Toronto Loft Conversions

We know classic brick and beam lofts! From warehouses to factories to churches, Laurin and Natalie want to help you find your perfect new loft. More »

Modern Toronto Lofts

Not just converted lofts, we can help you find the latest cool and modern space. There are tons of new urban spaces across the city. More »

Unique Toronto Homes

Not just lofts, we can also help you find that perfect house. From the latest architectural marvel to a piece of Toronto\'s Victorian past, the best and most creative spaces abound. More »

Condos in Toronto

We started off selling mainly condos, helping first time buyers get a foothold in the Toronto real estate market. Now working with investors and helping empty nesters find that perfect luxury suite. More »

Toronto Real Estate

For all of your Toronto real estate needs, contact the Jeffrey Team. Laurin and Natalie are dedicated to helping you find that perfect and unique new home to call your own. More »

 

Tag Archives: development charges

Art of the build

By Garry Marr, Financial Post

It was heralded as another perk for condominium owners, but when the City of Toronto created a new rule this year that required developers to provide 12 months of free transit to buyers, Monarch Corp. saw another cost.

“It will be added on [to the price]. It’s like the cost of lumber or concrete,” says Brian Johnston, president of Monarch, whose 25-storey tower The Legacy includes a one-year Toronto Metropass for all 330 owners.

Transit passes and green roofs, which require condominium developers plant a certain amount of vegetation on their buildings, are just the latest wrinkles that cities are adding to the cost of building.

While politicians see these levies as the cost of increasing density in their urban areas, builders see them as development charges by another name.

“You add them all up and at some point a high-rise condominium unit becomes uneconomical,” Mr. Johnston says.

Then there’s public art. Publicly, developers are for it and get involved in a process that, in Toronto, means they could end up contributing 1% of their construction costs if looking for rezoning on a project.

In Vancouver, private developers requesting rezonings greater than 100,000 square feet were required in 2009 to contribute $1.81 per buildable foot to a public art process approved by the city.

And in Halifax, developers are “encouraged” to allocate 1% of capital costs to art projects for developments more than 25,000 square feet. They get their zoning if they come up with the cash.

Karen Mills is a public art consultant in Toronto and works on behalf of Monarch Corp. She has been in the field for 25 years. She says developers have a history of adding some type of art to their projects.

“It started in the late 1980s in Toronto, encouraging developers to contribute 1% of the their costs to art. But it really started in the U.S. in the 1960s. There was a reaction against stripped-down modernist buildings. The public started saying they didn’t like these empty barren plazas in front of office towers,” Ms. Mills says.

While developers are happy to participate in such programs, Ms. Mills agrees all of them see it as a cost of doing business. But there is a payback, she argues.

“Developers who have done multiple projects and been successful know if you want to increase density you have to come through some type of negotiation to get this opportunity to make more money on your development. You have to pay one way or another,” she says.

“Anything that makes a building more distinctive gives it higher recognition value,” she adds. “Public art can be a positive from that perspective, unless of course you hate the art and then it’s a negative.”

Certainly, the condo boom has been a boom for artists. On a $50-million project, 1% of construction costs would amount to an art installation worth about $500,000.

“It’s employment and it’s employment in my area of expertise. Isn’t that great?” says Barbara Astman, the artist behind a project at The Murano, a development on Bay Street, just north of Toronto’s financial district. Her project incorporates colour photographic imagery on 217 exterior windows surrounding the building.

She notes the architect told her at the condo’s opening that she had made the building even better. “That’s what you want to do, add value. You don’t want to be someone who just decorates a building. It will now be a signature for people who live in that building,” Ms. Astman says.

Jane Perdue, public art co-ordinator with the City of Toronto, says public art only affects a small percentage of rezoning applications, but the big projects are targeted. “It’s a minority of buildings, but probably the ones that have the biggest impact,” Ms. Perdue says. “Ultimately, it’s about density exchange,” she says, adding, “if the public art is interesting, the building probably is too.”

Public art may not be required on every project, but that doesn’t mean the developer seeking rezoning is off the hook. Sometimes the developer will be asked to contribute that 1% to another project in the ward where they are building.

For the condominium buyer, the public projects are not supposed to add to their long-term maintenance fees. In the case of Toronto, developers are encouraged to include a maintenance endowment as part of the 1% levy.

Mark Mandelbaum, chairman of Lanterra Developments, says Toronto developers typically want input into the art projects being added to their buildings, but probably wouldn’t participate in such projects if they were not required.

“When you have 1% of your hard costs, that’s a lot of money,” Mr. Mandelbaum says. “A developer typically looks at public art as another development charge, like cash in lieu for parks. It is a municipal charge, but at the very least if you use it wisely, you can make the building more valuable with [the money].”

Developers point to other charges — land transfer taxes, the July 1 harmonized sales tax in British Columbia and Ontario — as all contributing to rising condo prices.

“Ultimately, what prices are to the end consumer is a combination of all the costs of bringing a product to market and whatever reasonable profit expectation that developer wants, given the risk of a project,” Mr. Mandelbaum says.

Peter Simpson, chief executive of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, likens some of the negotiations between cities and developers to “creative arm twisting.”

“Of course it raises prices. A builder is not like any other manufacturer of a product. If there’s a cost associated with the manufacturing process, it gets added on and the user ends up paying the bill. Art is just another thing in a long list of charges. It’s a way to extract money from an easy target. But the target is really the homebuyer.”

