Meta to @interchange42 and @Paclo ...is there anyway you can flag these projects as zoning exercises or fake/vapour proposals on the Database, or even in the Map (I was thinking hot pink markers)? So that way we readers don't get out hopes up every time certain developers put up sexed up proposals that are never going to happen. It would help us to move on to proposals that are actually happening, instead wasting our time with the glossed over fantasies that's not really aimed at us. Thank you in advance!
 
Last edited:
Amare said:
It is indeed way too nice for Toronto.

That's why it will never be built and this is all fantasy land stuff.
Click to expand...
There's nothing "nice" about that elevator ratio. No matter how pretty the design might have been, the daily experience of living here would be poor if this building was built according to these specs.

This won't get built because of weak demand over the next few years and because KS isn't a builder--nothing to do with hypothetical cladding choices and much less fake marketing renders.
 
isaidso said:
Gorgeous but it does seem WAY too nice for Toronto. It's more in line with design standards in Australian cities.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I thought lol. This is the type of podium I’m used to seeing when I do my photography in Melbourne, Brisbane or Sydney, could only wish to see this on Yonge
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Meta to @interchange42 and @Paclo ...is there anyway you can flag these projects as zoning exercises or fake/vapour proposals on the Database, or even in the Map (I was thinking hot pink markers)? So that way we readers don't get out hopes up every time certain developers put up sexed up proposals that are never going to happen. It would help us to move on to proposals that are actually happening, instead wasting our time with the glossed over fantasies that's not really aimed at us. Thank you in advance!
Click to expand...
The short answer is no, unfortunately. There is no systematic flag we can apply to distinguish between "real" and "fake" projects. Mainly because intent is difficult to prove, building is hard, and upzone+flip is always a viable business model. Even in cases where the developers pinky promise they will build something, often they do not or can not build in the form promised. We can use heuristics but those cannot be methodically applied. Things to look for include the proponent's M.O., having a designated Builder attached, Site Plan Approval submissions, understanding market viability, etc.

@ProjectEnd often warns folks here to not get too attached to anything, especially the larger or flashier ones. In general, I think that is good advice for those prone to disappointment. Especially in the current market.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Meta to @interchange42 and @Paclo ...is there anyway you can flag these projects as zoning exercises or fake/vapour proposals on the Database, or even in the Map (I was thinking hot pink markers)? So that way we readers don't get out hopes up every time certain developers put up sexed up proposals that are never going to happen. It would help us to move on to proposals that are actually happening, instead wasting our time with the glossed over fantasies that's not really aimed at us. Thank you in advance!
Click to expand...
I would add the the Forum is for capturing this kind of information. Where the Database Files are suited for quick access to facts, this is where we talk turkey about the projects. That doesn't mean that everyone in the Forum catches everything, or agrees with all bits of analysis, but the discussion here remains the best way to tease out the implications of what we are presented with.

42
 
Paclo said:
The short answer is no, unfortunately. There is no systematic flag we can apply to distinguish between "real" and "fake" projects. Mainly because intent is difficult to prove, building is hard, and upzone+flip is always a viable business model. Even in cases where the developers pinky promise they will build something, often they do not or can not build in the form promised. We can use heuristics but those cannot be methodically applied. Things to look for include the proponent's M.O., having a designated Builder attached, Site Plan Approval submissions, understanding market viability, etc.

@ProjectEnd often warns folks here to not get too attached to anything, especially the larger or flashier ones. In general, I think that is good advice for those prone to disappointment. Especially in the current market.
Click to expand...
Anyone can feel free to tag me in a post and I'll likely be able to let you know if it's real or vaporware.

(This one: VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE!)
 
ProjectEnd said:
Anyone can feel free to tag me in a post and I'll likely be able to let you know if it's real or vaporware.

(This one: VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE!)
Click to expand...
Then you have been volunteered as our baloney detector on the matter. Hope we don't become too bothersome in flagging you about this. >.<

....and thank to @Paclo and @interchange42 who gracefully replied to my inquiry, even if I didn't like the answer. Least we know now where to stand and what to do with these fanciful vapour proposals in the future.
 
giphy.webp
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Meta to @interchange42 and @Paclo ...is there anyway you can flag these projects as zoning exercises or fake/vapour proposals on the Database, or even in the Map (I was thinking hot pink markers)? So that way we readers don't get out hopes up every time certain developers put up sexed up proposals that are never going to happen. It would help us to move on to proposals that are actually happening, instead wasting our time with the glossed over fantasies that's not really aimed at us. Thank you in advance!
Click to expand...

A proposal is an idea; a concept. Shouldn't get too real about any renderings that are newly posted on the application info centre. Intent to build is pre-selling, pre-leasing or, the obvious, breaking ground.
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
A proposal is an idea; a concept. Shouldn't get too real about any renderings that are newly posted on the application info centre. Intent to build is pre-selling, pre-leasing or, the obvious, breaking ground.
Click to expand...
I think the conversation here isn't so much about whether or not it's a 'concept', but whether this 'concept' has any bearing in reality to KingSett beyond asset value. To me 'concept' is a term which best-describes things like fantasy grad school projects or anime cities, etc. This isn't that. It is real, in the sense that it has been drawn and legally filed. But it's more of a legal fiction: a representation of something that could be. Eg. KS [perhaps rightly] just inflating their portfolio value [which they have a fiduciary responsibility to do].
 
ProjectEnd said:
I think the conversation here isn't so much about whether or not it's a 'concept', but whether this 'concept' has any bearing in reality to KingSett beyond asset value. To me 'concept' is a term which best-describes things like fantasy grad school projects or anime cities, etc. This isn't that. It is real, in the sense that it has been drawn and legally filed. But it's more of a legal fiction: a representation of something that could be. Eg. KS [perhaps rightly] just inflating their portfolio value [which they have a fiduciary responsibility to do].
Click to expand...
I think you could apply the term "concept" here as something closer to the way it's used for cars. A concept car can be anything between a never-gonna-be-built design study, or something that's essentially a production model with some fancy trim. Depends who's concept car it is, some manufacturers are better on making things that are closer to production than others. And much like with building renders, it's best to never get your hopes up on concept cars.

To further the metaphor, KingSett is basically Subaru. Makes beautiful concepts that look plausible, and then what they give you instead is a rebadged Toyota (i.e. not what you expected, and made by someone else, but maybe some of the general shapes are there if you squint hard enough).
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
What is the most ambitious/flashy proposal in the city that has a good chance of actually being built?
Click to expand...

What's your time period? 2025 starts aren't going to be very exciting within the 416. Maybe something with a hotel component (Freed Hotel and Residences?) since hotel profits are reasonable again.

Forma West, the taller building, has a strong chance of starting by 2030. I think it's one of very few proposals that will be able to sell $2500/sqft units, provided they execute the cladding on the east building well. It should attract international press and deep-pocket buyers even in a slow market.

Waterfront projects also still get a trickle of sales. Future phases of Sugar Wharf, Pinnacle, Quay Side, etc. will likely happen at some point but possibly 1 building at a time. A lot of the high-pace was funded by speculation investors who had generally done well but prices for new-builds are now well above resale value.
 
Last edited:
Honestly we shouldn't be taking any proposals seriously until construction is well underway. That's my motto.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top