[jmi22]

Do you not feel the new as-of-right midrise zoning on large chunks of 'the avenues' will be advantageous in that regard?

If not.........where do you see the challenge?

****

The argument in favour of midrise (personal preferences aside) is lower risk profile, easier to finance, and get in and out quicker.

This may play out in this manner, but the crucial detail here is *new*. If these as of right permissions had been granted two decades ago when the midrise policy was really coming into light it may have been more successful. But imo the the point of no return in terms of height precedent and public acceptance of towers has been long passed, and as such I would not be shocked if a great deal of these as of right midrise sites still see developers pushing for high-rises.

 

[The Preservationist]

They're just as difficult to zone, are often harder to build, and earn far less return. Why bother when you can just go tall?

Exactly, I do have some understanding of the economics. My son was in the business (not the owner) of single unit tear downs and rebuilds but has recently moved on. Had a reasonably good run with it, so I would think multiple single units to mid rises must be more profitable, at of course a bigger scale of investment. It seems to me the issue is primarily a question of city zoning.

 

[Koops65]

 

[HeartoftheTempest]

Do you not feel the new as-of-right midrise zoning on large chunks of 'the avenues' will be advantageous in that regard?

If not.........where do you see the challenge?

It certainly helps with approvals timing, but the land cost for the assembly makes the math difficult to pencil out favourably for those newly granted as-of-right heights. Any builder taking the risk to go down that road will likely still push for site-specific approval of a 'tall mid-rise' around 11-12 storeys to make the project viable.

It was a positive move to show the general change in City Planning philosophy, but it didn't unlock a whole lot or move the needle all that much IMO.

 

[realpolytics]

It certainly helps with approvals timing, but the land cost for the assembly makes the math difficult to pencil out favourably for those newly granted as-of-right heights. Any builder taking the risk to go down that road will likely still push for site-specific approval of a 'tall mid-rise' around 11-12 storeys to make the project viable.

It was a positive move to show the general change in City Planning philosophy, but it didn't unlock a whole lot or move the needle all that much IMO.

The thing is it didn't actually help with approvals, same feedback on submissions, even if it's approved "quicker" once it's approved you're still dealing with the same city divisions who all have there own kingdom to rule over...and never got the memo this is "as of right", they just don't care..

In the past some midrise sites were even sent to the back of the queue because they weren't providing the same level of community benefits(Section 37 money) as the highrise sites....

It's all too bad, we need midrise but I just don't see a serious commitment from the city to support them.

 

[Paclo]

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

Resubmission with the following changes:

• Total units decreased from 896 to 889
• Total vehicular parking increased from 62 to 64
• Total bicycle parking decreased from 998 to 989
• Increases in indoor & outdoor amenity space
• Raised green roof on 7th-floor podium

No new renderings but I will include the material board below

 

[AlbertC]

 

[Paclo]

Technical resubmission here. No permit activity publicly visible.

 

[AHK]

Wednesday, September 17: Like the Norwegian Blue - it is just resting.....

 

[Tormick]

Such an eye sore beside that great new Metrolinx station. Not saying they need to build their tower, but its to bad they couldn't do something better with the land then just leaving the old hotel/shelter.