[DSCToronto]

It's likely a condo corporation so they only need approval from 80% of unit-holders to buy the whole complex, so 8 of the 10 units here. It's rare for condos to get bought out but it does happen. And yes, the developer likely offered well above FMV for what any one of the units would have sold for individually.

Under the Condo Act, if a condo corporation is dissolved and sells out, the funds received are distributed to Owners in the same %ages as the common element fees are distributed. Seems the only feasible way to proceed but it does mean that if there are two Units who each own the same % both will get the same sum - even if one Unit has had expensive renos while the other hasn't.

 

[Koops65]

 

[condovo]

Those townhouses were built sometime between 1998 and '99. I remember them under construction. It's mind-boggling that something so new is being replaced already.

 

[cd concept]

Those townhouses were built sometime between 1998 and '99. I remember them under construction. It's mind-boggling that something so new is being replaced already.

I've noticed that, it would be nice keep front part of these facades. And build the tower in the middle of the parcel of land between streets. Which is becoming the norm in this area. Keeping the status quo of the street front image while adding density on the top.

 

[rbt]

Under the Condo Act, if a condo corporation is dissolved and sells out, the funds received are distributed to Owners in the same %ages as the common element fees are distributed. Seems the only feasible way to proceed but it does mean that if there are two Units who each own the same % both will get the same sum - even if one Unit has had expensive renos while the other hasn't.

While true for the offer the condo corporation receives, the developer can sweeten the deal on the side to ensure they get sufficient votes in favour.

 

[DSCToronto]

While true for the offer the condo corporation receives, the developer can sweeten the deal on the side to ensure they get sufficient votes in favour.

Yes, of course.

 

[jaborandi]

This was always a cheap looking development featuring fake "antiqued" brick not to mention the lack of accessibility.

 

[Northern Light]

This is a separate project from the proposal for the parking lot right next to it?

While I can't confirm that; I believe based on what I'm seeing that is an accurate assumption.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The site looks tiny. Let's see how this plays out.

 

[Northern Light]

The site looks tiny. Let's see how this plays out.

If the site were just the townhomes it would be ~10,000ft2 which is on the small side.

But I believe it also includes the low rise apartment to the north (3s) as noted above.

Assuming that is the case, the site is a very health size at nearly 20,000ft2

 

[Blovertis]

This was always a cheap looking development featuring fake "antiqued" brick not to mention the lack of accessibility.

Agree. Those towns should neve have been built at that corner. What were planners smoking in the 90s?

 

[Undead]

Agree. Those towns should neve have been built at that corner. What were planners smoking in the 90s?

Let's not forget that market conditions back then wouldn't have justified very high density here, there, everywhere. Things weren't always like the abnormal situation post 2010.

edit: and it's not like it's the planners' fault. They simply review and comment on whatever the proponent submits. They can't magically alter the proponent's pro forma.

Again, it's whatever was the most profitable for the proponent given then current market conditions.

A point tower on a 10,000 sq.ft. lot likely wasn't profitable back then. Hell, it's not really viable even to this day in most areas.

 

[interchange42]

This is a separate project from the proposal for the parking lot right next to it?

Yes, the one right next to it… is right next to it.

42

 

[Northern Light]

Let's not forget that market conditions back then wouldn't have justified very high density here, there, everywhere. Things weren't always like the abnormal situation post 2010.

edit: and it's not like it's the planners' fault. They simply review and comment on whatever the proponent submits. They can't magically alter the proponent's pro forma.

Again, it's whatever was the most profitable for the proponent given then current market conditions.

A point tower on a 10,000 sq.ft. lot likely wasn't profitable back then. Hell, it's not really viable even to this day in most areas.

I essentially agree w/the thrust of this............

I don't really take issue w/the scale of the development, given the time at which it was proposed.

That said, the blank wall facing Jarvis is absolutely atrocious and should not have been permitted at the time.

It may have technically passed under the planning rules of the day, but surely didn't meet their spirit, in that respect, even then.

 

[Northern Light]

@Téana and @interchange42 have a Front Page Story up on this development, which can be found here:

Originate Shares 58-Storey Concept for Jarvis and Earl | UrbanToronto

Originate Developments Inc has shared a concept design for a Kirkor Architects-designed 58-storey, 690-unit mostly residential project located at Earl Place and Jarvis Street in Toronto's Upper Jarvis area. It would feature retail opportunities at its base.

urbantoronto.ca

The story confirms the inclusion of the low-rise apartment to the north of the townhomes, as I earlier suggested.