JayBee said:
What do you think is the better project?

St. Nicolas or Five?

Has Core ever done a highrise before? They usually do the smaller loft style buildings.
Click to expand...

I would say Nicholas is a better location, though more boxed in by the surrounding buildings. But it sits on a nice quiet street right near Yonge and bloor. I also wasn't crazy about the floor plans at Nicholas and it is more expensive. Five was nice value if you got in early and St.Joseph street is just fine. Definately the building and facilities are more spectacular at Five.
 
myfive said:
I would say Nicholas is a better location, though more boxed in by the surrounding buildings. But it sits on a nice quiet street right near Yonge and bloor. I also wasn't crazy about the floor plans at Nicholas and it is more expensive. Five was nice value if you got in early and St.Joseph street is just fine. Definately the building and facilities are more spectacular at Five.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, I like Core's work, but this building for whatever reason just doesn't do it for me. Wasn't impressed by the finishes at the sales center either.
 
androiduk said:
This project has an application in to add 6 more storeys bringing it to 35.
Click to expand...

A fellow in the audience at the 519 Community Centre re: the Church & Gloucester project did a presentation and he announced this back on June 17th. I wonder who his "in" is that he knew so far in advance?
 
Urban Capital Property Group, the developer, will appear before the Committee of Adjustment at 2:30 p.m. today, in Committee Room 1 at City Hall, to seek permission to add the six storeys to the building (one is below-ground, for extra parking).

Some residents in the area are angered by the latest turn of events.

"This thing has upset people more than the original application in many ways, because it's so surreptitious," said Hy Rosenberg, a criminal lawyer who practises out of the 1870s-era red brick Victorian row house he owns at 61 St. Nicholas St. "It's a clever, nasty way to circumvent all the process for these things."

Ila Bossons, a former Toronto councillor who lives on Summerhill Avenue, has written the committee asking they refuse the six storeys, arguing, "The site-specific bylaw was a carefully considered compromise. It should be left as is."

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion...holas+Street/3383264/story.html#ixzz0wIRSZN92
 
I'm with Ila Bossons and and the residents on this one. This was a hard-fought battle when the 29-storey decision was originally made, and the committee of adjustment should recognize the earlier approval as the maximum that will be allowed here. 29 storeys is already higher than any abutting buildings, so the developers should be happy with that. I'd rather see the residents knock a few storeys off this one as a punitive measure against a deep-pockets developer who obviously is hoping to wear down the locals. That won't happen of course, but I have little but contempt for a developer who only has contempt for the earlier decision too.

42
 
Why would you assume that this developer has "deep pockets"?

Is every condominium developer in Toronto rich?
 
I can see why the residents are angered. There was a meeting and compromise about the height and then later, the developer applies to have several additional floors added. I would be pissed off as well. How about when you agree to something that you actually honor it and not try and undermine and sneak something in later when everyone has finished shaking hands.
 
BMyers--find me a developer living in public housing or even a rental and I'll be convinced they aren't all rich. Most builders live in tacky mcmansions in Woodbridge, Thornhill, Mississauga, Forest Hill etc. BJL apparently lives in a Tip Top lofts penthouse--and doesn't that Mr Context dude live in his "free" condo on Brunswick, and Freed in Freedville? I highly doubt any developer--even TAS design build which appears to be struggling--is living below the poverty line.
 
I was at the Committee Hearing to oppose the application.

What was really interesting was the fact that another developer before us also asked for a "minor variance", the addition of 2 floors where a site specific by-law had been passed in the last year or so. The Committee commented that they are seeing more and more of such "minor variance" applications after a specific site by-law was recently approved and that they getting increasingly uncomfortable about this practice of developers comming back and asking for "more" after the bylaw approval. They gave this developer a pass and approved the variance because (1) it wasn't opposed; (2) it had the support of the councillor (3) it was a much larger development. I don't recall the name but I think the development was 2 towers, 40+ storeys (near lakeshore or the railroad tracks). The result was 2% increase in overall floor space (if I recall).

Clearly developers are using the "minor variance" strategy to circumvent the planning process. The National Post Article illustrates what a farce the planning process has become. The developer of the St. Nicholas Condos tried to sell the reporter a unit on the 33rd floor! Before the minor variance application was even heard! They just assumed it was going to be approved.

Also this developer is targeting investors. They are actively promoting "free assignments". It is this type of behavior that has encouraged the bubble market mentality.
 
They gave this developer a pass and approved the variance because (1) it wasn't opposed; (2) it had the support of the councillor (3) it was a much larger development. I don't recall the name but I think the development was 2 towers, 40+ storeys (near lakeshore or the railroad tracks). The result was 2% increase in overall floor space (if I recall).
Click to expand...

that might have been the Ice condos?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top