Mirvish Mania!



Share on FacebookShare on Twitter+1Share on LinkedInShare via email

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last week, you’ve heard about David Mirvish’s plans to build three 80+ storey condo towers on King Street West.

My feelings on the idea are mixed, and it seems I’m not the only one…

“Mirvish Condo Plan Aims High When Sales Are Low”
Tara Perkins
The Globe & Mail
October 1st, 2012

Bubble or no bubble, David Mirvish decided he had to proceed with an extravagant condo development in Toronto now because if he didn’t, he and architect Frank Gehry might die before it got under way.

Mr. Mirvish officially unveiled plans on Monday for a massive new project in the heart of the city’s entertainment district that will include three condo towers, each stretching at least 80 storeys high. Earlier this year, fears of a condo bubble prompted Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to warn that developers might be building too many units in the country’s most populous city. Citing that as a particular concern, Mr. Flaherty tightened mortgage insurance rules in the summer to take some steam out of the housing market, and the latest data suggest condo sales are slowing significantly.

With sales slumping, condo projects, which tend to take years to come to fruition, are becoming increasingly risky gambles for developers. The month after Ottawa’s rule changes came into effect, sales of new high-rise units were the lowest they’ve ever been in the month of August in Toronto since RealNet Canada Inc. started tracking the data 13 years ago.

The team behind this latest project says that it will change the plans or stall the development if it doesn’t appear that the market has an appetite for all the units. “But if we wait for the market to do the planning, Frank and I will be dead,” Mr. Mirvish said in an interview.

“If it slows down, then we’ll have to slow down,” he said. “Frank Gehry is 83 right now and I’m 68 … time is not our friend.”

The three towers will have more than 700 units apiece, meaning each will represent three to five per cent of the total new units coming up for sale in the city, he added.

“We’re going to be responsible,” said Peter Kofman, president of Projectcore Inc., a developer and project manager that is working on the development.

He said the plan is to build the first tower on the eastern side of the property, and then weigh the market’s reception to it before deciding when and how to proceed with the second and third towers.

“If the market’s not there, then we can wait,” Mr. Kofman said. “We’re not pressured.”

Mr. Gehry said he has felt shut out of big commissions in Toronto, his hometown, except for the Art Gallery of Ontario, and if Toronto waters the project down too much, he won’t do it. Critics are already saying that it’s too tall.

“I’m 83 years old,” Mr. Gehry said. “I’ve heard everything, I’ve been beaten up for everything. I’ve been called everything. So I’m kind of used to it.”

Construction on the first tower could begin in 18 months or two years, Mr. Kofman said. Prices and unit sizes are still in flux, and will depend on the market.

While some units will sprawl over 3,500 square feet, “our goal is to build smaller units [in the neighbourhood of 420 to 900 square feet], because we think people who are younger will come there, but to make them in a clever enough way that they can join a couple of them if they have families,” Mr. Mirvish said. The average size of new condo units in Toronto has been shrinking as developers have sought to make them more affordable, as well as more appealing to investors who want to buy them and rent them out.

Because residents would have special privileges to see exhibitions in the on-site gallery, and because the space will be unique, Mr. Mirvish said, the units will be slightly more expensive than others nearby. “But because the units aren’t so big, it won’t preclude people,” he said.

Mr. Flaherty told The Globe and Mail in the spring that he was worried developers would keep building new units until sales dry up, which could cause a crash. “I do worry about the last person buying a condo in Toronto, and people getting caught,” he said.

He tightened mortgage insurance rules effective July 9, including cutting the maximum length of an insured mortgage to 25 years from 30. He believes the changes are working. “There had been the potential for a boom, but even the Toronto and Vancouver markets have calmed, including the condo markets,” he said recently. sept interview

RealNet’s index price for new high-rise units in the Greater Toronto Area fell 4.8 per cent in August from a year ago, to $436,460, as sales of new units fell to 645 from 1,967. In just the downtown area, sales fell to 469 this August from 1,027 last August.

Resales of existing condos in the downtown area covered by the 416 area code dropped 22 per cent in August from a year ago, causing the average price to sink four per cent to $349,489, according to the Toronto Real Estate Board.

Mr. Mirvish said his ambition for the project has more to do with art and architecture than condo sales. “It wasn’t really that I went out because I’m developing something and I bought land and I’m building condos,” he said. “What I’m doing is I am continuing my art collection. I am collecting three sculptures that you can live in by a great artist. And I’m sharing with the public something that took me 50 years to put together.”

Asked whether he would live in the project, he said: “I’m very tempted.”

