[Northern Light]

3171 Eglinton seems cursed, unfortunately. Same building had an external wall collapse back in 2015: https://laingchronicles.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/housing-units-wall-collapses-3171-eglinton-ave-e/

Not to take us too far off topic here; but you being a historian of such things........

Could you explain the construction technique choices evidenced in your photos there. I'm looking at both the underlying cinder block with what appears to a row of regular brick every so often as a 'base' exterior wall; but then the white brick appears not to have been laid right up against that base, when I zoom in a the roof line, I see what appears to be an uninsulated cavity between white brick and the interior wall. Was this is a common building method when this went up?

I'm actually not clear on what the brick was attached to......

 

[lewiswood]

...any documentation or LINKS to back that up, @lewiswood ..?

The City did BID on the site in APRIL 2022 -- and was outbid.

Spending $50+ MILLION of limited City-funds on this site in 2023 would be a huge waste - when they could be acquiring actual apartment buildings and units with those dollars via MURA program, rather than buying an empty-lot for future development that is encumbered with a "Heritage Building"...

Toronto's Multi-Unit Residential Acquisition program seeks submissions from non-profit housing providers – Beach Metro Community News

By AMARACHI AMADIKE, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter The City of Toronto has launched its second annual request for proposals for the Multi-Unit

beachmetro.com

Nothing in writing I'm afraid. Chris Moise said it at one of his town halls - a friend played a recording of it to me, I'll see if I can get hold of a copy. My assumption is that either it will turn up somewhere in the public minutes for the relevant committee or that it will be one of those "commercially confidential" redacted items that we'll only be able to get detail of via an FOI after any deal has closed.

Edit to add:

Agenda Item History 2023.EX9.3

Agenda Item History 2023.EX9.3

secure.toronto.ca

I expect that the confidential attachment noted will have the details.

 

[lewiswood]

The Bridge has some limited extra information and context:

https://thebridgenews.ca/does-the-city-still-have-an-eye-on-214-230-sherbourne/

 

[AlbertC]

Advocates seek commitment from Chow as developer looks to sell prime downtown Toronto site to the city

Housing advocates gathered outside Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow’s office Thursday afternoon to demand that she meet with them to discuss the city’s commitment to purchasing a prime development site in the downtown east neighbourhood.

www.cp24.com

 

[Northern Light]

Advocates seek commitment from Chow as developer looks to sell prime downtown Toronto site to the city

Housing advocates gathered outside Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow’s office Thursday afternoon to demand that she meet with them to discuss the city’s commitment to purchasing a prime development site in the downtown east neighbourhood.

www.cp24.com

From the above:

@HousingNowTO will have thoughts.

Others may too!

 

[HousingNowTO]

From the above:

View attachment 535394

@HousingNowTO will have thoughts.

Others may too!

We had a long thread of "thoughts" on the 230Fightback expropriation request in 2022 -- not much has changed since then.

"If our City has 50-60 MILLION dollars of limited government funds available to spend on new Affordable Housing in Downtown East - Where else could they spend smarter, instead of buying an Empty-Lot encumbered by a heritage building in 2024..?"

The 230Fightback campaign is demanding some very expensive "symbolism" -- that won't actually build a single unit of new affordable housing on the site.

https://x.com/HousingNowTO/status/1500894033928937474

 

[Northern Light]

We had a long thread of "thoughts" on the 230Fightback expropriation request in 2022 -- not much has changed since then.

"If our City has 50-60 MILLION dollars of limited government funds available to spend on new Affordable Housing in Downtown East - Where else could they spend smarter, instead of buying an Empty-Lot encumbered by a heritage building in 2024..?"

The 230Fightback campaign is demanding some very expensive "symbolism" -- that won't actually build a single unit of new affordable housing on the site.

https://x.com/HousingNowTO/status/1500894033928937474

Do we have confirmation on that price?

