Toronto The Britt Condos | 142.03m | 41s | Lanterra | Arcadis

CN Tower said:
One Bloor has a FAR of 16. And you think Staff will support 15 here? Keep dreaming.

Current matket is not $100 psf of gross buildable area here. Forget it.
Click to expand...


FAR COMPS IN THE AREA
9-21 Grenville: 20.8x (approved - and will be even higher after its OMB win)
Five: 14.3x (approved - and will be even higher after its C of A approval)
Nicholas: 13.1x (approved)
2-8 Gloucester: 14.1x (soon to be approved)

And this doesn't include the slate of newer proposals that are coming-in north of 20x (ie: 501 Yonge - 20.5x, 460 Yonge - 25.9x, etc). Not saying they'll get approved at these astronomical points but they'll finish-up well north of 15x.

Anyhow that's it for now - see how it helps to do some research prior to spouting one's mouth off? :)

oh - and btw - One Bloor has an FAR of 17.3x not 16x (no small potatos on a site envelope of 50,000 sf!).
 
CN Tower said:
One Bloor has a FAR of 16. And you think Staff will support 15 here? Keep dreaming.

Current matket is not $100 psf of gross buildable area here. Forget it.
Click to expand...


i forgot to tackle your second point re: the market not being $100/sf....i guess i took your parting sentiment quite literally! oops!
 
Floor Area Ratio. Take the total density, divide it by the size of the lot, and you'll get your FAR.
 
KA1, it means Floor Area Ratio.

TJ, thanks for a bit of education. I do however disagree with your assertion this site is worth $100psf of gross floor area. If true it would render almost every existing property in the area a de facto candidate for demolition and re-development. I hesitate to adopt that notion broadly although if it is correct then i have a couple clients who will be extremely pleased to know how wildly they've understated the value of their property.

Furthermore, in th case of the Sutton Place, the existence of so many rental suites would very likely preclude any sort of near term change to the use as the City would look to protect those units although ultimately they can be replaced at a great cost.
 
Last edited:
If they demo it (which I truly hope they don't), would it be the tallest demo in Toronto's history at 32s / 104m? I know the old Toronto Star Building (which got knocked down for FCP) was 22s / 88m. But im not sure if there has ever been a taller building taken down in the GTA.....if anyone knows start typing :p
 
Can't think of anything taller than the Star building.

Wouldn't parking be an issue if they add additional density onto the current structure?
 
How many metres was the old valhalla inn which was knocked down last year? Maybe it was just 20s . It certainly seemed pretty tall.
 
CN Tower said:
One Bloor has a FAR of 16. And you think Staff will support 15 here? Keep dreaming.

Current matket is not $100 psf of gross buildable area here. Forget it.
Click to expand...


1000 BAY STREET SITE

Purchase Price: $36,000,000
Revised GFA: 307,170 sf

For those of you keeping score at home, that's $117/sf GFA. 3018 Yonge (a far inferior location) traded recently at $100/sf, so $117/sf makes sense here given the location.

I can point to other relevant comps, as well, so CN Tower, if your point was that the market is not $100/sf "here" as in at Sutton Place (due to the pecularities of the site, ie: demo costs, etc.) then your point is well-taken. If, however, your claim was on a more general level then you are mistaken. The market is and has been at or near $100/sf buildable for some time now in prime locations.

p.s. Bear in mind that 1000 Bay will likely come in below 300,000 sf when all is said and done, meaning that Cresford's basis will be north of $120/sf. The 307,170 sf number is based on first round discussions (http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-43211.pdf) which almost always come down in the course of the evolution of a rezoning processes.
 
ThomasJ said:
1000 BAY STREET SITE

Purchase Price: $36,000,000
Revised GFA: 307,170 sf

For those of you keeping score at home, that's $117/sf GFA. 3018 Yonge (a far inferior location) traded recently at $100/sf, so $117/sf makes sense here given the location.
Click to expand...

These aren't fully arms length transactions TJ. The seller is related to the developer. You don't have the full picture thus your $100/sf number at 3018 is at best predicated on very incomplete information. When you examine a straight land deal with no equity stake or conditions related to zoning there is no way developers are paying $100/sf at Yonge and Lawrence.
 
CN Tower said:
These aren't fully arms length transactions TJ. The seller is related to the developer. You don't have the full picture thus your $100/sf number at 3018 is at best predicated on very incomplete information. When you examine a straight land deal with no equity stake or conditions related to zoning there is no way developers are paying $100/sf at Yonge and Lawrence.
Click to expand...


Wait - you're telling me that I don't have the complete picture? How's this for a complete picture -

Fact: the purchaser (Lanterra, the development partner) is not "related" to the vendor, Pinedale Properties.
Fact: Lanterra cut a check for $5.1 million dollars - cash - to the vendor on June 10, 2011 for a 30% interest in the project.
Fact: the imputed buildable basis, based on the entitlements in-place (170,000 sf GFA), is $100/sf.

Oh - and one more fact: there are no conditions relating to zoning on this deal.

Seriously, CN Tower, stop wasting our time with your opinions. You've done this a few times now already. Please do more research and less accusing of those in the know (re: your "not having the full picture" comment).
 
junctionist said:
I've always liked the Sutton Place Hotel as a building. The juxtaposition of the bold concrete I-beams and the sleek, uninterrupted band of horizontal windows across the facade is memorable. It's no slab or expendable building. Too bad it suffers from the typical deficiencies of Modernist buildings in terms of how it meets the street like on Wellesley, but in this case, subsequent renovations softened things.
Click to expand...

Me Too...highly under-rated modernism from some local architects. I find it very SAS Royal Hotel-ish.

Ignoring modernist towers and adding whatever trendy style to street levels never made sense to me. And that "Georgio of Beverly Hills" reno it had is very funny and highly inappropriate. This building should be restored to its appropriate vintage modernist aesthetic. I don't see why that would be so hard, now that mid century "Mad Men" look is so hot. Go to the big auctions and purchase vintage big ticket furniture and fixtures for the common areas of the hotel. Hell...you can actually buy original Arne Jacobsen furniture from the SAS Royal at auctions.

Could be "THE" address on Bay if they play their cards right.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top