NY99 said:
why couldn’t a prospective owner build up 5-6 more floors?
Click to expand...

Separation Distances and lack of profitability I would suggest.

Lets look at the image for the development that is the subject of this thread:

1627058719603.png


Note that it wraps the entire building, and has facing windows across the top level of McVeigh's.
The building (McVeigh's) is only about 10M wide; at that level, you would expect separation on the order of 11M...........but even if you got approval for a bit less, there'd be nothing buildable left.

You could, in theory, increase the building height with no windows on the west or south facings; but even then, the City is not going to allow a blank wall with zero separation up against someone's window.
The long side of the building is only 14M.

I just don't see much money to be made in going up, IF you could get something approved that was buildable, which I doubt.
I don't know if the existing building has an elevator, but you would be required to have those in a taller property today, which take up material floor space on a very small footprint.

****

Curiously, one obstacle I might have expected was that the building might be heritage protected, but, in fact, it isn't even 'listed' let alone designated.
 
Northern Light said:
You could, in theory, increase the building height with no windows on the west or south facings; but even then, the City is not going to allow a blank wall with zero separation up against someone's window.
Click to expand...

If that’s the case, then why would the city approve this development in the first place?

This city is growing like crazy, and we’re in the midst of a housing crisis. Creative uses of land will become increasingly necessary in order to continue to intensify. It’s kind of outrageous that the design of one building has the ability to render a neighbouring property permanently un-redevelopable. That isn’t right, and isn’t consistent with good city-building.

if Madison group wants to ensure their building doesn’t get hemmed in by a windowless brick wall, they should buy the McVeighs building. If they don’t, redevelopment should be fair game.
 
Last edited:
NY99 said:
If that’s the case, then why would the city approve this development in the first place?

This city is growing like crazy, and we’re in the midst of a housing crisis. Creative uses of land will become increasingly necessary in order to continue to intensify. It’s kind of outrageous that the design of one building has the ability to render a neighbouring property permanently un-redevelopable. That isn’t right, and isn’t consistent with good city-building.

if Madison group wants to ensure their building doesn’t get hemmed in by a windowless brick wall, they should buy the McVeighs building. If they don’t, redevelopment should be fair game.
Click to expand...
If a company owns all the land around you, and offers to buy you out as part of a greater assembly, and you refuse to sell… then the owner of the land around you has every right to propose a redevelopment to the City on the land that they have been able to acquire.

The owners of McVeigh's would have been well aware that by not selling, their property would be 'sterilized' in regards to redevelopment: the City only accepts tall buildings that are particular distances away from others, and with McVeigh's only being a small lot, there was no way that the City would have allowed development on that sole property.

So, the McVeigh's owners held out, and now their land is only worth a fraction of what it would have been as part of an assembly.

Of course, the Madison Group could still decide to put the brakes on 'Alias', make another play for this property, and then redesign Alias to take better advantage of the expanded site, but it would really have to be worth it to them returns-wise as they will have already spent piles on the planning for Alias.

42
 
www.toronto.ca

New Park at 114 Church Street

A new park is coming to 114 Church St.! Project Timeline May 2021: Hire a design team May to September 2021: Design development September 2021 to Spring 2022: Detailed design Spring 2026: Hire a construction team Summer 2026: Construction starts Winter 2027: Construction complete, park opens The...
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca


New Park at 114 Church Street​

Project Timeline​

  • May 2021: Hire a design team
  • May to September 2021: Design development
  • September 2021 to Spring 2022: Detailed design
  • Spring 2026: Hire a construction team
  • Summer 2026: Construction starts
  • Winter 2027: Construction complete, park opens
The timeline is subject to change.

As part of a new condominium development at 114 Church St., a new 198m2 municipal park will be created. The City is coordinating with the developer and their landscape architect on the design of the new park and the developer will be leading the construction.

As part of the development, a public art component will be integrated into the park design. Due to the small size of the park, the public art will be the central feature. The park will also include seating and a water fountain.


alias.jpg
alias2.jpg
 
AlbertC said:
www.toronto.ca

New Park at 114 Church Street

A new park is coming to 114 Church St.! Project Timeline May 2021: Hire a design team May to September 2021: Design development September 2021 to Spring 2022: Detailed design Spring 2026: Hire a construction team Summer 2026: Construction starts Winter 2027: Construction complete, park opens The...
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca


New Park at 114 Church Street​

Project Timeline​

  • May 2021: Hire a design team
  • May to September 2021: Design development
  • September 2021 to Spring 2022: Detailed design
  • Spring 2026: Hire a construction team
  • Summer 2026: Construction starts
  • Winter 2027: Construction complete, park opens
The timeline is subject to change.

As part of a new condominium development at 114 Church St., a new 198m2 municipal park will be created. The City is coordinating with the developer and their landscape architect on the design of the new park and the developer will be leading the construction.

As part of the development, a public art component will be integrated into the park design. Due to the small size of the park, the public art will be the central feature. The park will also include seating and a water fountain.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to laugh but some of these parkland dedications on their own, seem rather sad. "Park" is a not what this conjures in my mind. Backyard, or maybe parkette. Is this one of these situations where off-site parkland dedication, in combination with other sites, might result in more benefits for the community at large instead? Do developers prefer on-site parks given it is a marketable attribute they can then try to pretend is for buyers alone? Maybe that's unfair, but I am a bit dismayed when these little 'parks' pop up. I get the financial crunch of the city, but these are hardly an escape from what is and will be a very busy and trafficked area.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top