***

I do think redeveloping Dan Harrison is a legitimate housing priority, whether building a portion of the replacement housing so close is necessary or the best use of funds is a fair question, and one I think is dependent on the price.

 

[caltrane74]

Better ways to spend that money. That's just the cost of the land, then you need to build there as well. That's just insane.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

Do we have confirmation on that price?

$53m

 

[Northern Light]

$53m

Ty Chester!

So with Kingsett saying they'll sell for what they paid, plus reasonable costs (ie. the planning related material); 55M-60M is on point.

Ya know, that's under 100k in land costs per unit in the Kingsett proposal. That's not terrible.

 

[lewiswood]

A bit from Doug Fisher's blog - not sure of the original source - https://cabbagetownreview.blogspot.com/ :

This points back to the original between the lines reading of Chris Moise's comments about expropriation being an option. It's unclear to me what the full basis of pricing for such an expropriation would be but I do know that "highest and best use" is the bar. I also doubt that Kingsett would just hand it over without a fight if they thought they weren't getting a good price.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...but it's KingSett though. They where probably planning on selling it anyway.

 

[Dr. Snoot]

A bit from Doug Fisher's blog - not sure of the original source - https://cabbagetownreview.blogspot.com/ :
View attachment 550238

This points back to the original between the lines reading of Chris Moise's comments about expropriation being an option. It's unclear to me what the full basis of pricing for such an expropriation would be but I do know that "highest and best use" is the bar. I also doubt that Kingsett would just hand it over without a fight if they thought they weren't getting a good price.

I don't think governments should be shy to expropriate property when it's truly necessary to an important public project. Building a highway, subway, hospital, assembling a large park, especially where many properties need to be taken.

But there's no reason why this specific site at this specific time needs to be expropriated. The optics are certainly terrible.

I think the City should stick to its guns and tell 230Fightback it is going to look elsewhere for better value.

Certainly, I don't think its a good idea for the government to expropriate private property at the urging of a single advocacy group.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't think governments should be shy to expropriate property when it's truly necessary to an important public project. Building a highway, subway, hospital, assembling a large park, especially where many properties need to be taken.

But there's no reason why this specific site at this specific time needs to be expropriated. The optics are certainly terrible.

I think the City should stick to its guns and tell 230Fightback it is going to look elsewhere for better value.

Certainly, I don't think its a good idea for the government to expropriate private property at the urging of a single advocacy group.

I would broadly agree with you; duly noting that the City could have taken this by expropriation from its previous, neglectful owners, long before any bidding/zoning processes at a considerably cheaper price.......

However, I would add, there is a second impetus here, other than a whiny advocacy group, and that is the pending redevelopment of Dan Harrison TCHC, and the need to have somewhere to relocate those residents. The advantage of an already assembled site with roughly appropriate zoning is not immaterial, even though it will likely come with a premium.

That's not to say this is the right choice here, but I do get why its on the table.

 

[UrbanAffair]

A bit from Doug Fisher's blog - not sure of the original source - https://cabbagetownreview.blogspot.com/ :
View attachment 550238

This points back to the original between the lines reading of Chris Moise's comments about expropriation being an option. It's unclear to me what the full basis of pricing for such an expropriation would be but I do know that "highest and best use" is the bar. I also doubt that Kingsett would just hand it over without a fight if they thought they weren't getting a good price.

Friendly neighbourhood appraiser here...The previous sale adjusted for market conditions between the sale date and the present date, would be a start, and would be given significant weight in an appraisal. The price paid has baked in some anticipation of probable use (redevelopment) and anticipation of the potential density achievable. The utility is irrelevant, though can be a consideration. The land use permissions under the OP are what really drive the price. If this is mixed use, a planner will certainly have a sense of the potential density. The rate paid per sq ft of lot is where i personally would look at this point, not being a planner myself, and not knowing what has been built recently nearby and the density that the site might get based on precedent, or planning rationale.

So, the expropriation being based on the market value, would probably not help the city in any way other than to force the transfer at that same price point.