AlbertC said:
Quadreal and Menkes have acquired 55 Brownlow Ave, which is the existing 15 storey "Royalwood Apartments" building to the south of this site.

At this time, there doesn't appear to be hints of large scaled redevelopment of it. The article mentions more about fixing up the entire building and updating and modernizing the lobby.

renx.ca

QuadReal, Menkes buy Toronto apt. tower, launch VMC mixed-use

QuadReal and Menkes are continuing to expand their partnerships, paying $56.18 million for a one-acre apartment property in midtown Toronto and launching the latest elements at their Assembly Park development at the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre. Royalwood Apartments is located at 55
renx.ca renx.ca
Click to expand...

The comments don't come from Quadreal or Menkes, but rather from CBRE.

They are also quite wishy-washy in that they also have this to say:

“There’s a nice play there for future development with the adjoining properties.”

, “but based on the size of the building and the number of units for the rental replacement, it could be a long-term redevelopment site if you were to rebuild on the property.”
 
New renderings are updated in the database. The overall building height changed from 35 storeys to 45, 40 & 35 storeys. Total height changed from 121.30m to 121.00m, 135.80m, and 151.00m. Another update is total units changed from 384 units to 1161 units. Finally, the total parking space count increased from 69 parking to 217 parking.

Renderings are taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning:

Mz6TQF0ldL.jpeg


ZpaUVxOSQh.jpeg


PXfZjbTzEf.jpeg
 
Basically, they brought the existing 15-storey apartment building to the south, and will be redeveloping that property as well as part of a larger site now, replacement suites included of course.

42
 
To follow up on @Art Tsai 's update:

New link post to the application:

app.toronto.ca

Application Details

app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca

Parking Ratio: 0.16

New Site Plan:

1663178850462.png


Hold it! What is this nonsense? A tiny little alcove of ~4000ft2 between 2 towers is supposed to be a park? Under no circumstances should Parks accept that.

Have another look at the render to see how even the promo material envisions a shadowy wind tunnel:

1663179194216.png



The proposed park is that tiny, shadowed sliver of green between the single northern tower and the two to the south..............Pffft

***

While the renders do not show street trees, the landscape plans do. Tree placement is poor in my judgement, too close to the building, which limits growth potential and access to the southern light.

Trees would ideally be placed along a boulevard here, and/or mid-sidewalk on a very wide sidewalk.

Edit to add: The setback from the west (Brownlow) lot line seems to be only 1.5M; that compares to a current setback of 4M for the newly acquired rental building to be demolished:

1663180927878.png


***

Also, I'm now making note that the Separation distances on the towers are only 20M, which is below guidance for this height.

While there is flexibility on the guidelines, I can see no compelling reason to make exceptions for this mediocrity.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I'm new to the site - needed to join since my is home on the line with this development. Is there any chance the city is going to deny them the right to demolish 55 Brownlow? Can 18 Brownlow be used as an example where the existing building was left standing? What discussion points at these consultation meetings hold sway with the decision makers?
 
T.O.Skater said:
I'm new to the site - needed to join since my is home on the line with this development. Is there any chance the city is going to deny them the right to demolish 55 Brownlow? Can 18 Brownlow be used as an example where the existing building was left standing? What discussion points at these consultation meetings hold sway with the decision makers?
Click to expand...
The end result here may differ from the current proposal to some degree, but there are no heritage registered buildings on Brownlow, so the City has no negotiating power in that regard and could not deny demolition permits, sorry. 55 Brownlow represents a lot of embodied carbon, so not knocking it down would be a plus for the environment, and there are concerns around that of course, but the driving force behind development these days is the need to create more housing in the city, so a proposal that meets that need will win out in this policy framework over one that preserves the embodied carbon. Moreover, as the entirety of this street is within a couple hundred metres of a rapid transit station, it's in an area where the Province has mandated that the City must accept densification; even though many people live in 55 Brownlow already, in this scheme the property supports many more people.

So, consider this a reality check: you should be directing your energy into finding a new place to live, or if you want to fight this on a policy level, then get involved in provinicial politics with a party that would reverse course in that regard (but it wouldn't be any of the major parties…) You might find this all tough to swallow, but this is the way things are going at the moment.

42
 
I thought I was safe from all the housing market BS, guess not! I'll take a day to cry in my beer, and then start planning a move. And will help in the fight to make as many renter-friendly changes to this development as possible! (along with figuring out a $1000 a month pay increase, just to stay even financially)

Thanks for the response.
 
