News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
20,805
Reaction score
23,847
City:
Toronto
These are existing condos north of Parkside Village at the corner of Confederation. Amacon Development plans to buy them and tear them down. The new site will be taller than the tallest in Parkside Village.
 
That is this pair of buildings:

1621903407304.png


Full frontal on 330:

1621903466955.png


And 350:

1621903515884.png


These are the property lines as shown by Mississauga's mapping program:

1621903738207.png


Land area:

1621903826777.png


That's 1.6ha
 
Last edited:
How does this work from a legal perspective? Did their board hold a vote and got a majority/supermajority from owners permitting the sale?
 
You need 80% of units to approve a full sale IIRC. From what I remember there have only been something like 2-3 condos that have sold ever in Ontario. This would be by far the largest if indeed has sold.
 
That is this pair of buildings:

View attachment 322277

Full frontal on 330:

View attachment 322278

And 350:

View attachment 322279

These are the property lines as shown by Mississauga's mapping program:

View attachment 322280

Land area:

View attachment 322281

That's 1.6ha
There will be a change to the property line as Sq One Dr extension is to line up with Elora Dr. That intersection is to become a traffic circle/roundabout. Sq One Dr extension is between the sites
 
It's unethical to tear down something so large, so recent, with that much embodied energy in it. Surely an intensification of the site could happen without a teardown, this is classic tower-in-the-park after all, and even with an extension of Square One Drive westwards, I can see two potential point tower sites—in the northeast and southwest corners.

42
 
^Agreed, and honestly if this is true I dont get the economics of this. Why not build a tower by the existing green lot in the property line, and another potentially by the cul-de-sac?

All of this just seems shortsighted and to be frank, stupid and wasteful.
 
It's unethical to tear down something so large, so recent, with that much embodied energy in it. Surely an intensification of the site could happen without a teardown, this is classic tower-in-the-park after all, and even with an extension of Square One Drive westwards, I can see two potential point tower sites—in the northeast and southwest corners.

42
^Agreed, and honestly if this is true I dont get the economics of this. Why not build a tower by the existing green lot in the property line, and another potentially by the cul-de-sac?

All of this just seems shortsighted and to be frank, stupid and wasteful.

So I gave the site a quick once over, just back-of-the-envelope.

My perception is as follows:

There is insufficient room to intensify if you follow the most likely and logical road alignment, and adhere to 25 separation distances, on the existing site.

However, without spending gobs of money; I believe the road connection could be made slightly unorthodox with some changes north of Rathburn.

In so doing, it would free up a site that is sufficiently large to leave the existing towers in tact.

1621970182303.png


Lines in Black represent the realigned and connected road,

Red represents the consolidated development site.

I believe (with very rough calculations) you could get a ~13000ft2 floor plate next to Rathburn and ~11000ft 2 towards opposite end of the property.

****

Either existing building could be extended, but not in a cost-effective way with the road linkage taken into consideration.

* very crude calculations on my part.
 
Whoa. Is there something wrong with the buildings or is the condo corp in bad shape? There's gotta be something aside from Amacon's offer to incentivize a wholesale selling of all the units in both buildings.
 
Just doubling down on @Northern Light's last post, but with a different perspective. Couldnt a high-rise and mid-rise component work just as well on site?

For example (a rough-sketch):
1621974938552.png


So in red, a high-rise tower with a seperate mid-rise building in blue. Im not sure how tower seperation distances come into play with high-rise vs mid-rise developments, but heck I know it would probably be more profitable than razing 2 towers and redeveloping them.
 
Just doubling down on @Northern Light's last post, but with a different perspective. Couldnt a high-rise and mid-rise component work just as well on site?

For example (a rough-sketch):
View attachment 322580

So in red, a high-rise tower with a seperate mid-rise building in blue. Im not sure how tower seperation distances come into play with high-rise vs mid-rise developments, but heck I know it would probably be more profitable than razing 2 towers and redeveloping them.

This is Mississauga, and I haven't looked up their guidelines........

But Toronto's generally aim for 20M on buildings under 20 storeys.........(so 5M less than the Tall Buildings requirement)

Though, this depends on the exact configuration.

1621975592980.png


1621975618625.png


Taken from the Performance Standards for Midrise Buildings at this link: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...formance-Standards-for-Mid-Rise-Buildings.pdf
 
Here's the built form standards for city centre: https://www.mississauga.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/10090708/Downtown-Built-Form-Standards.pdf

On page 41 it says required 30 meters between highrise towers.

As for midrise or podiums buildings must have a minimum of a 3 story facade facing the street and be right up to the property line... all spacing is dependant on the ROW.

If there were intensification on the property it would be on square one dr extension and it would have to comply with that ^^.

I don't think anyone who made these plans ever thought there would be intensification or even a whole demolition like this in city centre
 

Back
Top