[maestro]

But, in Pemberton's limp defense, it's not as though BIG and Westbank / Allied are being given an easier ride on King Street. If you're still going to get the same milk-toast response from Planning, why bother trying to do something exceptional?

The main problem here is cramming way too much density on the property and that planners aren't able to toss this one out on the onset. That ability could greatly reduce the litigation that ties up proposals and could give a developer a better idea on overpaying for development sites.

 

[interchange42]

The original proposals were tossed out on the onset, and the City did negotiate this down in size. Maybe not as much as they wanted to, but the density and massing is now approved, and it's just the details of the exterior plan that are up for site plan approval.

That said, we have a front page story up now which may fill you in on more info about the SPA. Give it a read!

42

 

[ProjectEnd]

As noted above, the issues at this site are many, and materially exceed the design ambition or material pallet.

The public shouldn't accept absurd crap because the developer over paid by 1/2.

So you know what this site traded for? I do.

You also then know the breakdown of the land cost vs. the approved, allowable / buildable cost? Care to share your figures?

 

[Northern Light]

So you know what this site traded for? I do.

You also then know the breakdown of the land cost vs. the approved, allowable / buildable cost? Care to share your figures?

Wasn't it 70M? It was discussed on this site and Urban Nation along time ago.

It was widely discussed at the time that this price would precipitate exceedingly high density requests.

 

[slicecom]

Wasn't it 70M? It was discussed on this site and Urban Nation along time ago.

It was widely discussed at the time that this price would precipitate exceedingly high density requests.

I think it was $75M with the Siesta Nouveaux building added in IIRC.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Just over 70, yes. But since the site is so large, that only breaks down to +/- $574 a foot, not outrageous. Whoever bought the site was always going to push for as much as possible but it is indeed unfortunate that this hulking mass is what resulted. There are many ways to deploy density on a site, this being one of the most unfortunate.

I apologize for my snippy tone earlier but I'm merely commenting on the fact that assessment and valuation are not based purely on what the land itself is worth, but what one thinks they can get there. For example, the land cost for Cresford's 385 Yonge purchase was +/- $3,700 a foot which is unreal. However, in the context of Quadrangle's now-abandoned proposal, the cost drops to +/- $127.50 a foot which really isn't bad at all. My point is that to simply say that x party payed y too much for a site ignores the enormous amount of work it takes to appraise and bid on it.

I just wish that after all that work, the resulting edifice is something we can all be proud of...

 

[Northern Light]

Just over 70, yes. But since the site is so large, that only breaks down to +/- $574 a foot, not outrageous. Whoever bought the site was always going to push for as much as possible but it is indeed unfortunate that this hulking mass is what resulted. There are many ways to deploy density on a site, this being one of the most unfortunate.

I apologize for my snippy tone earlier but I'm merely commenting on the fact that assessment and valuation are not based purely on what the land itself is worth, but what one thinks they can get there. For example, the land cost for Cresford's 385 Yonge purchase was +/- $3,700 a foot which is unreal. However, in the context of Quadrangle's now-abandoned proposal, the cost drops to +/- $127.50 a foot which really isn't bad at all. My point is that to simply say that x party payed y too much for a site ignores the enormous amount of work it takes to appraise and bid on it.

I just wish that after all that work, the resulting edifice is something we can all be proud of...

No worries, apology accepted. Lots of folks here post things w/o the factual background, you will find that isn't the case w/my posts. If I don't know or am speculating I will specify that.

The number per sq f, particularly by the standard of more recent, subsequent transactions doesn't seem as outrageous, though at the time, and for this site, I think it was perceived as 'high' by most observers.

Most people, at the time would have imagined 'appropriate' scale as being something like 2 buildings, a short mid-rise....8-10 floors on Esplanade, and something with 3-6 floor street wall on front and a tower above that was either slender and unobtrusive, or substantially set back to give the impression of a similar scale to its neighbours.

There was little question in looking at the price paid, at the time, that the density ask was going to be much higher than described above.

Everyone's ideas vary; but most will still suggest that the unit totals here skew high for the site/area.

That, at least in part, is dictating a form than few, if anyone loves.

That said, Pemberton can/should still have done much better.

I won't say it's the worst possible outcome.........it's not.............but it is maddeningly sub-par and out of place.

 

[Razz]

I think it was $75M with the Siesta Nouveaux building added in IIRC.

