I mean this project is 90% done at this point ? What would a realistic outcome be, it gets sold and converted to condos ? Surely it's not going to just sit empty or be demolished ?

Less than zero chance of the bolded outcome.

Unlikely it would be converted to condos either.

First we have to see if Westbank comes out the other side of any issues, if it does, then things are 'as you were'.

If it does not, the logical choice would be selling to a REIT, given the significant commercial component, you would likely see a buyer who has experience with that.
 
Absolutely - there are several things that could ultimately contribute to the unfortunate failure of a project. I was more so speaking broadly, when you're making those decisions to design a "cool" building, there is added risk for schedule and cost implications, and when you layer in added macro challenges like the current rising interest rates, that just amplifies those risks. At the end of the day, the bank doesn't care that your project is X months late BUT it has crazy design features. If they call your loan and you don't have the cash to play ball, that's a "you" problem.

I don't think this project is particularly complex or daring.

Other than some micro retail; the most unusual component is simply the extent of the heritage restoration.

As noted above by @citylights there is a reasonable likelihood issues here are not project specific.

Rather than pre-judging all that, however, perhaps we should await the facts, I can't imagine they'll be long in coming.
 
I don't think this project is particularly complex or daring.

Other than some micro retail; the most unusual component is simply the extent of the heritage restoration.

As noted above by @citylights there is a reasonable likelihood issues here are not project specific.

Rather than pre-judging all that, however, perhaps we should await the facts, I can't imagine they'll be long in coming.
Agreed. However, I would argue this is an ambitious/daring project given the scale of it due to the fact that this project is 100% rental AND a significant portion of heavily discounted affordable units. The amount of equity required for this project would be so significant, even with the RCFI financing they received. No purchaser deposits to help offset equity requirements, they very likely had to provide even more equity injections given the cost overruns due to delays and interest rate hikes.

There is so much more behind the scenes that can make a project “complex”, beyond any architecturally significant / engineering feats.

Let’s see what happens…
 
I have not followed this thread at all.
Looking north up Bathurst from 2,000 ft
Dundas St - Western hospital at the bottom.
Saturday October 28
_N8A2397.jpeg
 
A sea of wasted opportunity.

I think that's rather overstated.

Many of those are nice homes, densely packed together, on walkable, tree-lined streets. I would not give that up for Tokyo; period, full-stop.

Sure, the main streets could use some intensification in spots , frankly, we could use more greenspace in spots too.

But calling it all a waste is just rather over the top.
 
Densely packed, walkable, and you need well over a million bucks to get into 90% of the homes in that photo. Which is why fewer people live in the area shown in that photo now than 50 years ago.

Actually that's not true, nor is block-busting going to change it.

Average family size, throughout the western world (and much of the developed world) has dropped like a stone.

1699135687028.png


That line has continued its downward trajectory since 2011.

If all other things were equal, every neighbourhood in Toronto would have seen a reduction in population of (assuming the same number of dwelling units) of about 15% over the last 50 years. But if you look at the number when most of these homes were built, the fall would be more precipitous.

That decline correlates to women having fewer children; even back in 1983 the number had declined to 1.68 children per woman, that number has since declined to 1.48. Replacement rate (the number of children per woman required to hold the population steady is 2.1)

This corresponds to 2 phenomenon, one is the advent of birth control (yay!) the other is the labour participation rate of women (also broadly a good thing, but it will affect family size).

On the latter, see the charts:

1699136166681.png


Even today we see that families with young children have the mother at home fully 20% of the time.

One other notable phenomenon is the rise of post-secondary attainment in general, but particularly for women, as this has pushed off the age of marriage and child bearing which limits the potential for larger families.

Which, by the way, I'm fine with, and I am in no way arguing against women's education or participation in the labour market; I am merely showing the clear correlation, between that and family size. PS, I think the population shrinking is a great idea, and we should do that everywhere, a world with 1/2 as many humans, over time, (naturally) would be great. It would lead to lots of affordable housing too! But I digress.

Yes, money is a barrier to entry in the housing market, but families buying cheaper homes, in cheaper places are also making fewer babies and having smaller household sizes; though, doubtless, Toronto's extreme prices may make that choice that much more difficult.

But time is as big a factor as money in family size.

Money is also a factor in terms of wages, which in entry level professions have declined markedly (adjusted for inflation) over the last few decades.

*****

Now, we can agree housing prices are too high relative to wages, and some combination of driving down the former and driving up the latter is desirable.

Here's your problem, so long as we keep spiking the population through different channels, we're driving up demand, which drives up price, and no developer will ever sell or rent to you for less than the market will bear.

