Toronto Atrium on Bay Expansion | 114m | 34s | KingSett Capital | Hariri Pontarini

sMT:

AoD: Regarding the height issue, I feel that there are many factors which should contribute to determining where a little extra height is appropriate - but the views of pre-existing condo owners should not be one of them (in my opinion). I am no judge on whether or not the addition should be built, but it is a little disheartening to know that this plan got vetoed by condo owners so they could preserve their views.
Click to expand...

My personal position is that an intensification of the current AoB site is desirable - that said, a legal agreement is a legal agreement - what's the point of having one otherwise? I'd rather see the current owner work with the residents and come up with a proposal that is mutually satisfying, and besides there is legitimate public interest to see a proper TTC entrance at the corner of Yonge and Dundas - which was mentioned as part of this project.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Wait, so the Atrium is bound to remain by-and-large as is for eternity? Of course the condo owners wouldn't allow a height increase if the decision is in their hands, what reason would they have to approve it when it would compromise views.

Why would a developer agree to such terms when they built it?
 
Xray:

On the other hand, the view argument might not wash for other development sites/proposals around the building, and there are quite a few of those.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
Wait, so the Atrium is bound to remain by-and-large as is for eternity? Of course the condo owners wouldn't allow a height increase if the decision is in their hands, what reason would they have to approve it when it would compromise views.

Why would a developer agree to such terms when they built it?
Click to expand...

Generally, a restrictive covenant that does not include a time limit is deemed to expire after 40 years.
 
someMidTowner said:
I may be selfish, but picturing this atrium being 4 stories taller suits my photographic needs well.


Atrium by Jack Landau, on Flickr

AoD: Regarding the height issue, I feel that there are many factors which should contribute to determining where a little extra height is appropriate - but the views of pre-existing condo owners should not be one of them (in my opinion). I am no judge on whether or not the addition should be built, but it is a little disheartening to know that this plan got vetoed by condo owners so they could preserve their views.
Click to expand...

I understand your frustration. However, the value of our condo would have taken a severe hitsif this project had gone thru. If you were in our shoes I'm sure you'd sympathize with us.
 
mdrame:

I understand your frustration. However, the value of our condo would have taken a severe hitsif this project had gone thru. If you were in our shoes I'm sure you'd sympathize with us.
Click to expand...

Would it though? Are views really what drive the prices of condos built in the 80s and 90s nowadays for all but the most select of locations? I would imagine that a successful AoB with improved quality of retail, access and streetscaping will provide far more benefits those owning a property at your building.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
mdrame:

Would it though? Are views really what drive the prices of condos built in the 80s and 90s nowadays for all but the most select of locations? I would imagine that a successful AoB with improved quality of retail, access and streetscaping will provide far more benefits those owning a property at your building.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Location is equally, if not more important, than views. In an effort to preserve their views, the owners here have halted an opportunity to improve their neighbourhood.

No matter. When that restrictive covenant eventually expires, I wouldn't be surprised to see the entire thing come down to make way for an Oxford Place-style development.
 
Ironically, if they had saved the Ford Hotel that was on the site, I have a feeling it would be declared a heritage property eventually and we won't be having this discussion at all.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
mdrame:



Would it though? Are views really what drive the prices of condos built in the 80s and 90s nowadays for all but the most select of locations? I would imagine that a successful AoB with improved quality of retail, access and streetscaping will provide far more benefits those owning a property at your building.
Click to expand...

It definitely would. Our lawyers have told us so and that was one of the reasons why our condo corp appealed. For me personally, being on the 23rd floor with an unobstructed view south view, there is no doubt that the value of my property would drop at least 10%-20% if the project had gone through. And even owners who don't have a south view would be affected, because the current unobstructed view from the rooftop terrace would be blocked. With that said, if I wasn't living in the building I would definitely be in support of the expansion.
 
mdrame said:
I understand your frustration. However, the value of our condo would have taken a severe hitsif this project had gone thru. If you were in our shoes I'm sure you'd sympathize with us.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to lose my view, but accept it as part of living in a growing city. People are living in a dream world if they buy in a downtown condo and expect their views to be maintained. If a view is so important, buy one like Exhibit where you're guaranteed that nothing will be built across the street. Don't buy elsewhere then complain about the next building to go up.
 
The Atrium was built in 1981. Bay St. north of Dundas has been completely transformed since then and the densities we have now would have been unthinkable 32 years ago. In this case, the condo corporation pretty much had to have this agreement enforced, otherwise it would not have acted in the interests of the owners. Frankly, most condo owners would be delighted to have agreements in place to control development around their property.
 
mdrame said:
It definitely would. Our lawyers have told us so and that was one of the reasons why our condo corp appealed. For me personally, being on the 23rd floor with an unobstructed view south view, there is no doubt that the value of my property would drop at least 10%-20% if the project had gone through. And even owners who don't have a south view would be affected, because the current unobstructed view from the rooftop terrace would be blocked. With that said, if I wasn't living in the building I would definitely be in support of the expansion.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly, your lawyers would be incorrect in most cases. That is unless they had a qualified appraiser (CRA) do a property valuation and equity study on your building. I very much doubt it considering that costs money and you already have a binding agreement with AOB. An appraiser would be able to tell you that in most cases, the value factor related to view would not amount to much of anything compared to a) LOCATION b)SQFT C)Lot size (for residential houses) or Amenities (in the case of condo ownership) d) quality of finish e) age of the property. View would amount in most cases to less that 5% of your total value, and the whole fact that an agreement was made is ridiculous are represents old Toronto. Anyway, those factors I listed above essentially are approx. 85% of your Current value assessment based on using mass appraisal of similar properties in your area. I don't know what the lawyer is talking about with 10-20% for just view. Maybe if the subject building was overlooking Niagara Falls or something, but not for a tower in the middle of the core.
 
I could still see H&R going ahead with their redevelopment ambitious plans, but without the added floors at this point in time. They could always add those floors in the future perhaps?

I just can't imagine they would wait years for that contract with the condo corp. to expire to make any major changes.

mdrame said:
With that said, if I wasn't living in the building I would definitely be in support of the expansion.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a bit of a blatantly selfish way to form your opinions on things in life? I hate paying taxes, but I'm very much in favour of high taxes because I know it serves the greater good.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top