For the record, Pemberton paid $70.0 million in October 2011 for the Sobey's/Acura parcels, including the surface parking lot on e/s of Sherbourne Street. In June 2012, they acquired 15 Lower Sherbourne St. for $4.0 million. The $74.0 million combined land acquisition cost for the entire block equates to $55.32 psf of approved GFA; 46,658 per residential suite, and $26.4 million per acre (2.80 acres). By comparison, 158 Front Street East, located kitty corner to this property (former Greyhound Bus site) was acquired in December 2010 for $19.0 million, or $49.59 psf of approved GFA; $38,618 per suite, and $23.75 million per acre (0.80 acres). Based on my experience, Pemberton did not overpay for the land, but rather they paid fair market value considering the development density they have achieved. Most decent condo sites in downtown Toronto currently trade for between $65 and $85 per buildable square foot.

My issue with this development all along has been with the proposed tower heights on Front Street and the project's overall density and massing - all in stark contrast to the consistent mid-rise built form and character of the St. Lawrence neighbourhood. While I appreciate (and do not object to) how this revised application now better respects the Esplanade frontage, tapering from 20 storeys at the mid block position down to 11 storeys at the street, I still find the overall massing of the 4 building complex, and its continuous building wall wrapping Sherbourne, Front and Princess Streets to be too overwhelming. I also fail to understand how the applicant was able to get away with having just one level of underground parking. Had they been required to provide 3 levels of u/g parking, they would have been able to completely eliminate the 10 storey above-grade interior parkade which would have allowed for wider tower spacing and actual view corridors between buildings. It also would have allowed for more reasonable tower heights on Front Street. 158 Front Street (opposite) will have twin 26 or 27 storey towers with 5 levels of underground parking. Including the mechanical penthouse, the Pemberton development will have twin 29 storey towers on Front Street (31 storeys including the mechanical penthouse) and just 1 level of u/g parking. Furthermore, I find the design of the interior (POPS) courtyard and pedestrian alleyway disappointing and I expect that it will be in constant shade and will feel intimidating and claustrophobic to the locals. I would have much preferred to see the POPS eliminated and replaced with a mid-block woonerf style street running between Princess and Sherbourne Street, leaving two development parcels with two mid-rise building on the south parcel and two taller buildings on the north parcel. Although significantly improved over its previous iterations, this final approved development proposal still gets a "C-" grade from me.

 

[interchange42]

I'm a little reluctant to appear to argue in favour of the development as is, but I think it's worth getting the numbers right.

The building is 29 storeys along Front, but its next step down from that is 18 storeys, then 14 storeys, then 10 storeys fronting The Esplanade.

In regards to approval for the heights, because 158 Front was approved at 26 storeys kitty-corner from this site, that's also the absolute lowest that the City could have argued the height of this one down to, and as the OMB has shown a tendency to not care about a few floors difference, maybe the City felt that 29 was the lowest they could be assured of achieving had they left that figure to the OMB to adjudicate, and therefore just settled with Pemberton at that figure.

…but that's just a guess. The City tends to push for the best settlement they are likely to get, and without having a lengthy report from the Planning Department to explain how this massing was arrived at, we can only take stabs at it.

42

 

[Northern Light]

For the record, Pemberton paid $70.0 million in October 2011 for the Sobey's/Acura parcels, including the surface parking lot on e/s of Sherbourne Street. In June 2012, they acquired 15 Lower Sherbourne St. for $4.0 million. The $74.0 million combined land acquisition cost for the entire block equates to $55.32 psf of approved GFA; 46,658 per residential suite, and $26.4 million per acre (2.80 acres). By comparison, 158 Front Street East, located kitty corner to this property (former Greyhound Bus site) was acquired in December 2010 for $19.0 million, or $49.59 psf of approved GFA; $38,618 per suite, and $23.75 million per acre (0.80 acres). Based on my experience, Pemberton did not overpay for the land, but rather they paid fair market value considering the development density they have achieved. Most decent condo sites in downtown Toronto currently trade for between $65 and $85 per buildable square foot.

My issue with this development all along has been with the proposed tower heights on Front Street and the project's overall density and massing - all in stark contrast to the consistent mid-rise built form and character of the St. Lawrence neighbourhood. While I appreciate (and do not object to) how this revised application now better respects the Esplanade frontage, tapering from 20 storeys at the mid block position down to 11 storeys at the street, I still find the overall massing of the 4 building complex, and its continuous building wall wrapping Sherbourne, Front and Princess Streets to be too overwhelming. I also fail to understand how the applicant was able to get away with having just one level of underground parking. Had they been required to provide 3 levels of u/g parking, they would have been able to completely eliminate the 10 storey above-grade interior parkade which would have allowed for wider tower spacing and actual view corridors between buildings. It also would have allowed for more reasonable tower heights on Front Street. 158 Front Street (opposite) will have twin 26 or 27 storey towers with 5 levels of underground parking. Including the mechanical penthouse, the Pemberton development will have twin 29 storey towers on Front Street (31 storeys including the mechanical penthouse) and just 1 level of u/g parking. Furthermore, I find the design of the interior (POPS) courtyard and pedestrian alleyway disappointing and I expect that it will be in constant shade and will feel intimidating and claustrophobic to the locals. I would have much preferred to see the POPS eliminated and replaced with a mid-block woonerf style street running between Princess and Sherbourne Street, leaving two development parcels with two mid-rise building on the south parcel and two taller buildings on the north parcel. Although significantly improved over its previous iterations, this final approved development proposal still gets a "C-" grade from me.

