Yep, expropriation on behalf of private interests shouldn't be taken that lightly - and I am not sure if this case can even be justified along the YDS line.

AoD
 
I said it shouldn't be done. I didn't say it hasn't been done. 10 Dundas is a prime example. Look how it turned out. It isn't a comparable situation to someone wanting a taller One Bloor or another Foster quality tower beside it. Development is also booming. It wasn't in the mid 1990s.

sunnyraytoronto said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
buildup said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the H&M building's lack of any design but, I am a fan of it standing alone presence and that it's not part of a podium of a larger development I'm not bothered if someone holds out on being assembled creating a situation where their property is too small to be developed as a tower. It may look odd but that also defines Toronto's character.
 
And generally, when a property is "sterilized" by adjacent developments, the owner of said property has already come into an agreement with the developers adjacent to them that provides their support and understanding that their property's development potential is limited.

Residences at the RCMI had to enter such an agreement with the Zurich building in order to allow for construction of the condo. Zurich now cannot develop the bit of land adjacent to the tower as a result of the agreement.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Residences at the RCMI had to enter such an agreement with the Zurich building in order to allow for construction of the condo. Zurich now cannot develop the bit of land adjacent to the tower as a result of the agreement.
Click to expand...

Was there a financial settlement involved? I can't imagine why the owners of the Zurich building would agree to something like that unless there was a nice pay-out for it.
 
steveve said:
One thing I haven't been able to decipher going through the last few posts on this thread: is it a given that Mizrahi has nothing to do with this acquisition?
Click to expand...

It's not a given but, Mizrahi isn't a multi-billionaire either. He couldn't afford assembling the One Bloor development site without given up most of its equity in the process. That's just how expensive Toronto's real estate has become. It makes more sense to me for him to continue building those 10 to 15 storey condos.
 
maestro said:
It's not a given but, Mizrahi isn't a multi-billionaire either. He couldn't afford assembling the One Bloor development site without given up most of its equity in the process. That's just how expensive Toronto's real estate has become. It makes more sense to me for him to continue building those 10 to 15 storey condos.
Click to expand...

If we are talking about Mizrahi, the acquisition of the properties along Bloor Street (H+M and Scotiabank) would have been much more convenient had they occurred years prior, when Mizrahi was still assembling his properties, and while this was very much in the early planning stages (it was rumoured that he was unable to acquire the site(s) in question).
To my impression, it seems like this is too far down the line for a significant design overhaul to occur for this to be integrated into the final project, which I believe would have been an extension of the 8 storey retail podium along Bloor to Balmuto. Since Mizrahi submitted the (close enough to final) plans months ago, anything else would delay the project further.
 
I'm still waiting for the ridiculous 2018 retail portion opening date. His project on Davenport/Hazelton (Hakim Optical building), is also delayed.
 
steveve said:
If we are talking about Mizrahi, the acquisition of the properties along Bloor Street (H+M and Scotiabank) would have been much more convenient had they occurred years prior, when Mizrahi was still assembling his properties, and while this was very much in the early planning stages (it was rumoured that he was unable to acquire the site(s) in question).
To my impression, it seems like this is too far down the line for a significant design overhaul to occur for this to be integrated into the final project, which I believe would have been an extension of the 8 storey retail podium along Bloor to Balmuto. Since Mizrahi submitted the (close enough to final) plans months ago, anything else would delay the project further.
Click to expand...

That too. To repeat, he borrowed most of the money to assemble the One Bloor. He needs to concentrate on completing the development now. He's well positioned to build more Foster designs and become a major developer if he pulls if off. On the flip side, He may be joining Harry Stinson in Hamilton if he doesn't.
 
A company named Mappro Realty Inc with an address in Antwerp, Belgium was listed as the purchaser on the Realnet Listing

Capture.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top