ADRM
Senior Member
The City should not do that.
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
The City should not do that.
Downtown Toronto
Active Member
LOL, you obviously have no clue how real estate ownership works (especially on this scale and location), or perhaps you think the owner of that building is a "Joe Shmo". The owners of the H&M building know exactly what they are doing, a quick search into the city records shows exactly who they are, how much property they own and/or have developed. I'll leave it at that.
buildup
Senior Member
The more I think about it, the more I think they should.
buildup
Senior Member
The only way you could be completely certain they know what they are doing, is to actually know what they are doing. So genius. What are they doing?
LUVIT!
Senior Member
Hmmm, I believe property rights are one of our constitutional rights.
Downtown Toronto
Active Member
I am not at liberty to discuss who the owners are or what they are doing, you can have a Realtor pull that info up if you really are that interested. Thanks for the "genius" comment though, much appreciated amigo.
buildup
Senior Member
Hmmmm. Profound.
Developers always seek height exemptions (whatever the term) to build tall. If this owner is ultimately left with a sliver because others have built around him, his request should be refused.
Unless it's in the Constitution.
ADRM
Senior Member
The amount of time you dedicate to thinking about that concept doesn't materially affect how bonkers an idea it is.
maestro
Senior Member
The more you think about it?!? Holy Cow!
What you are saying is the city forcing an owner to sell for the purpose of building another privately built, market condo tower!
Can we all bring the temperature down a bit again? Thanks.
42
42
maestro
Senior Member
I'll try. It's hard as a property owner myself. I don't want to be forced to sell by my elected representatives for private development. Developers also already have a good time in Toronto. It gets even crazier to suggest blocking a future redevelopment scheme that meets all the zoning criteria out of spite for not selling. Where are the ethics in those trains of thoughts.
Does the possibility still exist that the owner of H&M just purchased the Scotia building? Only in Toronto would a stand alone, multi-floor retail building be seen with such contempt.
Does the possibility still exist that the owner of H&M just purchased the Scotia building? Only in Toronto would a stand alone, multi-floor retail building be seen with such contempt.
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
Actually no. Not in the constitution.
buildup
Senior Member
Im referring to many examples of holdouts. I suspect the building at the NW corner of Bay & Gerrard is one. Eventually the parcel beside them got developed and they were surrounded. They could not get approval to build a point tower there at this point.
Are you a fan of the H&M building?
TransitBart
Senior Member
In Canada, they are not actually.
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
Post Spadina-Expressway,.... the City of Toronto expropriate as a last resort and only if it's in the "community best interest" and its done after a long process full of city reports and City Council / Community Council approvals. In NorthYorkCentre, we've seen the City expropriate private houses for extension of North York service roads of Beecroft Road and Doris Ave. But at the same time the City won't expropriate a private house for the creation of Maplehurst Park (Sheppard-Willowdale Ave area) - instead that park is built in a "U-shape" around that private house!
There's obviously lots of rules with regards to expropriation of private property
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e26
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=325ae9d747471410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
That said, can the City expropriate this H&M property for a private developer? The answer should be NO,... but there are cases where the City of Toronto has in fact expropriated private land for,.... a developer! From Yonge and Bloor,.... just look down the street to Yonge & Dundas! Here's the case study:
"Let me start by giving you a brief overview. In the mid-1990s, the intersection of Yonge and Dundas was looking pretty tacky. The Eaton Centre held down the southwest corner, but the other corners were occupied by discount stores, electronics shops, fast food restaurants, currency exchanges, and the like. There were panhandlers and drug dealers around. This wasn’t to the liking of the posher local businesses, who came up with a re-generation plan. Led by the Eaton Centre, they proposed putting an “urban entertainment centre” – with a multi-screen cinema – on the northeast corner, and a public square on the southeast corner."
"The city signed on to the plan in 1996, and announced its intention to acquire ten properties, six of them on the northeast corner. But there was a problem – the owners weren’t interested in selling. So the city decided to take their land. There was a 38-day hearing into the proposed expropriation in 1998. It approved the plan. The city then expropriated the properties, and sold the assembled land on the northeast corner to a private developer. Ten years later, the new multiplex, shops, restaurants, and offices finally opened."
https://environment.probeinternational.org/2013/05/14/expropriation-gone-awry-a-case-study/
Do read the above case study on expropriation at Yonge & Dundas,... it's very interesting and informative.