————————————————————————————————————–

Contact the Jeffrey Team for more information  -  416-388-1960

————————————————————————————————————–

A freer market is key: Toronto politicians should stop driving up costs

With more than 60,000 households waiting for low-cost housing, Toronto politicians should stop driving up costs

Marcus Gee – Globe and Mail

Everyone agrees that something has to be done about affordable housing. The question is whether it is governments that should be doing it.

The consensus in city politics is yes, of course they should. Private developers and landlords, it is argued, will never supply enough reasonably priced housing for lower-income people. Developers prefer to build luxury condos. So governments simply have to step in to correct this market failure.

When the non-profit housing group Habitat for Humanity invited mayoral candidates to debate the issue on Tuesday evening, they were full of ideas for new, more vigorous ways for government to tackle the problem.

Joe Pantalone would push ahead with a plan to build 1,000 affordable housing units a year. George Smitherman would encourage home ownership, free up city-owned land for affordable housing and partner with non-profits to build more units.

Rocco Rossi, too, would use city land resources, while Sarah Thomson talked about using a “density bonus” that would allow developers to build higher density if they agreed to provide affordable housing. Giorgio Mammoliti would push ahead with a 10-year, 67-point, $484-million plan for affordable housing. Only the inimitable Rob Ford suggested that instead of supplying more housing, the city should give tenants more rent subsidies to help them rent units in private apartments.

The desire to do something big and ambitious about affordable housing is understandable. With more than 60,000 Toronto households on a waiting list for low-cost housing, a 15-per-cent increase since last year, there is clearly a need.

But most studies have found the private sector is better than government at tackling the problem. A recent report by the Conference Board of Canada said that, while governments had a significant role to play in providing affordable housing, “private companies are the most efficient at innovating to drive down shelter costs when markets are competitive. They have the best economies of scale and the core competency to deliver housing to the marketplace.” It also noted that previous reports found that “governments had significantly added to the cost of shelter through a wide variety of direct charges and zoning practices.”

Quite so. Taxes, development charges and new measures such as the city’s land transfer tax have made it hard for many developers to make money on anything but high-end projects. The Planning Act’s Section 37 measure, for example, allows the city to wring “community benefits” such as park or street improvements from developers in return for permission to build.

Now there is talk of an “inclusionary zoning” rule that would require developers to put aside a certain proportion of new housing units for affordable housing. A private member’s bill recently before the Ontario Legislature would give municipalities the right to require it. Ms. Thomson and Mr. Mammoliti are among those who support the idea, which would amount to another tax on developers.

Designed to address the affordable-housing problems, measures like this could make it worse instead, driving up the cost of housing when developers pass on the cost of various charges and regulations to home buyers and renters. As an added down side, new home buyers end up paying the freight for a social measure that would better be borne by society at large.

Economic consultant Peter Norman of the Altus Group says: “I always ask the rhetorical question: ‘Why is it the government feels the private sector isn’t prepared to bring forward housing that serves the lower-income segment in the population?’ “

It’s not because developers are all Scrooges. It’s because they can’t make a buck at it in the current environment. Sensible government policy would aim to free them up to supply the affordable housing that the city obviously needs.

————————————————————————————————————–

Contact the Jeffrey Team for more information  -  416-388-1960

————————————————————————————————————–

A place to live downtown — with the kids

By Natalie Alcoba, National Post

City councillors today approved new condo towers that include 94 units big enough to house families, as the city hunts for ways to make downtown more child-friendly.

Rising out of what is now a parking lot at Richmond and Simcoe streets, the complex also includes retail, restaurants, and an 8,000-square-foot gallery for the Ontario College of Art and Design. The two glass towers, 31 and 41-storeys, look like boxes stacked on top of one another, said Les Klein, lead architect from Quadrangle Architects.

“The rest of the city has got this notion of segregated land use planning and what we’re trying to do here is integrate all the forms: institutional, cultural, commercial, retail, and residential all on the same sites and create vertical neighbourhood so that they become more sustainable,” said Councillor Adam Vaughan, who has been pushing more eclectic developments in his half of Trinity Spadina ward.

Mr. Vaughan is hoping to activate sidewalks with a vibrant commercial district, and by encouraging couples to raise their children downtown.

Mr. Vaughan is a loud proponent of family housing and has insisted that new developments in his ward design 10% of units as three bedrooms, or large enough that they could be easily converted into them. A proposed policy to require that same quota in all new downtown buildings with more than 100 units is being reviewed by planning staff, after developers voiced concerns they would be forced to build units they couldn’t sell. It is set to be discussed at the public works and infrastructure committee meeting in June.

“The industry as a whole believes the city shouldn’t be dictating product that we believe there isn’t a demand for,” said Leona Savoie, chair of the Toronto chapter of BILD, the Building, Industry Land Development Association. “It could pretty much be documented all across the board from our membership that typically the larger suites are a very tough sell, especially in certain parts of the city,” she said, since three bedrooms go for around $600,000 and that’s too expensive for many young families.

Mr. Vaughan acknowledged the challenges, and said the city is looking at ways to help keep the costs of building bigger units down, like exempting builders from development charges on common space for kids, or using some of the development fees to offset the cost.

The Richmond and Simcoe development, built by Aspen Ridge Homes, has managed to offer a range of suite prices by playing with the size of three bedroom units, from 890 square feet to 1,200, said Mr. Klein, of Quadrangle.

“Toronto’s view of family housing is pretty conservative and we think there’s a segment of our community that wants to live downtown, is prepared to raise families there,” said Mr. Klein. “We think it’s important in terms of providing an economic basis for a broader range of services.”

————————————————————————————————————–

Contact the Jeffrey Team for more information  -  416-388-1960

————————————————————————————————————–

show
 
close