They've been doing some work along Jopling this past week. Appears to be the installation of underground lines but I'm not too sure.
 
471662AB-9BBC-4198-B0AE-E5943BADF272.jpeg
C9DD9583-56E6-4889-81FF-5AD6B74D7B4E.jpeg
 
The post above is timely as it fits with a new report coming to the next EYCC asking for permission to demo prior to having any permit pending for the new build.

Don't see that very often, but it does happen now and again.....

@ProjectEnd may make note of the circumstances here if this ends up getting approved. PE loves a good precedent.


In the above report, we first learn of the reasons for the early demo request:

1683134895088.png


We also learn that:

The intent is to submit for the new building permit in summer '23

But.....construction here (on the new build) is not scheduled until Fall '24
 
That is very interesting. The SIPA rules on demolishing residential are hard fought and the City does not like to allow anything through, even if it means we must keep dilapidated fire traps everywhere. The only way I can see this happening is if the developer were engaged with the Councillor behind the scenes somehow.

I know, for example, the folks at Lifetime are pulling their hair out because the City won't let them do anything with these gems on River before they pull a permit (they are flooded, moldy, broken into, have been on fire, and are generally very much not safe). But the City, high and mighty, are basically just saying 'that's your problem, you know the rules':
changerang said:
From today
Still no demo yet but I can't imagine these are going to be standing past the summer.View attachment 385749View attachment 385750View attachment 385748
Click to expand...
 
ProjectEnd said:
That is very interesting. The SIPA rules on demolishing residential are hard fought and the City does not like to allow anything through, even if it means we must keep dilapidated fire traps everywhere. The only way I can see this happening is if the developer were engaged with the Councillor behind the scenes somehow.

I know, for example, the folks at Lifetime are pulling their hair out because the City won't let them do anything with these gems on River before they pull a permit (they are flooded, moldy, broken into, have been on fire, and are generally very much not safe). But the City, high and mighty, are basically just saying 'that's your problem, you know the rules':
Click to expand...

How would you feel about swapping out the current burdensome rules for either of:

a) No pre-construction sales (so you can only sell or rent a finished product with an occupancy permit in hand)

b) Use it or lose it zoning; a concept in which any rezoning has an expiry date. This is currently being tested in more than one jurisdiction in the U.S. Expiry at 2-5 years after approval.

Either of these arguably provides every incentive to get moving, as there would be no revenue until completion in case 1, and in case 2, any delay could see you forfeit your entitlement entirely eating millions, at the risk you might not get the same approval again.

I see merits and downsides in both, in varying degrees. I think the virtue in this specific instance is that idea of removing burdensome bureaucracy for simplicity.
 
Northern Light said:
How would you feel about swapping out the current burdensome rules for either of:

a) No pre-construction sales (so you can only sell or rent a finished product with an occupancy permit in hand)

b) Use it or lose it zoning; a concept in which any rezoning has an expiry date. This is currently being tested in more than one jurisdiction in the U.S. Expiry at 2-5 years after approval.

Either of these arguably provides every incentive to get moving, as there would be no revenue until completion in case 1, and in case 2, any delay could see you forfeit your entitlement entirely eating millions, at the risk you might not get the same approval again.

I see merits and downsides in both, in varying degrees. I think the virtue in this specific instance is that idea of removing burdensome bureaucracy for simplicity.
Click to expand...
The first one would require an entire rework of the finance system that exists for residential development. We rely on deposits for a lot of the early stage work, and banks will only lend the construction loan once you're 70% sold. Canada is either famous or notorious (depending on your perspective) for it's extremely conservative banking culture, any they're the folks you would have to convince of such a change. From their perspective though, I do understand that they want / need confidence in something before lending out $150M+ for a project. Adi, for example, need not apply.

The second one I think is doable, and, in many (most?) ways, good. It would get rid of needless zoning speculation for the purpose of value increase, but it would require Cities to take approval times far more seriously. Hopefully, it would also put in place real zoning parameters instead of our 'artificially- low-for-the-sake-of-developer-contribution' zoning though hopefully the move away from S37 to CBC is putting the nail in that coffin as well.
 
April 27
This project as well Kipling Station have to deal with Hydro One rebuilding the east transmission towers and energizes the line like the other 2 to the west. the EA Public comments close May 15. This also applies to other developments by the corridor.
52873184373_810d9d52df_b.jpg

52873184368_2f6037e41c_b.jpg

52872165622_fb8fe0bea0_b.jpg

52872165432_e0e938c919_b.jpg
52873183463_f22e85bec9_b.jpg
 
Dahek are these shown in the ground floor plan?! "Future Games/Simulator", "Future Co-work & Social Media Lounge"?!?

1687381182674.png
 
Demolition not yet begun when I flew over the site on July 4th:
1689514845569.jpeg

MCC skyline in the background is becoming more pronounced it seems with each passing day.
 
New project stats are updated in the database. The information is taken from the minor variance submission. The total storey count changed from 33, 27 storey to 38, 30 storey. The total unit count increased from 634 units to 761 units. Height changed from 109.60m & 90.40m to 124.05m & 100.15m. Finally, the total car parking was reduced from 398 car parking to 381 car parking.

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top