I would agree with all points but would lean on GTA population growth as being the predominant factor. There were times during the 70s, 80s and 90s where there was significant office space overcapacity, and nobody could even predict when or if there would be shovels in the ground again. I think the GTA will need to grow by 750K-1M before we see any new large office towers in the core, however might be in the form of multi use buildings. 4 floors retail & services, 20 floors office and 50+ floors of condos anyone?
 
Last edited:
rdaner said:
^^So we should freeze large amounts of real estate in the hopes of something happening in the future while ignoring current conditions and incremental, organic change? 🤞🤞🤞
Click to expand...

Whose freezing anything?

That statement doesn't make sense.

1) The City of Toronto has over 800,000 approved housing units that are not under construction. There is no shortage of approved sites for residential.

2) The City continues to approve new units at record speed.

3) The City is currently allowing office to residential conversion on a case by case basis, and has approved this in multiple projects throughout the City.

4) Yes, we do need to retain lands for employment of all kinds, because, shocker here, people need jobs, they can't pay for their housing or their food without them.

5) Fewer than 20% of workers in Canada currently work the majority of their remotely, that number will fall by early '25, likely to below 15%

6) The projections for future needs, while not precise or exact, are evidence-based, and quite reasonable, you can't just get employment land back after you've let it be developed as something else.
 
The Preservationist said:
I would agree with all points but would lean on GTA population growth as being the predominant factor. There were times during the 70s, 80s and 90s where there was significant office space overcapacity, and nobody could even predict when or if there would be shovels in the ground again. I think the GTA will need to grow by 750K-1M before we see any new large office towers in the core, however might be in the form of multi use buildings. 4 floors retail & services, 20 floors office and 50+ floors of condos anyone?
Click to expand...

Broadly, I agree.

I would point out, that Toronto grew by well over 100,000 last year (the City proper).

If that is sustained, that would suggest that your target would be hit in ~7 years, or less. If the percentage growth is sustained, then ~6 years or less.

(for the record, I rather hope population growth in the GTA slows considerably, at least for a few years, so we can catch up in housing/transit/healthcare etc.), but I digress.

****

Final note, I think that timeline could be accelerated for a couple of reasons, one is the pace at which existing office space is removed from the market. We saw just this week a proposal to remove 1 Yonge's office inventory, should that happen, and several more of comparable size, the market will tighten faster.

The other thing I would watch for is the potential for a significant new corporate presence in the GTA, pre-pandemic, there were a few biggies kicking the tires. Covid put the kibosh on that..........for a bit...........
 
Last edited:
I just received a For Sale notice for this building.

I send out mailings to brokerages for commercial real estate for lease, so in return I am now on many mailing lists.
 
small office/ home office (SOHO) is an opportunity in Toronto should prices every stabilize (hopefully more through wages than corrections)

This vacant office building and proposed development not selling would be heading in the right direction towards market health.
 
Soop said:
I just received a For Sale notice for this building.

I send out mailings to brokerages for commercial real estate for lease, so in return I am now on many mailing lists.
Click to expand...

From the above:

1722959949485.png
 
artemperederii said:
What does it mean? Any progress?
Click to expand...

It means what it says, that the site is for sale, with the zoning for development in place.

The current owners want out, and would like the cash, please and TY.

****

For further clarity, the current owners will not be proceeding w/development.

What any new owner does is entirely up to them.

They could opt to rent the office space (unlikely but an option); they could opt to proceed with a development substantially similar to the one pictured in this thread, they could opt for something of similar scale, but which might look
radically different, or they could choose to pursue something entirely different.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Cut and run... /sigh
Click to expand...
Northern Light said:
It means what it says, that the site is for sale, with the zoning for development in place.

The current owners want out, and would like the cash, please and TY.

****

For further clarity, the current owners will not be proceeding w/development.

What any new owner does is entirely up to them.

They could opt to rent the office space (unlikely but an option); they could opt to proceed with a development substantially similar to the one pictured in this thread, they could opt for something of similar scale, but which might look
radically different, or they could choose to pursue something entirely different.
Click to expand...
OG exists to entitle on behalf of other owners. They do not own and they do not build. They 'Development Manage' for a fee. Anything you see from them, sexy as it might be, is purely a zoning exercise so get attached at your own peril.
 
ProjectEnd said:
OG exists to entitle on behalf of other owners. They do not own and they do not build. They 'Development Manage' for a fee. Anything you see from them, sexy as it might be, is purely a zoning exercise so get attached at your own peril.
Click to expand...
Like I said, cut and run...

...although I am entertaining the idea of a "If they approve it, you build it!" bylaw to stop the nonsense of trolling the zoning laws for the shites and giggles. >.<
 
Entirely agree. The zoning is mostly from ‘86 anyway, isn’t it? It would be nice to have updated zoning in at least some of the growth centre areas of the city, instead of falling back to the official plan for everything and ZBLA’s. It would also provide certainty to all parties. It’s truly a win-win.
 
Reasonable upzoning conducted 10 years ago would be considered laughably underdeveloped today. As of right zoning would provide developers a targeted ceiling but, without binding maximum FSI, I don't know how long that would last. Look how many with decent as of right zoning 10 to 15 FSI are applying for more density as they wait for better times or an exit winfall setting new standards in both height and density. The affordable housing crisis has made it a righteous cause.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top