think should apply here so we can clarify what's workable.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Uhh, this is not inherently true.

It depends on a host of design considerations, and what height we're talking about.

Price per ft2 on builds over 40 storeys is generally quite a bit higher.

You also add costs the moment you get high enough to require water pumps.

***

That said, terracing over many levels adds construction expense with differential floor plates and terracing absolutely can increase energy loss and leakage issues. But, this is important to say, the amount of terracing require in a midrise, inherently is zero; it's city's guidelines that tend to result in some of the more extreme forms of that we see. I think some terracing, depending what's next door can make sense, but these perpetual terraces where ever floor below 'x' is unique are generally not justifiable.
Click to expand...

Can't say I want to get into an internet argument to make productive use of my day. But 15% is a general comment, all I do is look at development land proformas and construction budgets all day long.
 
In spirit, this is a transit oriented development. It's located a mere 100 metres outside of the major transit station area.

I take your point about being conspiracy-minded, but I'm also not particularly interested in being charitable to the current planning process which has not delivered good outcomes for Toronto. This development would help to return value to the public from the billions spent on the Crosstown and bring much needed people into a neighbourhood, which outside of some conversions of industrial buildings and new townhouses built on formerly empty or industrial land, has had a declining population for decades now.

From my perspective, I would like the City to not stand in the way of this development, as I would not like them to stand in the way of other needed developments in the area and the city at large.
 
CRE said:
Can't say I want to get into an internet argument to make productive use of my day. But 15% is a general comment, all I do is look at development land proformas and construction budgets all day long.
Click to expand...

Entirely fair; though I think important to note, I choose not to factor land in the equation as-of-right; on the basis that what you pay for the land ought to be relative to what you think will be permissible to build.

If you pay for land on the basis of 20-storeys going up and only build ten, then yes, that will absolutely mess w/your per ft2 ROI; though not literally mess w/the construction cost.

Often times, of course, land is optioned with the price being dependent on what is approved; but for an existing longer term owner or anyone whose paid cash and closed, this is an issue.

I'll add, I'm not in the industry directly, but tangential to it, and speaking from the experiences with which I'm familiar, through others (yourself, doubtless) may have both more and varied experience.
 
This was was before Council in December with a then confidential report.

Subsequently the report is now public, in the form of a Settlement Offer, which was adopted by Council:


From the above:


1705337454185.png


New Render:

1705337529354.png


New Stats:

1705337564728.png



Site Plan with new useless undersized park showing:

1705337620034.png
@

@Paclo is duly flagged
 
Cambry Ardship said:
Seems like pretty marginal changes to be worth more than half a year of delay from the city.
Click to expand...

1) There is a significant change to the way the building is massed.

2) What delay by the City? The applicant chose to appeal to OLT, not the City. The City recommended the Settlement Offer at the first Council meeting after it arrived, about 2 weeks.

There was no delay by the City here at all.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top