EBT said:
It scares the heck out of me to see projects like this being proposed. Tearing down a perfectly fine 9 story apartment building is not something that should be allowed or celebrated. No doubt many of the residents in this building are long term tenants paying affordable rents thanks to rent control. I live not very far away in a similar size apartment of the same vintage. It terrifies me to think that a similar proposal could be made for my building. I have lived in my apartment for about 25 years and thanks to rent controls my current rent is about $600 less than what the building is charging new tenants.
Click to expand...
Developers must replace the existing units with units of similar size and the same number of bedrooms, and those who have to move during the redevelopment phase get first crack at moving back into their "replacement unit" which will remain at the same rent (+ inflation) typically for at least 2 decades. That's not to say that there's not the massive inconvenience of a move during the redevelopment time, and then another one several years later when the new building is finished, but the compensation is a big unit with all the latest everything in the new building after the whole rigamarole is over with. (The developers typically assist in finding tenants units during the interim, and cover higher rents if applicable.)

So, yes, there's the major inconvenience of displacement for a time, but it's not an all-is-lost situation either. You may end up with a great unit in a building that also has fun new amenity spaces.

42
 

Community Consultation Meeting for 135 Isabella Street​


Tuesday, September 12, 2023 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM
(UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

This is the community consultation meeting for 135 Isabella Street
6 p.m. - Introductions
6:10 - City Planning Presentation
6:25 - Applicant Presentation
6:40 - Discussion and Questions

toronto.webex.com

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com toronto.webex.com
 
Last edited:
February resubmission with the following changes:
  • Height increased from 234.97 to 236.17m
  • Total residential units increased from 770 to 814 (734 condo, 80 rental replacement)
  • Vehicular parking decreased from 32 to 23
  • Bicycle parking increased from 857 to 906
  • Underground levels reduced from 2 to 1
No new renderings.
 
Paclo said:
February resubmission with the following changes:
  • Height increased from 234.97 to 236.17m
  • Total residential units increased from 770 to 814 (834 condo, 80 rental replacement)
  • Vehicular parking decreased from 32 to 23
  • Bicycle parking increased from 857 to 906
  • Underground levels reduced from 2 to 1
No new renderings.
Click to expand...

A bit more detail from the Planning Letter:

1708714754353.png

1708714786258.png


1708714824881.png

1708714885401.png


* Excellent that we got rid of that dumb 'park' !!!

Amended Site Plan:

1708715005341.png


From the BDPQ presentation to staff:

1708715281034.png
 
Well I guess it should come as no surprise to anyone that a "developer" with the word "capital" in their name might not be in the business of building actual homes. I'm more curious about how architects feel about designing buildings purely for rezoning exercises, knowing that their work will likely never see the light of day. Yes, they still get paid, but it can't be particularly satisfying work.
 
wmedia said:
Well I guess it should come as no surprise to anyone that a "developer" with the word "capital" in their name might not be in the business of building actual homes. I'm more curious about how architects feel about designing buildings purely for rezoning exercises, knowing that their work will likely never see the light of day. Yes, they still get paid, but it can't be particularly satisfying work.
Click to expand...
I am sure BDP Quadrangle is doing just fine cashing the cheques from a reliable, reputable repeat client. And it is not developers' fault that rezoning is necessary, nor that it takes so much time or creates so much value. Those are symptoms of a broken land use system, navigation of which requires extensive skill and cost. A rezoning is an important step on the path to creating housing. Without it, the housing does not happen.
 
We can talk about the broken planning system but, not for a 69 storey tower with 22 times lot coverage. Those specs aren't typical of as of right zoning. In most situations, those are well above the maximums allowed with all bonusing included. This is a product of investors buying and selling to each other at higher and higher prices as highlighted with $1600 a square foot average area pricing. What has allowed this has been left intentionally broken.
 
EBT said:
It scares the heck out of me to see projects like this being proposed. Tearing down a perfectly fine 9 story apartment building is not something that should be allowed or celebrated. No doubt many of the residents in this building are long term tenants paying affordable rents thanks to rent control. I live not very far away in a similar size apartment of the same vintage. It terrifies me to think that a similar proposal could be made for my building. I have lived in my apartment for about 25 years and thanks to rent controls my current rent is about $600 less than what the building is charging new tenants.
Click to expand...
I know zero about "rent control", but like, how is that fair that one set of tenants gets to pay $600 less than the "new tenants"?
We are all facing the same world with inflation and increased costs on just about everything. Why should it be the case that younger people have to face increased financial pressures and the older generation continues to benefit because they were born earlier and started renting earlier?
If the "new tenants" are getting a renovated suite, fine I guess. If it's essentially the same suite though, well wth is with this world.
 
Why should someone who may have lived here for years be kicked to the curb because KingSett deduced there's money to be made rent seeking the current cottage industry of zoning approvals? An owner never has to deal with this since they control their property, but renters are just ever-second-class-citizens who don't deserve any rights, protections, or, dare I say, privileges?
 
ProjectEnd said:
Why should someone who may have lived here for years be kicked to the curb because KingSett deduced there's money to be made rent seeking the current cottage industry of zoning approvals? An owner never has to deal with this since they control their property, but renters are just ever-second-class-citizens who don't deserve any rights, protections, or, dare I say, privileges?
Click to expand...
Besides the brand new unit they will be offered at the same rent for a protected period of at least 10 years, and the rent gap payments they will receive during construction, and other incentives?

Personally, if I was paying low rents for an old unit I would love the opportunity to get a unit of roughly the same size that is brand new for the next 10 years at my old low rent. If I don't move out, it's protected for 20.

Pretty sure that makes them a first-class citizen at developers' (and then, ultimately new buyers) expense.
 
DF416604 said:
Besides the brand new unit they will be offered at the same rent for a protected period of at least 10 years, and the rent gap payments they will receive during construction, and other incentives?

Personally, if I was paying low rents for an old unit I would love the opportunity to get a unit of roughly the same size that is brand new for the next 10 years at my old low rent. If I don't move out, it's protected for 20.

Pretty sure that makes them a first-class citizen at developers' (and then, ultimately new buyers) expense.
Click to expand...
Good.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top