The Monterey [1600 James Naismith Dr] | 8/3x3/2x6f | Office to Residential | U/C
1600 James Naismith Holding Ltd. is proposing the development of the Phase I lands at 1600 James Naismith Drive, consisting of the conversion of an existing 8-storey commercial office building (circa 1988) into a multi-residential rental apartment building. A total of 218 dwelling units are proposed within the converted mid-rise building. A total of 236 vehicle parking spaces are proposed, where 215 are provided for residential use and 21 are provided as visitor parking spaces. Of these, 128 spaces are to be permanent, while 108 spaces are provided temporarily to the north within the Phase III lands. The majority of the subject site consists of surface parking, however the Phase I application proposes to reconfigure the parking area to accommodate the new residential use and release the remainder of the subject site for potential future development. A total of 161 bicycle parking spaces are proposed to be located throughout the site, where 128 are proposed internally and 33 are proposed at the exterior of the building. The proposed development consists of a range and mix of unit sizes, including ground oriented units in the southwestern portion of the building, studios through to three-bedroom units, all contributing diverse dwelling types within 200 metres of the Blair Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station.
I get that they want to preserve the existing building, as it isn't at the end of its life, but they could do so much better if they had a clean slate. For one, it would be nice if the driveway didn't circumnavigate the campus.
When I saw office to residential conversion, I was excited. When I saw where it was, I was even more excited. Then I see the site plan
They somehow managed to made it even more car-centric.
This site would be an excellent opportunity for a mixed-use development of pedestrian inner streets and retail. Parking should have been provided in a multi-level structure somewhere in a corner. Another huge disappointment.
Can the City not make rules against or restricting how and where surface parking is built?
I get that they want to preserve the existing building, as it isn't at the end of its life, but they could do so much better if they had a clean slate. For one, it would be nice if the driveway didn't circumnavigate the campus.
Moving the driveway to the south edge of the site and highlighting a N-S pedestrian access on the eastern edge of the site to the pedestrian bridge would help immensely.
I can't comprehend how this city keeps pushing above-ground parking for these town complexes when we have ridiculous amounts of snowfall during our winters. This sort of design works more mild climate places, but not so much here. I understand cost is a consideration, but what you don't pay upfront, you pay in upkeep of constantly plowing private roads. But it seems the city doesn't want to be responsible for maintaining its new developments.
Moving the driveway to the south edge of the site and highlighting a N-S pedestrian access on the eastern edge of the site to the pedestrian bridge would help immensely.
I suspect the problem is that the buildings are too close to the property edge for them to put the driveway there. I guess they could see if the city is willing to sell them some of Queensway Park for the driveway, but I can't imagine that would be very popular politically.
I would also like to see the proposed townhouses (phase 2) changed to low-rise apartments. It would increase the density and provide better stepping of height from the neighbouring homes. They could then likely replace the surface parking with underground to reduce the blight.
I can't comprehend how this city keeps pushing above-ground parking for these town complexes when we have ridiculous amounts of snowfall during our winters. This sort of design works more mild climate places, but not so much here. I understand cost is a consideration, but what you don't pay upfront, you pay in upkeep of constantly plowing private roads. But it seems the city doesn't want to be responsible for maintaining its new developments.
Is the city developing this land? I assumed it was a private development. I did a quick look on the Development applications website and couldn't see who the developer is (though it was a very quick look).
1600 James Naismith Drive & 1595 Telesat Court - Office This two-building office complex was occupied and sold by the vendor Toronto-Dominion Bank who has a sale-leaseback agreement in place for one of the buildings and has vacated the other. The buildings contain a gross leasable area of approximately 334,000 square feet and sits on nearly 19 acres of land, providing the new owners opportunities to develop on the excess land.
The most notable sale for the month was the purchase of 1595 Telesat Court & 1600 James Naismith Drive. They were purchased by 1595 Telesat Holding Ltd. from the Toronto-Dominion Bank for $40,550,000 or $121 per square foot. It is improved with two eight-storey office buildings. TD Securities and CBRE had this property listed for sale.
The largest transactions that occurred in each of the asset classes in the past year were as follows:
Property Type: Office
Address: 1600 James Naismith Drive & 1595 Telesat Court
Vendor: 3787117 Canada Inc.
Purchaser: The Toronto Dominion Bank
Consideration: $80,000,000
Do we know which company/fund is behind this conversion?
No, but the listed offices of 1600 James Naismith LP is a co-working/virtual office space on the 27th Floor of 161 Bay Street in Toronto (TD Canada Trust Tower). They don't want to be found. Real professional like.
Prev
Linear Mode
