Skeezix
Senior Member
Agree completely. Especially if there is a good interim use other than surface parking.
Agree completely. Especially if there is a good interim use other than surface parking.
Northern Light
Superstar
Even the idea of developing this land is a deep disappointment to me. Both for reasons of heritage protection (including views) and for the reason of provision of parks/openspace.
A friend of mind sent in a suggestion to the City that this be considered as a site for parkland acquisition, seeing as development here stalled years ago.
I think it would be a great opportunity to enhance the history/architecture of the church and grounds and add a meaningful playground for kids along with more adult-friendly spaces.
A condo here is just ghastly, and parking is no more tolerable.
A friend of mind sent in a suggestion to the City that this be considered as a site for parkland acquisition, seeing as development here stalled years ago.
I think it would be a great opportunity to enhance the history/architecture of the church and grounds and add a meaningful playground for kids along with more adult-friendly spaces.
A condo here is just ghastly, and parking is no more tolerable.
The Church needs the money.
Northern Light
Superstar
I wasn't suggesting they give the land to the City for free............the City has $42,000,000 put away in reserves
for downtown park expansion/creation/improvement.
That's apart from any reasonable capital budget allocation.
***
I hasten to add that the financial state of any property owner is insufficient excuse in my mind for approving development which is not in the civic interest.
I am not advocating arbitrary seizure of property or pre-existing property rights, but I don't feel the City has any obligation to allocate NEW property/development
rights.
**
As an aside, ff one were to calculate the benefit the Church as received from its property-tax exemption over the years, I would imagine it far exceeds the current land value of that northern piece.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That's actually not a bad idea. I would go further and suggest the possibility of having the underground space for hospital purposes and leave the ground level for a public park.
AoD
AoD
junctionist
Senior Member
If it does get developed as an apartment building, the church should own it. The revenues would help to sustain the church in times of dwindling attendance.
Skeezix
Senior Member
Then the church would need to pay for it. And it would have to become a residential property manager. I don't think either are realistic.
junctionist
Senior Member
They could use their existing lands as security to get financing. There are many companies capable of delivering cost-effective property management.
khris
Senior Member
Making this a park would be awful until something is done with the crackheads in the area. They make the front of the church a mess and this would just continue to the back of the church.
Skeezix
Senior Member
The rest of their site, with limited to no redevelopment potential, is likely worth less than the portion zoned for high-res residential redevelopment. They are a church, with no expertise in property redevelopment. I doubt they'd get the financing they would need. And why would they put the church itself at risk? I've heard of churches investing in affordable, seniors and special needs housing, for obvious reasons, but I've never heard of them investing in high-end rental (which this would need to be, unless they could get subsidies). As it is, the building reverts to the Church in 50 or so years, so they will own it at some point (although there is a good likelihood they will then sell it, but time will tell). They could do a joint-venture with a developer, which I can only imagine they considered, but at that point the economics of an letting the developer run with it likely makes more sense. There is a reason churches typically sell their land or grant ground leases, and don't gamble in land redevelopment for market units. I might be missing some example, but is anyone aware of churches getting involved in condo or market rental construction (outside of affordable, seniors and special needs housing built as part of their social mission)?
Even if this site weren't already tied up by a developer, I think the church building its own 36-storey residential building is really unrealistic. I think they made the right deal.
Last edited:
thecharioteer
Senior Member
There are examples of churches selling land for development, such as the Anglican Archdiocese of St. James Cathedral selling the site that became Spire and the Basilian Brothers selling the St. Mike's lands at U of T that became U Condos. I agree churches almost never become developers outside the "social mission" sphere.
torontologist
Active Member
Dare I say.... I think there is enough parkland in this neighbourhood.
I think some affordable housing units included in this development would do more good for the community than another park.
I think some affordable housing units included in this development would do more good for the community than another park.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
St. James Cathedral didn't sell the site that became Spire. They transferred their air rights to that site. Otherwise, they would have built Spire where the church hall is. Sort of like what the Anglican cathedral in Montreal did with the office tower behind and the shopping mall below.
Skeezix
Senior Member
The charioteer is correct. It wasn't the Cathedral that sold the site kitty corner to the church that became Spire, but it was, as he said, the Diocese. It was the Anglican Diocese that owned the old surface parking lot site. The Spire proposal was moved off-site to the parking lot when the on-site proposal drew such opposition. There was then a "density transfer" from the Cathedral site to the parking lot site.
ksun
Senior Member
I don't think this particular area so close to Moss Park needs something "affordable" specifically. This is an area where gentrification is desirable. Build affordable house where it is very unaffordable.