citylights said:
None of us has a crystal ball.
Although, I can assure you, no one is starting construction on 1800 unsold condo units this year, next year or probably for many many more years after that.
Now, there's always the chance this proposal becomes a rental project that starts getting built in the next 12-months, for all we know.
But, more than likely, Kingsett will do what they usually do here - which is absolutely nothing for years on end.
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure. Did you see this a few weeks ago in the news?

"A Montreal-based private equity firm says it’s planning to buy $500 million worth of unsold condo units and turn them into rentals in a bid to “stabilize” the housing market."

"Jesta Group, a family-owned global real estate firm, announced its entry into the Toronto housing market on Tuesday when it acquired a “bulk condominium portfolio” valued at $30 million located near Toronto Metropolitan University."

 
There's 20,000 unsold new condos in the city. Private equity is going to buy up maybe 5,000. That will help, but won't turn the market around on its own.

New builds will still probably need at least another 2-3 years to recover and even then it'll be smaller projects, not like this one, that go ahead first.
 
Undead said:
There's 20,000 unsold new condos in the city. Private equity is going to buy up maybe 5,000. That will help, but won't turn the market around on its own.

New builds will still probably need at least another 2-3 years to recover and even then it'll be smaller projects, not like this one, that go ahead first.
Click to expand...

Funny, a friend of mine in the US that works in VC, told me quite a bit about how things work. One major thing he told me popped into my head with the first line you wrote there. Paraphrasing, he basically said "They don't want to fix the market, they want to manipulate it and control it. There's a difference." and then he added something about testing the waters, shopping markets, etc.

Anyway, most of what he told me (16 years ago), has happened. It's pretty disturbing how accurate he was and I don't think buying all 20,000 would be in their best interest.

If I were private equity, I'd buy a little and let the rest starve for awhile. I could get a better deal by doing that. Then buy a bit more. Then let the rest starve again. And so on, and so on.

Also, I don't see why Cumberland Square couldn't just be switched to rental buildings. They could even slap the "Boutique" moniker on them. Pretty sure they would make boatloads of money, given the location. 🤷‍♂️
 
GameOnBrad said:
Also, I don't see why Cumberland Square couldn't just be switched to rental buildings. They could even slap the "Boutique" moniker on them. Pretty sure they would make boatloads of money, given the location. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
It could be, but rental developments of that size come with a lot of challenges that usually don't make it worthwhile.
1800 units is generally not conducive to a great tenant experience, and means you're dealing with a lot of turnover. Very long lease up, etc.
It's also got a significantly different return profile than condo.
I suspect Kingsett wants to eventually sell this property with approvals in place for significantly more than they paid for it.
That would be in line with the strategy they're pursuing at a number of different sites they own along Yonge.

So, on the initial topic of whether or not anything gets built here in the next 5-years... certainly not impossible, but highly unlikely!
 
Ok...if people are bumping the damned thread you're gonna make me look under the hood ....

Nothing from 2026 here, but there is some 2025 stuff of interest. A single doc added in relation to issuing of NOAC. Which has been done here.

The correspondence in question is too long to copy/paste....but some here might find the 52 conditions interesting.

Here's the still active link to the SPA in the AIC:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

*****

@citylights had good commentary above.

Let me add, condo or rental, the layouts in what would presumably be 'phase 1' linked above do not strike me as sellable/rentable at a price that would make sense to any builder

1781454352800.png



Nominally the square footages are only a little bit light.. But when you look at the unusable space from poorly considered layout with narrow entrance zones eating into limited area, no one is paying high end of market for that. Even middle would be a push.

I wonder how the numbers crunch if you take out 3 units per floor which is about what I think you would need to get each unit to a desirable size/shape. Basically, nix the 3 studios and redemise.
 
Last edited:
...I think we will all grow moss and mold if we stare at this thread to see if anything would happen here. >.<
 
GameOnBrad said:
Funny, a friend of mine in the US that works in VC, told me quite a bit about how things work. One major thing he told me popped into my head with the first line you wrote there. Paraphrasing, he basically said "They don't want to fix the market, they want to manipulate it and control it. There's a difference." and then he added something about testing the waters, shopping markets, etc.

Anyway, most of what he told me (16 years ago), has happened. It's pretty disturbing how accurate he was and I don't think buying all 20,000 would be in their best interest.

If I were private equity, I'd buy a little and let the rest starve for awhile. I could get a better deal by doing that. Then buy a bit more. Then let the rest starve again. And so on, and so on.

Also, I don't see why Cumberland Square couldn't just be switched to rental buildings. They could even slap the "Boutique" moniker on them. Pretty sure they would make boatloads of money, given the location. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Thanks. And I'm sure that you know that the US and Canadian markets are diverting and non-US anecdotes are increasingly irrelevant.
 
rdaner said:
Thanks. And I'm sure that you know that the US and Canadian markets are diverting and non-US anecdotes are increasingly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The above statement makes no sense twice over. No snark intended.

I assume by 'diverting' you meant diverging.

But in that case, 'non-U.S. anecdotes are increasingly irrelevant' makes no sense.

That the two markets are diverging, then U.S. anecdotes would be less relevant, arguably.
 
Last edited:
Undead said:
It's even worse than that because a "fixed" market in their view means prices and rents that always go up because it benefits the big biz oligarchies who run this country, and their big gov pals who enable it through perverse incentives and corruption.
Click to expand...
Individual homeowners also have a stake in housing prices always increasing, because a house/condo is seen as not just a place to live, but an asset that needs to appreciate. The only folks for whom it's really beneficial for housing prices to be stable or go down are those who rent and first-time buyers.

It's a perversity of our system that housing is seen primarily as an investment and not shelter.
 
Tulse said:
Individual homeowners also have a stake in housing prices always increasing, because a house/condo is seen as not just a place to live, but an asset that needs to appreciate. The only folks for whom it's really beneficial for housing prices to be stable or go down are those who rent and first-time buyers.

It's a perversity of our system that housing is seen primarily as an investment and not shelter.
Click to expand...
Yep, it's an open secret that most people don't actually want house prices to go down. It's like stocks: the only people who want a crash are those not in the market.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top