TORONTO | College Park Redevelopment | 344.3 M | 96 FLOORS

[koops65]

College Park Redevelopment - 333. 3 metres, 1093 feet

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
Credit: urbantoronto.ca

96, 75 and 65 floors on top of the existing College Park.

[NYguy]

Was looking at this yesterday, very nice.

[Maldive]

A few more pics.

Great skyline changer in a great location (College and Yonge).  96, 75 & 65 storeys towers, the restoration of the heritage College Park building in addition to new residences, hotel, retail, office, cultural, entertainment space and reimagined public realm/park.

Really like the HPA towers and heritage College Park marriage.



UT

UT

UT

UT

[yaletown_fella]

In a perfect world, 777 Bay could be demolished to build the original proposed western side of the podium. But the reconstruction of the unbuilt southeast wing looks very promising.

At least the supertall has a decent amount of step backs. Materials could be nice, although its tough to tell if this will just be a zoning flip. Other 2 towers are a bit clunky and could use step backs inside of gap toothed sections

I hope this proposal comes to fruition because as it currently stands it's easy for the pedestrian to see the grand vision of College Park (from the beaux art exterior to the flashy art Deco Interior of the original concourse) but it's evidently falls short of its vision ans is pitifully incomplete.

[Gresto]

Love it, but unlikely to start anytime soon.

[ssh]

Isn't the condo market and housing market in the GTA pretty cold at the moment? Can't see this breaking ground anytime soon, it's a massive project.

[koops65]

This is supposed to coincide with the 100th anniversary of College Park being partially constructed, in 2030. Not sure if that means it's supposed to be finished then? Or started then?

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by ssh

Isn't the condo market and housing market in the GTA pretty cold at the moment? Can't see this breaking ground anytime soon, it's a massive project.

Condo market is dead-dead right now.

There are a decent amount of rental starts still happening though as there are currently large federal rental housing subsidies through subsidized (i.e. low-interest) loans, and Carney's election platform included a provision to bring back a certain tax break for rental projects which existed in the 1960's and 1970's which many attribute to what enabled the many large mid-century rental towers across the GTA - the Multiple Unit Rental Building (MURB) cost allowance.

The applicant here is a large fund- a real estate branch of one of the largest insurance companies in Canada (Great-West Lifeco). They apparently intend to do this as a rental project, but we will see if they manage to secure financing. It's definitely... ambitious, with over 2,600 units across the three towers.

[koops65]

• Video Link

In HD
[IMG][/IMG]

In HD
[IMG][/IMG]

[Nouvellecosse]

One thing that would improve this a lot for me is that if they do insist on using College Park as a podium (which i do not support) at the very least it should be for just one, or at the most, two buildings. Three is way too crowded for the site. It overwhelms the base making it seem like CP is a new building just built as the podium for this development rather than standing on its own as a well-known landmark. And having each tower so closely flanked by two other very large towers with similar materials and design language prevents any of them from standing out as well.

[koops65]

After re-making the models:

In HD
[IMG][/IMG]

In HD
[IMG][/IMG]

[koops65]

• Video Link

[koops65]

A short flight down Yonge:

• Video Link

[IMG][/IMG]

[Gresto]

Chelsea Green would ameliorate and distract from the slabby presence of Concord Sky. Damn, there has been nothing new on those for a few years. The College Park trio are close to gorgeous. And I'd love to see 19 Bloor W. go ahead, but with a sensible number of elevators.

[koops65]

Looking forwards to more big stuff going up, but it's going to be a few years still.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by koops65

Looking forwards to more big stuff going up, but it's going to be a few years still.

As a layman, I don't understand the real estate market. We have a housing crisis, yet nothing is selling because it's too expensive and the tiny units (in condo towers) are not what people want.
On my street in North York, a detached house has been up for sale for about 5 years. Reason dictates that prices should come down until they reach the level that the market presently supports, but this is not happening.
It's like anything else for sale: if X Item is not selling at $50, it is either an article not enough people want, or it is too expensive. So, one would lower the price until people start buying the product. In Toronto, many people are seeking housing, but the average price of housing in Toronto is still far too high. I'm not an economist, but it seems like Economics 101 that prices need to come down drastically in order for sales to rebound to levels of 2+ years ago.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Gresto

As a layman, I don't understand the real estate market. We have a housing crisis, yet nothing is selling because it's too expensive and the tiny units (in condo towers) are not what people want.
On my street in North York, a detached house has been up for sale for about 5 years. Reason dictates that prices should come down until they reach the level that the market presently supports, but this is not happening.
It's like anything else for sale: if X Item is not selling at $50, it is either an article not enough people want, or it is too expensive. So, one would lower the price until people start buying the product. In Toronto, many people are seeking housing, but the average price of housing in Toronto is still far too high. I'm not an economist, but it seems like Economics 101 that prices need to come down drastically in order for sales to rebound to levels of 2+ years ago.

Real estate is said to be inelastic, meaning price is slow to respond to changes in supply and demand. Toronto has a few more variables as well. Carrying costs are low, relatively speaking. For example, property taxes on a residential property is roughly 0.75% of assessed value whereas in some locals in the US it could be 1-2.5% of value. Therefore, property owners are making a bet they would be better off financially selling the property in the future, even if they have to pay carrying costs in the interim, than if they were to sell now. They may be right. At some point the calculus will change and reality will hit. Will it be as back as the 2008 US housing crash? Probably not, as population continues to increase and it's still incredibly expensive to build new housing in Toronto, among the highest in cost per unit in North America due to permits and other fees.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by C.

Real estate is said to be inelastic, meaning price is slow to respond to changes in supply and demand. Toronto has a few more variables as well. Carrying costs are low, relatively speaking. For example, property taxes on a residential property is roughly 0.75% of assessed value whereas in some locals in the US it could be 1-2.5% of value. Therefore, property owners are making a bet they would be better off financially selling the property in the future, even if they have to pay carrying costs in the interim, than if they were to sell now. They may be right. At some point the calculus will change and reality will hit. Will it be as back as the 2008 US housing crash? Probably not, as population continues to increase and it's still incredibly expensive to build new housing in Toronto, among the highest in cost per unit in North America due to permits and other fees.

Thank you for the reply and exposition, C. I agree, it seems these owners of abandoned properties are shouldering the financial risk, hoping prices will rise again, but should it be permitted? Toronto has had a vacant-home tax for a couple of years now. Perhaps it should be increased until it becomes untenable to own a home that is not being used. In any case, it is likely some absentee owners are circumventing the tax somehow. In my view, one should not be allowed to "sit on" a property for years and years, particularly when so many people need housing. Indeed, we have tent cities at the same time houses have sat empty for years, some for many years. For instance, the house at the following link, on York Mills east of Yonge, not even visible anymore behind overgrowth, has been abandoned for more a decade: https://maps.app.goo.gl/oBGnaJ7RLxbdtjEZ9

[koops65]

Another part of the negative housing problem that exists is greedy landlords, charging insane prices that few can afford, leaving the rest of the renters in the dust...

[C.]

Originally Posted by koops65

Another part of the negative housing problem that exists is greedy landlords, charging insane prices that few can afford, leaving the rest of the renters in the dust...

There is a solution to that… as much as Toronto has been building, it’s been woefully inadequate.



https://x.com/dallasaptgp/status/1987692410529317208?s=46

Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop knows this and the results are showing in the data. https://x.com/stevenfulop/status/1988232748839170508?s=46