ProjectEnd said:
At the end of the day, KingSett is vending this. So they'll try and pack as many floors in as possible and let the buyer figure out what they want to construct. It's more-appealing to the vendor to have the higher count as it makes the product more enticing, even if you know it's not feasible from a construction perspective (transfer slabs and other structure, M&E, etc. will eventually cut this down).
Click to expand...
why cut the height then and keep the floor count similar? Wouldn't it be better to keep the approved zoning envelope and increase GFA?

Also, Kingsett got its zoning here a while ago. Why process a site plan application if they are vending it, especially if they expect a buyer to modify the project significantly? Getting NOAC may make it more attractive but if they expect a buyer to make significant revisions, they are going to have to apply for a site plan amendment anyway..

Honestly I'd be more surprised if Kingsett builds this than vends it, but they are going much further with this site than they typically do before vending it, and are making odd decisions that seem to be focusing on getting this built as a rental development over maximizing value in preparation of vending it in my eyes..
 
They've totally murdered the design (other than at street level) over the last revisions, so please, please, please vend it KingSett! But, you know, to someone good; this is a fairly important site. (If it were to go to Morguard, that would likely trigger a rethink of the entire block owing to how much of it Morguard own. Low possibility?)

42
 
interchange42 said:
They've totally murdered the design (other than at street level) over the last revisions, so please, please, please vend it KingSett! But, you know, to someone good; this is a fairly important site. (If it were to go to Morguard, that would likely trigger a rethink of the entire block owing to how much of it Morguard own. Low possibility?)

42
Click to expand...

Has Morguard actually built anything....................good?

I think of them as a firm that buys C- assets, holds them til they degrade to D- then trys to vend them.

That might be unfair, LOL, but it's my impression nonetheless. (I just had a look at the portfolios of all three versions of Morguard, certainly based on their GTA assets, I stand by my statement).

****

I don't know who this should be vended to; but certainly a firm that has shown an ability to understand potential, and capitalized on it would be welcome.
 
Strange Advance said:
Jeez, this has been stalled in the proposal stage for 15 years. Can anyone supply a precis on the reason?
Click to expand...

Some folks are so impatient. Like a fine wine 🍷, sometimes a project isn't ready, until it's ready... it's only 21 years old.

2001 (my personal fav!! … by TF of course)
34012-115692.jpg

UT

2008
34012-115691.jpeg

UT

2013 (vision)
urbantoronto-9304-32200.jpg

UT

aA
urbantoronto-9304-32203.jpg

UT

2014 (aA second try)
34012-115693.jpeg

UT

2015 (50 Bloor West only)
34012-115695.jpeg

UT

2018
34012-115683.jpeg

UT

2019
38425-128161.jpeg

UT

Recent (V-E)
5822-147039.jpeg

UT

Future (we finally get our Calatrava tower! ...... two of um :))

fantasy-winter-city-wallpaper-preview.jpg

Link
 
3Dementia said:
Since Allies and Morrison are now sadly saddled with "the Pemberton effect" out in Humber Bay... let's give them another shot here (it would be great).
Click to expand...

LOL, you mean this one will miss another cycle..........

At some point this falls to the owners and/or primary property managers.............this one misses every cycle, in every incarnation, despite making mediocre money in its current form.

There are ways to describe that, which I won't use here.............. LOL
 
The 2001 version is my favorite. I'd love to see that with more refinement on a larger scale.
 
Northern Light said:
LOL, you mean this one will miss another cycle..........

At some point this falls to the owners and/or primary property managers.............this one misses every cycle, in every incarnation, despite making mediocre money in its current form.

There are ways to describe that, which I won't use here.............. LOL
Click to expand...
This is true, but is not much different than a lot of what King Sett owns along Yonge Street, which has all increased dramatically (in land value) while making mediocre holding income from the improvements. The land value increase over time due to changing market conditions in Yorkville makes it easier to sit on this land. There is very little risk to it not appreciating even more before the next cycle, and if the past is any indication...appreciating by a lot.
 
Urban-Affair said:
This is true, but is not much different than a lot of what King Sett owns along Yonge Street, which has all increased dramatically (in land value) while making mediocre holding income from the improvements. The land value increase over time due to changing market conditions in Yorkville makes it easier to sit on this land. There is very little risk to it not appreciating even more before the next cycle, and if the past is any indication...appreciating by a lot.
Click to expand...

It's true, that if you go w/condos, and treat this as a divestiture, depending on whether or not you hold on to whatever retail ends up in the podium, that you will likely see even higher inflation adjusted prices in cycles to come.

Though, even then, you have to talk about all those years in which said revenue was deferred, without interest being paid, and whether or not that money could have been redeployed elsewhere to equal or greater return.

But one might also consider the deferred years of rental revenue, were that route taken; and with significant new density, and a better retail form, it's likely that revenue could be tripled per ft2 on that component without difficulty. Two decades (or more) of deferrals is a lot of money left on the table.
 
That's true, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. We were, however, seeing land values double between 2016 and approximately 2017/2018. Between 2016 and today expect a tripling to be common. I've noted sales of land in this area around $5,000-$8,000 psf when those same lands were selling around $2,500 back in 2016. The buildable rate has also doubled or tripled.

It's not really only inflation, it's scarcity of land that plays a big role in the increase in value. Inflation wasn't really a big factor when we were seeing these huge increases. Today, sure it's a bigger factor, but (likely) the most in demand location in the entire city is mostly increasing due to land use permissions and scarcity of developable lands.

At least from what I have noticed, King Sett mostly holds land, and vends when the timing is right. The costs of holding land, less holding income, isn't really much of a loss, and if the same plan can achieve double or triple, I think that offsets the loss from revenue on the day. I could be wrong, I am not a developer, and I haven't analyzed this in depth and I don't have access to King Sett's pro formas.

I should mention, I am really more focused on the market in recent years, (as a forecast of future years) since around 2016, because previous to that, I don't think you are getting the same level of achievable density in this location. This is an assumption on my part, just to be clear. It's a lesser question of marketability as well; could they have achieved absorption of all these units. Probably, but I don't know. Again, I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top