Aug 01
48442763616_2e3a276b2d_b.jpg

48442915637_29c1cefab7_b.jpg

48442762601_62523181b2_b.jpg

48442762341_9a9f6e46aa_b.jpg

48442761951_4ec2ffe675_b.jpg

48442914202_2b2cd702f9_b.jpg

48442912457_f578c58435_b.jpg

48442758901_89a3d5dd6d_b.jpg
 
I'm hearing conflicting reports... some are saying some of the buildings will be sold as condominiums. Does anyone know anything about this?
 
Sliver said:
I'm hearing conflicting reports... some are saying some of the buildings will be sold as condominiums. Does anyone know anything about this?
Click to expand...
The rental vs strata question was part of the zoning amendment approval, public consultation and planning process in general. There is no changing this now without significant bureaucracy. In short, the project is ~800 rental units, no condos. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't have even a basic understanding of how zoning amendments work in TO.
 
Blitz901 said:
The rental vs strata question was part of the zoning amendment approval, public consultation and planning process in general. There is no changing this now without significant bureaucracy. In short, the project is ~800 rental units, no condos. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't have even a basic understanding of how zoning amendments work in TO.
Click to expand...
Lol.

I would be very surprised if this went condo, but there is no way to secure tenure in the zoning process. Period. The city doesn’t have the regulatory ability under the planning act.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Lol.

I would be very surprised if this went condo, but there is no way to secure tenure in the zoning process. Period. The city doesn’t have the regulatory ability under the planning act.
Click to expand...
Correct, technically "tenure" isn't part of the zoning amendment but tenure is essential to the "zoning process"! Zoning Amendment approval is a pretty subjective process (on the city's side at least) and the city decides whether to support a project based on the Design Review Panel's recommendation (otherwise off to the OMB we go). This panel considers many many aspects of the project. One of which is the use of the property, or 'tenure'. At the moment the city seems to be pushing hard for more purpose built rental units (if you don't believe than go look at the new monstrosity student residence on college st.). Rental vs condo effects the opinon of the panel and this effects how hard it is to get a zoning amendment approved. Changing the property from rental to condo would be a minor variation (at the least) and when it goes back before the review panel again it would likely meet opposition (I'm sure they would feel just a little goaded in current market conditions) based on the current stance of the planning department. Otherwise, wouldn't every developer add some rental to their proposal for brownie points and than pull it after approval? Great bate a switch tactic, but even government isn't that dumb. Of course the OMB is the king maker in all this.

In short, an anology. Your teacher doesn't have to like you to give you a passing grade but it sure as hell helps.

And your arrogant lol would most loudly be had by the law firm ($$$$$$) handling this mid construction non-ammendment, amendment as the developer goes to the review panel again and again and again.

I remembered why I don't answer questions on this forum anymore. We can agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Blitz901 said:
Correct, technically "tenure" isn't part of the zoning amendment but tenure is essential to the "zoning process"! Zoning Amendment approval is a pretty subjective process (on the city's side at least) and the city decides whether to support a project based on the Design Review Panel's recommendation (otherwise off to the OMB we go). This panel considers many many aspects of the project. One of which is the use of the property, or 'tenure'. At the moment the city seems to be pushing hard for more purpose built rental units (if you don't believe than go look at the new monstrosity student residence on college st.). Rental vs condo effects the opinon of the panel and this effects how hard it is to get a zoning amendment approved. Changing the property from rental to condo would be a minor variation (at the least) and when it goes back before the review panel again it would likely meet opposition (I'm sure they would feel just a little goaded in current market conditions) based on the current stance of the planning department. Otherwise, wouldn't every developer add some rental to their proposal for brownie points and than pull it after approval? Great bate a switch tactic, but even government isn't that dumb. Of course the OMB is the king maker in all this.

In short, an anology. Your teacher doesn't have to like you to give you a passing grade but it sure as hell helps.

And your arrogant lol would most loudly be had by the law firm ($$$$$$) handling this mid construction non-ammendment, amendment as the developer goes to the review panel again and again and again.

I remembered why I don't answer questions on this forum anymore. We can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

The Design Review Panel does not consider whether units will be rental or condo. That is not within their scope at all…

…and sorry to say, you have not correctly characterized how any of this works, not generally, nor specifically in regard to why there's that huge awful student rental prison on College Street.

This is not for the sake of starting a fight nor a disagreement per se, this is just a note to let other readers know to disregard pretty much everything in that post. Others can pick at the pieces as they have time, but I have to go to bed…

42
 
interchange42 said:
The Design Review Panel does not consider whether units will be rental or condo. That is not within their scope at all…

…and sorry to say, you have not correctly characterized how any of this works, not generally, nor specifically in regard to why there's that huge awful student rental prison on College Street.