T.O.Skater said:
I thought I was safe from all the housing market BS, guess not! I'll take a day to cry in my beer, and then start planning a move. And will help in the fight to make as many renter-friendly changes to this development as possible! (along with figuring out a $1000 a month pay increase, just to stay even financially)

Thanks for the response.
Click to expand...

@interchange42 is entirely accurate.

But I'll add just a bit to his response.

1) This development is not imminent, even if it sailed through the planning process you have more than a year before anything happens. Likely longer.

2) The developer *under current rules* is required to replace your rental unit within the new development at a comparable rent (essentially your current rent + inflation) and give you the right of return. Typically, your replacement unit would come with comparable amenities to the condos (air conditioning, en suite laundry etc.) at no additional charge.

However, you will have to have moved off-site during construction and that could be a 3-5 year period.

3) There are requirements around assistance with relocation, including financial supports, you would need to see the details of those; as they aren't a blank check to relocate to any unit at any price on the developer's dime.

4) You'll be given lots of notice of any need to move and/or compensation

* None of the above means you shouldn't start looking early to maximize your chance to get the right unit for you.

* There are concerns that changes proposed by the province might strike down the rental replacement rules currently in place and this would be a good issue to be active on.

*****

While, as '42' notes, there is virtually no scenario in which the existing building is retained in-situ; or the proposed development is derailed entirely, it's certainly possible to raise some legitimate concerns that may also have the effect of delaying the development some.

The posts above and subsequent here at UT will be a good way to familiarize yourself with Planning issues that may be at play.

ie. the proposed Parkland is absurd and should not be accepted by the City; should the City refuse that proposal, the developer will have to reconsider their design and meet their parkland obligations in another way.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
@interchange42 is entirely accurate.

But I'll add just a bit to his response.

1) This development is not imminent, even if it sailed through the planning process you have more than a year before anything happens. Likely longer.

2) The developer *under current rules* is required to replace your rental unit within the new development at a comparable rent (essentially your current rent + inflation) and give you the right of return. Typically, your replacement unit would come with comparable amenities to the condos (air conditioning, en suite laundry etc.) at no additional charge.

However, you will have to have moved off-site during construction and that could be a 3-5 year period.

3) There are requirements around assistance with relocation, including financial supports, you would need to see the details of those; as they aren't a blank check to relocate to any unit at any price on the developer's dime.

4) You'll be given lots of notice of any need to move and/or compensation

* None of the above means you shouldn't start looking early to maximize your chance to get the right unit for you.

* There are concerns that changes proposed by the province might strike down the rental replacement rules currently in place and this would be a good issue to be active on.

*****

While, as '42' notes, there is virtually no scenario in which the existing building is retained in-situ; or the proposed development is derailed entirely, it's certainly possible to raise some legitimate concerns that may also have the effect of delaying the development some.

The posts above and subsequent here at UT will be a good way to familiarize yourself with Planning issues that may be at play.

ie. the proposed Parkland is absurd and should not be accepted by the City; should the City refuse that proposal, the developer will have to reconsider their design and meet their parkland obligations in another way.
Click to expand...
Off-topically: I just think we should live in a society where displacement is an inconvenience as opposed to something dire and homeless generating. Where intervention makes the transition as painless as possible for the renters and residents most directly effected and involved here...

...I get though that we're dealing government that thinks everyone should be all left on their own to deal with it. Which makes us not much that different from our neighbouring jurisdiction below us that we're so willing to bash, IMO.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Off-topically: I just think we should live in a society where displacement is an inconvenience as opposed to something dire and homeless generating. Where intervention makes the transition as painless as possible for the renters and residents most directly effected and involved here..
Click to expand...

100% agreed.

UtakataNoAnnex said:
..I get though that we're dealing government that thinks everyone should be all left on their own to deal with it. Which makes us not much that different from our neighbouring jurisdiction below us that we're so willing to bash, IMO.
Click to expand...

The above is not typical of how these things work.

A fairly standard package the City arrives at would look something like

- 6 months notice minimum
- you're welcome to relocate on your own
- a moving allowance may be provided
- you have the right of return for comparable rent
- typically relocation assistance is available (the builder or an agency they hire will help you find somewhere comparable);
- for vulnerable tenants and or those for whom comparable rent can't be found, the difference in cost is often picked by the builder for the term of construction (if you choose not to move back, you would have to pay market rent where you moved to)

Not every package is equally generous; though the right of return and ample notice are a feature of virtually all of them, as per the law.

That's certainly not to suggest we could not or should not do better; but the typical scenario isn't one of 'abandoning' tenants to the wilds of the market.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top