http://homesandcondosblog.com/home/development-at-1-yonge-moves-forward-6724.html

DEVELOPMENT AT 1 YONGE MOVES FORWARD

26 MARCH 2012


When a huge plot of land is severed at a high profile address, you know people will take interest! A few months ago, we reported that the owners at the Toronto Star had appealed to the City to allow them to split the parking lot north of their building, allowing them to use the land for development.

The City had refused the application; however the owners did not agree with their decision, and took the City to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to resolve the issue. In a decision dated March 2, board member Helen Jackson agreed with the owners, and allowed the separation of the lot to move forward.
Now that the application has been approved, and the development and sale of the north lot at 1 Yonge St. will soon commence, it’s time to do the fun thing — speculate! We know nothing at this point, except that the land is best suited for a great condominium development.

The site is massive, and one of the last plots of land of its kind in the downtown core. There is not much residential in the area, the site is right on the lake, and there are no views to worry about obstructing. Is it unfair to suggest that the ever-speculated 100-storey “supertall” tower is appropriate for the site? Don’t forget that 54 Lakeshore Ave., home to the LCBO, is also on the market, and will be the site of another impressive waterfront development.
 
Imagining the potential supertall, starchitect-designed towers for these remaining large downtown sites is fun, but they could realistically up as massive boxes occupying a lot of land and resulting in monocultural streetscapes. At least with multiple sites coming onto the market at more or less the same time, land prices might be slightly lower and development competition higher, encouraging better architecture.
 
Travis said:
http://homesandcondosblog.com/home/development-at-1-yonge-moves-forward-6724.html

DEVELOPMENT AT 1 YONGE MOVES FORWARD

26 MARCH 2012


When a huge plot of land is severed at a high profile address, you know people will take interest! A few months ago, we reported that the owners at the Toronto Star had appealed to the City to allow them to split the parking lot north of their building, allowing them to use the land for development.

The City had refused the application; however the owners did not agree with their decision, and took the City to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to resolve the issue. .
Click to expand...


Does anyone know the basis for the city's refusal to grant the severance? It seems rather arbitrary - without knowing the facts.
 
From the decision:

The Applicant intends to construct a new parking garage within the building to accommodate the building’s parking needs, and to sever the northerly portion of the property to create a future development parcel. The Committee of Adjustment refused the consent application on the basis that it did not satisfy the requirements of subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.
Click to expand...

The Applicant has submitted a Site Plan with the City for approval to modify the building by demolishing a one storey structure along the northern extent of the building and constructing parking facilities that are integral to the building within the eastern portion of the building. The footprint of the building will not change, with the exception of the removal of the one storey structure.
Click to expand...

The City has responded by indicating that this proposal will result in excess of parking and suggests that the northerly portion of the property be severed. The examiners’ notice provided in Exhibit 6 indicates that the proposal will comply if the surface parking lot is severed. If the severance is not granted, then the site will have a large excess of parking spots as required in the by-law and would require a variance.
Click to expand...

Mr. Lewinberg noted that City planning staff supported this severance, however City planning staff and technical services staff requested that conditions be attached to the approval. The conditions relate to an agreement to convey lands to the City for the new lot, and for environmental investigations to be conducted of the lands to be conveyed.

Upon questioning by the Board, Mr. Lewinberg provided further clarification of the City’s request for conveyed lands. These lands are to provide a wider right of way for the road. Mr. Lewinberg testified that the in-force Official Plan of 2006 requires a certain right of way width for the road, whereas the new Waterfront Official Plan requires a larger right of way width. The Waterfront Official Plan has been accepted by Council, but is not yet in-force.
Click to expand...

As testified by Mr. Lewinberg, the conditions put forward in Exhibit 7 for this subdivision meet the right of way widths required by the in-force Official Plan but are not sufficient to meet the right of way requirements for the not yet in-force Waterfront Official Plan. Mr. Lewinberg further testified that should the City require the right of way widths outlined by the Waterfront Official Plan, the City can make that request at the time that either of these properties is to be redeveloped. The Board is satisfied that this is an appropriate approach.
Click to expand...

So it was the City itself that requested that the parking lot be severed, but then refused to allow the severance unless part of the lot was given to the City.
 
Last edited:
Yes but it's not as if it was some money grab by the city, they simply wanted a wider right of way to fit with planning. Looks like they'll just take it from whomever buys the plot. Probably in a trade-off for density.
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
Yes but it's not as if it was some money grab by the city, they simply wanted a wider right of way to fit with planning. Looks like they'll just take it from whomever buys the plot. Probably in a trade-off for density.
Click to expand...

Seems like such a waste of time to involve the OMB when it should have been resolved through negotiation with the city in the first place. Like you said, a trade off of land for density makes great sense. Instead the OMB is brought in again.
 
Interesting tweet by @buzzbuzzhome this past weekend.....

Oh baby. We just heard some juicy news regarding The Star's building at 1 Yonge.
Click to expand...

no idea what he means!!
 
So this is about the actual Star building, not the severed lot to its north which is rumoured to be the location of a massive development, possibly the Synergy condo project?

I am guessing that it will be either renovated and reclad, possibly with additional floors added, or else demolished and something MUCH taller built on the site.
 
From what I near it has sold to a developer with deep pockets. I'm sure they are planning something pretty big.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top