 


This was the first article in The Globe & Mail on Monday, and it was the cover story again on Tuesday (as I’m writing this).  Will we see it again for the third day in a row on Wednesday?

The reviews so far are quite mixed, and I find myself with my usual level of skepticism.

I feel as though this project, as great as it is, is being disguised as some sort of ‘benefit’ to the City of Toronto, when in fact, it’s just another guy trying to make a billion-dollars.

If you’ve watched the promotional video, and if you’ve followed the quotes of Mr. Mirvish and Mr. Gehry carefully, you’ll notice that they’re not really acting as if this is a condominium development that is intended to rake in millions and millions of dollars in condo sales, rather they’re touting the art gallery, the potential for university space on site, and basically everything but condos!

The Globe & Mail ran an online comment section on Monday, and this was my favourite:

“The Mirvishes have made fine contributions to the city, but this project will trash that reputation. While David Mirvish has the right to repurpose or replace his building to arrest financial losses, he has no right to alter the zoning and destroy the fabric of the area just in order to make another fortune. The proposed galleries and classrooms – which could be placed anywhere in the downtown – are cover stories for a grotesquely inappropriate development. This is no more ‘desirable’ or ‘exciting’ than a casino.”  Deanne Taylor, Toronto.

If you want to know how people feel about the project, have a look at the comments HERE.  There are hundreds of them, and I’d speculate that the readers are about 80/20 against the idea.

The comment above, in my mind, sums it up perfectly.  Mr. Mirvish can do whatever he wants with the land, but he has no “right” to basically alter the entire landscape of downtown Toronto, and it seems as though he believes he does.  His quote says as much: “But if we wait for the market to do the planning, Frank and I will be dead.”  And…..that’s our problem, how?  Sorry to be insensitive, but there are MILLIONS of people in Toronto, in all shapes and sizes, each one with a bigger bucket-list than the next, but we’re supposed to feel bad for Mr. Mirvish and Mr. Gehry because they’re old?

Should we allow them fast-track this project because if we don’t, they might not be around to complete it?

The old guy is 83 years old – well then let’s break ground, already!  Who cares what happens!

That’s a terrible excuse for this project.

And the commenter above is right – these supposed classrooms and art galleries can be put ANYWHERE in the downtown core.  This project is just an excuse to make a billion-dollars selling condos, and it has nothing to do with adding to the city.

Unless you ask Mr. Mirvish, that is: “It wasn’t really that I went out because I’m developing something and I bought land and I’m building condos.  What I’m doing is I am continuing my art collection. I am collecting three sculptures that you can live in by a great artist.”

What a load of BS.

This city is so full of con-artists.  It’s like the Leafs and Jays telling us how great their teams are going to be and how we should all come down in droves to “support” the teams.  Yeah – really great year the Jays had!  Can’t wait for next season!  I wouldn’t go to a Jays or Leafs game if you PAID me!  And feel free to challenge me on that – because I wouldn’t go; I swear to you.

Mr. Mirvish is trying to pull the wool over the city’s eyes by calling this billion-dollar condo development “art.”

“These condos are sculptures.”  What a load!

I’m not saying we should delay or decrease the production of condos in the downtown core – even though many people are!

What I’m saying is that we don’t “need” to build 85-storey monsters to keep up with some idea of “Manhattanizing” Toronto.  Let our city grow at its own pace, and don’t let rich, famous, socialites like Mr. Mirvish chase a billion-dollars under the guise of adding to the city’s artistic culture.

No politician or city servant has ever had any “grand plan” for Toronto; be it the waterfront, entertainment district, transportation, etc.  Our provincial and municipal governments change every few years, as do council members, committee members, and board members.  Nobody has a long-term view of this city, and nobody ever will.  We will never have our own Hazel McCallion, or Richard Daley.

But opportunists abound in this city – people who act as though they care about the long-term success and planning of Toronto, when in fact, they’re just after another $10 Million, and another $10 Million after that.

Mr. Mirvish is no different, and I would respectfully vote “no” to his development proposal….if I ever had any say in the matter…

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter+1Share on LinkedInShare via email

15 Comments

  • Darren October 3, 2012

    There another part of the design you cannot see in the picture you posted. It looks like torn strips of paper glued to some cardboard. It’s hideous. This guy has already designed what in my opinion is the ugliest building in the city. I don’t want to see him top that with this monstrosity. That said I don’t see it getting built. The market will dictate that from lack of sales/interest.


  • buk October 3, 2012

    the city will never approve the height of these buildings. they dwarf any building in the vicinity.