Nor are the going to buy 1.5M homes, knock them down, build new and give you a a better price per comparable unit.

Yes, they may build more units, though not enough to keep up w/demand in the current circumstances; but even if they did, the cost of demolishing all those buildings, and reconstructing them is considerable and developers aren't doing this at-cost, they expect to make healthy profit.

You might see the average price per unit decline, but only if a 2,000ft2 home becomes a 500ft2 1 bedroom condo. How many children are we having in that home?

If you want 2 children, these days, you want each to have their own bedroom. You probably want 2 full bathrooms as well. Even if you cram that into 1,000ft2, you're looking at the same price per unit as the current house, or very close to it.

*****

The problem is not that we need to wipe out all SFH in favour of multi-unit living, (keep in mind I live in a rental apartment) ; that simply does nothing but further reduce family size and enrich developers.

Lets also note, those existing homes already have secondary suites in many cases and some have laneway suites as well.

****

You want more affordable housing, first, stop growing demand; second, raise entry-level through median wages, by ~60% to ~ 30% respectively.

Third, stomp short-term rentals out of existence and eliminate house-flipping.

Fourth, build dedicated rent-geared to income housing for lower income families.

****

You want larger family sizes, reduce the work week to 35 hours (but increase hourly earning accordingly); and mandate 4 weeks paid vacation. In combination with more affordable housing and higher entry level wages, you'll likely get your wish.
 
Last edited:
In speaking with someone who works at the company, Ellis Don vacated the bathurst site, this was roughly two months ago, I'm not sure if things have changed.

In passing by earlier today, all of Ellis Don’s signage has been removed and replaced with Icon West Construction signs (which is Westbank’s internal CM).

Now, of course there’s a million possible reasons for this change — maybe they were always meant to take over at this stage.

IMG_1876.jpeg
 
The population in this area is absolutely lower than it was in 1971 and continues to shrink. It’s a consistent pattern across Toronto’s house neighborhoods, especially the wealthier ones.

During the time that Mirvish Village has been under construction, four neighbourhoods around it – Annex, Harbord Village, Palmerston, Seaton Village – have lost more people than will live in the new building.

Jens von Bergman’s Mountain Maps site has interactive maps with the census data

1971-2016
2016-2021
6A4FBFD3-FDDA-4992-9951-6D03BBDBF082.png


B7910F5F-728D-45AB-9EAE-DB6925EF7A23.jpeg
 
Last edited:
All of this is not surprising. Aside from more kids per family, another big change since the 60s is the fact that multiple families used to live in one home, particularly in places like Little Italy and the Danforth. You see it now in places in Brampton and Mississauga where multiple families live in a single family suburban home. This is just not the norm anymore in most parts of Toronto. In fact, people have to come up with fancy new terms for it - "co-living" or "co-owning."

And as someone who used to live and work in the Annex twenty years ago - the neighbourhood definitely feels emptier.
 
The population in this area is absolutely lower than it was in 1971 and continues to shrink. It’s a consistent pattern across Toronto’s house neighborhoods, especially the wealthier ones.

During the time that Mirvish Village has been under construction, four neighbourhoods around it – Annex, Harbord Village, Palmerston, Seaton Village – have lost more people than will live in the new building.

Jens von Bergman’s Mountain Maps site has interactive maps with the census data

1971-2016
2016-2021
View attachment 517968

View attachment 517967

Sure; but that's not a function of the housing form of low density, that's lifestyle and family size change.

The answer is not to wreck everything that's there and build something most people would view as inferior, particularly when that will not reduce the cost of housing, or homelessness by one iota and would be profoundly destructive environmentally.

The answer is to stop bringing in a slave-labour class of Temporary Foreign Workers and nominal foreign students most of whom aren't really studying, but are instead filling jobs at Tim Horton's, for absurdly low wages; while driving up the price and scarcity of housing.

For clarity there is nothing wrong with bringing in 300,000 economic-class immigrants every year, nor with accepting a few thousand refugees, or with attracting the best and brightest students around the world.

The answer to our problem is not to advocate wrecking existing areas in order to build 'investor boxes' that will be rented out to the slave labour class; such an argument is frankly immoral and unethical.

Pay people a living wage, outlaw all short-term rentals, stop flooding the region w/more people than we can possibly house, outlaw pre-construction condo sales (which will cause a spike in purpose-built rentals and higher quality housing units) and build rent-geared to income housing for those whose incomes never did and never will support housing in the private market as they depend in whole or in significant part on government benefits.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top