Amenity is calculated at 4sm per unit, generally taken to be 2sm indoor and 2sm outdoor. If a site is too tight to provide it all, a proponent can give cash in lieu or work out an agreement with the city to provide something else.
 
A lot of that has to do with zoning - developers are required to build 40 square feet of amenity space for each unit. Larger developments get creative on ways to fill these spaces.
 
ksun said:
That's a legitimate concern. And I assume you are suggesting the layout of these small condos are catered to renters? I don't see that as a big problem, because renters and owners basically have the same need in terms of housing. Of course a one bedroom with 1.5 or even 2 bath is unnecessary but we don't really see too many of these units. A 2b/2b condo of 700sf may sound very crowded, but whether you are an owner or a renter, having your own bathroom is a big plus. One doesn't want to share bathroom with a stranger, as much as with his family member.

Bad layouts are bad layout and it is not unique to new condos. Many old condos have exactly the same issue. 55 Centre Ave comes into mind.

What I am more concerned about are the "amenities" - it is getting ridiculously superfluous in many cases. A reading room? A library? Movie room? Party room? Really? Not that they are bad, but they put unnecessary stress on the maintenance fees, which make condo living less attractive. Who want to pay $800 on condo fees alone, on top of mortgage, tax and utilities? And you know what's different from our condos and the European ones? These - that in Europe condo living is simply a basic way of life, while in Toronto you need to add so much to make it attractive, and families still largely stay away from them.
Click to expand...

I think that's nail on the head with regard to amenities becoming a problem. I don't have data to back up this hypothesis, but my guess is that there's a general lack of understanding of the lack of cost certainty around maintenance/amenity fees, specifically obviously the natural inflation therein. Add that to the fact that we'll have a whole raft of poorly built condos needing widespread glazing retrofits in the next 15-25 years (for which I'm sure many reserve funds aren't adequately preparing), and I think there's the potential to have a whole bunch of condo owners being faced with costs for which they haven't budgeted.
 
I don't see buildings like this being a worthwhile investment. Nor a desirable place to live if I were a student.

Ryerson (well, actually a private firm on behalf of Ryerson) is building a residence tower across Jarvis Street. (It's being built as a long-term lease, where Ryerson is the sole tenant.) Ryerson will select and have authority over the students living in that tower -- I can expect decent security and even student life activities here. Having a single owner better ensures that the property will be kept up and managed well.

A condo tower geared to students with perhaps hundreds of small-time investors renting the units out on short-term leases to university students sounds to me like a recipe for poor management and upkeep. Absentee condo owners, in my experience, are not concerned with the day-to-day management of the building that owner-occupants are. And they will elect a condo board that may or may not be competent, or be focused on keeping condo fees low rather than long-term investment. As a student, why would I want to rent here anyway? Will investors make their money on 25-year mortgages?

I just find myself skeptical about this type of development.
 
Student res is only for the first year - after that you have to live somewhere else for 3 years to finish your degree. Ryerson's new building will help its extreme lack of student residences for first years - but ultimately students need to find a new place to live - and that is what this is aiming for.

A lot of the condos in this building will also probably be purchased by the parents of wealthier students - meaning there may be a bit more interest than international investors.
 
Does anyone know what happened to the purchasers? This development was almost sold out prior to the OMB decision. With the shrinking of the floor plate, it appears the interior layouts would change to a degree that is too large under tarion... let alone the fact that all the purchasers are going to be upset that they lost their outdoor space.....
 
We need to build more buildings without the hindrances of balconies -- it will open up many more architectural possibilities. -- we just need to look at NYC and London.... some of the world's most expensive addresses have zero outdoor space.
 
Update: It looks like the property owners were able to kick out the remaining rooming house residents. The Tim Hortons closed Sunday July 24 as well and a chain link fence surrounds all the buildings on Jarvis and Dundas.

I didn't think this project got all the necessary approvals to move ahead yet!
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    2.2 MB · Views: 743
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    3 MB · Views: 737
ShonTron said:
I didn't think this project got all the necessary approvals to move ahead yet!
Click to expand...
It got zoning approval from the OMB in February, having reduced its floor plate to not encroach on the 25m separation with the Grand Hotel redevelopment to the south.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top