Great post.

My only quibble would be where I've bolded.

My quibble being that your statement is entirely accurate, except to say that I think most locals and the City did not, at the time of Pemberton's acquisition of the lands anticipate such an intense land use/density level.

If you brought the density down to the same level as other sites south of Front, already built at the time, density would be no greater than 1/2 what was finally approved, if that.

In such a case ( a much lower approved density), one would reasonably say they (Pemberton) overpaid.

Clearly, they believed the could achieve density on the site roughly in line w/what was ultimately agreed upon, and that, along with our ever rising real estate market fully justify the original price paid.

If, however, one believed that there was no rational planning basis or precedent for that level of density south of Front.....(within in the St. Lawrence area) then the price, for the time, was on the high side.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm a little reluctant to appear to argue in favour of the development as is, but I think it's worth getting the numbers right.

The building is 29 storeys along Front, but its next step down from that is 18 storeys, then 14 storeys, then 10 storeys fronting The Esplanade.

In regards to approval for the heights, because 158 Front was approved at 26 storeys kitty-corner from this site, that's also the absolute lowest that the City could have argued the height of this one down to, and as the OMB has shown a tendency to not care about a few floors difference, maybe the City felt that 29 was the lowest they could be assured of achieving had they left that figure to the OMB to adjudicate, and therefore just settled with Pemberton at that figure.

…but that's just a guess. The City tends to push for the best settlement they are likely to get, and without having a lengthy report from the Planning Department to explain how this massing was arrived at, we can only take stabs at it.

42

The OMB is, of course, a very real problem in that they are far from respectful of Official Plans or their intent.

That said, I believe south-of-Front is demonstrably different than north-of-Front in terms of neighbourhood; though much of north-of-Front was also mid-rise in character until recently.

My recollection was that the City originally sought lower heights north-of-Front as well, and was concerned about an adverse precedent.

This is the challenge, there's always something nearby that's higher. I'm not anti-height at all, or anti-density.

But I do think this is an example of getting carried away (more on density/massing than height, but the latter is part of the discussion because of the way in which the height appears on the site)

That problem is then multiplied by a host of other poor decisions as very well outlined by Razz, and earlier, Project End.

 

[Razz]

Wasn't it 70M? It was discussed on this site and Urban Nation along time ago.

It was widely discussed at the time that this price would precipitate exceedingly high density requests.

Metropia assembled 3 of the 4 land parcels between 2010/2011 for $39.15 million, and flipped them less than a year later to Pemberton for $70 million, which, as you correctly pointed out, suggested at the time that Pemberton either (a) vastly overpaid, or (b) they anticipated they would be successful in pushing the density much higher than Metropia (and just about everyone else) ever imagined was possible. Pemberton played their cards right, asked for the moon, and got it. It didn't help that the OMB sided with Cityzen/Fernbrook on the 158 Front Street development proposal opposite, which established the precedent that led to this inevitable result. I can't fault the developer for seeking to maximize profit, nor can I blame the City planners for mildly capitulating to the developer's request. They were really up against the OMB, which repeatedly ignores and disrespects sound local planning principals. Let's hope that Pemberton deliver a set of buildings that accurately portray the design elements and materials depicted in the renderings.

 

[christiesplits]

The render looks so cold, so menacing.

 

[interchange42]

The St. Lawrence neighbourhood was built prior to the Places to Grow Act of 2005 coming into effect. The Act requires intensification pretty much everywhere other than "stable neighbourhoods" a.k.a. tracts of single family homes, so the City has had to accept increased densities in places like this. That's why 158 Front was granted more height, more density, and why, just kitty corner across from 158 Front, the City had little ability to stop this density and height at 177 Front.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The render looks so cold, so menacing.

I thought the rendering tried very hard to downplay the mass of the project - it's almost standing on its own as if there is nothing else around it.

And i42 has it right - the seeds was sown a long time ago, and laid bare to the sort of double standards we have regarding where to densify. One should ask themselves why SFH deserves special treatment as "stable neighbourhoods" other than political expediency.

AoD