This is not for the sake of starting a fight nor a disagreement per se, this is just a note to let other readers know to disregard pretty much everything in that post. Others can pick at the pieces as they have time, but I have to go to bed…

42
Click to expand...
"The rental tenancy, street-level retail, and parking garage configuration were hailed as significant positives." This isn't the greatest reference but I found it after 2 minutes and it is just one of many instances where the DRP specifically expressed rental being a pro and obviosuly being considered in the process.

You can blindly close your eyes to the fact the DPR has priorities that may or may not be part of their official scope but they definitely consider rental in their evaluation (Maintaining existing rental units on the property is another example).

urbantoronto.ca

DRP Assesses 58-storey Rental Tower at 591 Sherbourne | UrbanToronto

The City of Toronto's Design Review Panel assessed the Medallion Corporation's proposal for a 58-storey rental tower at 591 Sherbourne Street on June 16th, 2016.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
Blitz901 said:
Correct, technically "tenure" isn't part of the zoning amendment but tenure is essential to the "zoning process"! Zoning Amendment approval is a pretty subjective process (on the city's side at least) and the city decides whether to support a project based on the Design Review Panel's recommendation (otherwise off to the OMB we go). This panel considers many many aspects of the project. One of which is the use of the property, or 'tenure'. At the moment the city seems to be pushing hard for more purpose built rental units (if you don't believe than go look at the new monstrosity student residence on college st.). Rental vs condo effects the opinon of the panel and this effects how hard it is to get a zoning amendment approved. Changing the property from rental to condo would be a minor variation (at the least) and when it goes back before the review panel again it would likely meet opposition (I'm sure they would feel just a little goaded in current market conditions) based on the current stance of the planning department. Otherwise, wouldn't every developer add some rental to their proposal for brownie points and than pull it after approval? Great bate a switch tactic, but even government isn't that dumb. Of course the OMB is the king maker in all this.

In short, an anology. Your teacher doesn't have to like you to give you a passing grade but it sure as hell helps.

And your arrogant lol would most loudly be had by the law firm ($$$$$$) handling this mid construction non-ammendment, amendment as the developer goes to the review panel again and again and again.

I remembered why I don't answer questions on this forum anymore. We can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
This is so wrong it's bordering on trolling. Why take such a hard stance that you know how these processes work when you clearly don't?

The DRP is a voluntary process applicants go through to ensure architectural design excellence. Lots of developers actually elect not to attend DRP sessions. It has nothing to do with planning matters such as tenure types. DRP members may comment on how rentals are good, and proposing a rental building certainly gains you "brownie points" with the city, but ultimately holds no status in whether a building gets approved or not, nor can the tenure type be held through to completion. It is directly because the city cannot secure the tenure that the city generally tries to avoid the consideration of it in the approvals process.

There are lots of examples of buildings getting built as rentals, and later being registered as a condo. Some rental buildings are actually registered condominiums under a single owner that operate as rentals.

Zoning is use and built form only. Full stop. No exceptions. The city cannot regulate tenure type or ownership structure. If Westbank wanted to turn this to condos, it would require 0 additional approvals beyond a plan of condominium, which the city would be legislatively required to process. No return to the DRP. Nothing.

A perfect example of this is Kingly Condos. Allied switched it from rental to condo after construction had begun, I believe. No approvals, they just went to market.

Also, maintaining existing rentals on site is a regulated item that the city has legislative authority to enforce. It's different than regulating the proposed creation of new rental units.

The only way I could see the city trying to secure rental tenure is as some sort of section 37 agreement requirement, which would be of questionable legal authority and which would be a pretty minor process to amend.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
this is so wrong it's bordering on trolling. Why take such a hard stance that you know how these processes work when you clearly don't?

The DRP is a voluntary process applicants go through to ensure architectural design excellence. Lots of developers actually elect not to attend DRP sessions. It has nothing to do with planning matters such as tenure types. DRP members may comment on how rentals are good, and proposing a rental building certainly gains you "brownie points" with the city, but ultimately holds no status in whether a building gets approved or not, nor can the tenure type be held through to completion. It is directly because the city cannot secure the tenure that the city generally tries to avoid the consideration of it in the approvals process.

There are lots of examples of buildings getting built as rentals, and later being registered as a condo. Some rental buildings are actually registered condominiums under a single owner that operate as rentals.

Zoning is use and built form only. Full stop. No exceptions. The city cannot regulate tenure type or ownership structure. If Westbank wanted to turn this to condos, it would require 0 additional approvals beyond a plan of condominium, which the city would be legislatively required to process. No return to the DRP. nothing.

A perfect example of this is Kingly Condos. Allied switched it from rental to condo after construction had begun, I believe. No approvals, they just went to market.
Click to expand...

I'm not trolling. I could also accuse you of being willfully ignorant to how the approval process actually/could work.

Anyway, I'm out. The 'troll' is tired of being targeted by an UT "employee" and "Superstar".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top