    • Horrido October 3, 2012

      The City can change the zoning laws to permit these towers to be built. It has a history and a reputation of allowing all sorts of crap to be built. Just look at CityPlace. Or the Trump Tower.


  • George October 3, 2012

    We do not have the transportation infrastructure to support skyscraper condos in our downtown core. There is already congestion around low and medium rise buildings, and our one little downtown subway line is at capacity.


    • Joe Q. October 3, 2012

      Agreed — not sure if King Street (or the Entertainment District in general) can support another 2,500-3,000 residents.


  • Jeremy October 3, 2012

    “Nobody has a long-term view of this city, and nobody ever will. We will never have our own Hazel McCallion, or Richard Daley.”
    Would that be the same Hazel McCallion who let the city grow super dependent on the now dwindling development fees rather than pay reasonable property taxes, or the one who let the burbs be built with roads that are deliberately designed to slow down traffic (and thus hampering their ability to have decent public transit)?

    That said, I agree with your point that we need a LOT more long term thinking at all levels of government. As hinted at by the other comments, we need to be carefully planning where these kinds of projects should be going.


  • moonbeam! October 3, 2012

    Why do these guys think skyscraper towers would be a good contribution to the city? Here’s my idea for free: Why not a 3-storey complex for the museum, OCAD, etc? whatever happened to the idea of low-rise development, with parkettes, sculpture gardens etc.. without the massive high-rise towers?


    • phil October 6, 2012

      Because it is downtown of a large city. You can no longer waste space on buildings 3-story complex. We need to tear down existing ones. Your idea of low rise developments suits Scarborough or anywhere except downtown Toronto better. Stop trying to keep Toronto look like a village with 25k people.


  • Horrido October 3, 2012

    Having read the reader comments from The Globe and Mail, it seems that there are 3 main issues:

    1) Potential traffic congestion problem
    2) Neighbourhood character and history
    3) Threat to the local entertainment industry

    All great cities struggle with traffic congestion. That’s the price for being a great city. Should we continue to retard Toronto’s growth because of this?

    Neighbourhood character is just a euphemism for thinking small town. Toronto will never be a great city if we cling to quaint historical neighbourhoods with low rise buildings. There is a way to integrate the old with the new. We just need to apply imaginative designs.

    The entertainment district can still thrive, but it needs better productions. That will spawn growth.


    • phil October 6, 2012

      agree, yet many don’t seem to realise that. Many seem to favour a Toronto with mostly 2-3 storey old houses resembling a St Catharines, not a major metropolis with 6M people. Those quaint historical neighbourhoods won’t work in downtown Toronto and whoever love those should just move north of Bloor as there are plenty of them to choose from. What we need is density. I don’t see why more condo dwellers will kill the local entertainment industry – won’t it be nice to have more customers within walking distance (who don’t have to drive a car from 50 miles away)?


  • Nate October 4, 2012

    “I would respectfully vote “no” to his development proposal….if I ever had any say in the matter…”

    If this thing gets built, will your ‘no vote’ extend to never selling units in this project?


    • David Fleming October 4, 2012

      @ Nate

      You have my word. I would never put a buyer into this project. I don’t sell ANY pre-construction condos. See today’s post.


  • Sidera October 5, 2012

    Stop being such a socialist. City planning has put Toronto on a path to the middle ages. Just look at the fire on George st the other day. That wonderful ‘heritage’ home was burned down because the owner could not live up the the cities demands.

    You should be drooling at the prospect of more towers being built. The only reason why the RE industry is so successful is because of developers making these massive condo towers.

    Think of all the jobs that will be created, construction workers, sales, the realtors selling those godawful pre construction condos, and ultimately the condos that you can sell as a realtor.

    I highly doubt that this project will every be completed. They are simply to late to the condo party. The government chopped off the 30 year mortgage and now the market is tanking.

    If everyone is so up in arms about losing the theater, then the market will dictate that another theater be built. Simple as that.


  • luci rizzo October 5, 2012

    I just want to say that I also agree with the comment made by Deanne Taylor. There are many Condos in our fair city. I think it is well known that there have been many financial losses in the theater business over the recent years but repurposing these lands for three huge tower condos, well I think it’s out of line with the fabric of the area. There are already a huge number of units being built in the area and after all it is known as the theater district and now they want to remove one of the main theaters which I think is laughable.


  • Krupo October 18, 2012

    I totally understand the point of view of people opposed to the development for various reasons, but in terms of location/neighbourhood? It’s the best-suited place for a mega-tower, given it’s walking distance from the subway: at least there’s no/minimal additional burden on the over-loaded streetcars!





Submit a New Comment: