Condos are a very environmentally friendly way to live, it's just a shame that so many of them are out of most normal peoples' price range.

Welcome to living in a large city. Although I'm really sick of seeing cookie cutter condos being built that ad nothing to the skyline, but I love my condo and it's the only way I could possibly afford to live downtown. 20 years from now Toronto will resemble Manhattan alot more than people like yourself would like. You wont be able to see anything because of the canyon that is downtown. I'm ok with that because I love New York and Toronto. Welcome to the future my friend.

Who let this NIMBY post?

Guess what: the fight over this condo happened 5 years ago. It's over. Bloor Street is where these developments belong so they don't eat up the homes with backyards and trees. That it's on two subway lines makes it even more perfect because it means the condo owners won't be driving everywhere.

Pita places like the one that was there, as well as the Mr. Sub and the Harvey's and the generic dollar stores are everywhere. This transit-oriented development is part of making our city more sustainable and curbing urban sprawl. Thankfully Toronto will continue to intensify its main streets, NIMBYs be damned.

I agree with you completely.

Down with condos!

I'd rather have tall towers than sprawling suburbs any day. (Especially when that condo is adjacent to a subway station) Certain neighbourhoods should definitely be preserved, but if we stop every run down strip of businesses from being torn down, then people will just move to the suburbs and the city will stagnant. I say build MORE towers and bring the price down.

There are plenty of places to live in the city where condos fear to tread; just like there are plenty of condos to live in if that's your thing.

I'm all for condos if they're well-made and sold at fair prices.

I'm not "anti-condo", I'm "anti-condos-everywhere-I-turn". I'm constantly hearing stories of new condos going up, tearing down pieces of older neighbourhoods, and pissed off residents. They're too numerous and FAR too expensive. Especially with the economy being what it is.

Didn't Miller say that it was the Gardiner obstructing the view of the lake?
;)

The city is growing so where would you like the people to live? Urban sprawl or intensification - there is no other option. This condo is sitting right on top of a subway station, encouraging transit use and is on a major street (Bloor), not in the middle of the Annex. Yes, someone will be in the shade when a tall building goes up but that's the price or risk for living downtown in a major metropolis.

Appropriate density, appropriate location, nice building design. Unfortunate website.

I didn't know that Annex backyards got any sunlight, what with all those pesky tall trees.

@tripper: From the comments in the posting, it looks like it is just another anti-rich people posting. Heaven forbid that people with money should be able to spend it however they please. And it isn't like Lanterra only does condos for "women doing pilates with chihuahuas". They are doing the (much more affordable) condos next to the CNE entrance as well.

"Keep dreaming if you want a huge backyard at a reasonable price."

Or move to Coburg.

The market dictates the price for condos. They're priced exactly where they should be.

If I had anything to say about they'd bulldoze the entire Annex, build 200 towers, move everyone from Milton here, and then eradicate it.

The number of buildings going up in the city is good thing for Toronto. Period.

I have to agree with most of the others here -- It's density where it matters most. Of course, at a price point of 500k starting -- something tells me that most of the dwellers here aren't commuting via transit.

At the same time. There are some nice backyards in areas of the city not High Park. Not to argue pricing, but the west end has some nice properties, as does the east side, a la East York and Leaside. Pretty sure North York, the bedroom community of the city also features some nice green patches, and all just as distant from the downtown core as High Park.

What would be more constructive is discussion on how to make sure these highrises benefit the most number of people. Perhaps regulation assuring reasonable pricing for a certain percentage of units?

What about a requirement for retail to be added on the ground floor facing the street to replace what was lost?

Requirement for some sort of green space?

You got the money to buy the lot to save it from a condo? Why are you so afraid of development? How is it really going to effect you, What you might meet a few friends in the new building. All that was lost was dollar store and a swiss chalet...

Thats about an equal price. What does a 777 sq. ft. apartment go for in the annex $2000 a month? Well now you'll be able to rent a condo off someone.

ANex is overrated anyway. Yes it has beautiful old homes, half of which have been converted into apartment units for University students.

Hahaha... what a terrible article. First of all, you are only just now cluing into the fact that this condo is getting built? Obviously not paying much attention in the neighbourhood you purport to love to much.

Second, if you don't like tall buildings, I suggest you move to the country. Cities grow - upward particularly in the core - get used to it.

Third, what was torn down to make room for this condo was a piece of crap building that did nothing to enhance the cityscape. At least this condo _seems_ to have some decent design standards - as it should for the asking prices.

What the city does need is serious design standards in place like Vancouver. Too much awful looking crap gets built in the condo marketplace - this I will concede.

I'm largely in favor of condos.. but it's a shame that the very first ever Swiss Chalet and the nicest McDonald's in the city had to make way for another generic condo.

Not gonna complain about the article or anything, but Laura, if you're going to disturb the shit, don't expect people to play nice in the comments. You can take my word more than anyone else's for that.

yeah, condos are here to stay; and, yes, one just might pop up in your backyard.

I think we should concern ourselves now more with their design, environmental standards, etc.

that's where the conversation is at.

@m: wow, that bed is in the kitchen! frankly, that would have been a more interesting article!

Condos come at a price premium over a straight ownership option. A 48 cent per foot condo fee for a 1000 sq foot unit is roughly the same as paying an extra $115,000 sale price (if you borrowed this much extra your interest cost would work out around the same as the condo fee). The condo fee, therefore, comes at a considerable premium over the services it buys. Condo don't seem to attract smart buyers - the ads are sure aimed at the brain dead.

So, while condos should be environmentally friendlier, the basic problem is - maybe I'm just being snobby - they tend to attract "lifestyle buyers" who may not care. Do these people really take mass transit? I sure seem to see a lot of SUVs going into condos on Queen's Quay.

The city has three problems:

1. Is concentrated blocks of high density appropriate - on a major transit line the answer is clearly YES regardless of how cute the neighborhood might be.

2. Are the buildings designed appropriately with current city goals in mind: parking, eco-friendliness, etc.

3. Will these buildings age well in the future or will they tomorrow's ghettos? I've lived in a condo only briefly myself, and it was well on its way to becoming a downscale rental apartment wrapped in a condo disguise.

@Christopher: It's called World of Warcraft. She's afraid of the "yellow face".... *gollum* preciousss...

i think a distinction needs to be made between condos as an actual living arrangement vs. the abhorrent 'condo-culture.' i don't mind them as an idea or even as a physical structure- hell, urban density and demand dictates no less. HOWEVER- what kills me are the marketing campaigns, poor design, and general lack of character that seems rampant in every new lot i find. there's little effort made by developers to integrate into the vibe existing neighbourhoods. and if i find one more god-damned development described as chic, sexy, or sophisticated, i'm going to have myself a freak-out.

it's just tasteless, soulless, and frankly shortsighted planning and marketing- both of which are ALWAYS eyesores on the urban landscape. not to mention every website is rife with muzak. curses!

@david: Actually, I have lived here for just about 2 years, right before they tore down the old buildings.

@those of you with the "where have you been?" comments: Did you notice I just started writing for the site a week ago?

Although I'm pleased with the discussion my post has sparked, I'm suprised that the "pro-condo" commenters are so quick to judge. Also, did you grow up downtown? I'll bet alot of you did. Nearly every one of the people I have spoken to who aren't pleased with the amount of condos going up had the luxury of an actual lawn, and yes, I consider actual grass and dirt property far more valuable than being able to grab a spot in the newest snazzy condo(people lining up overnight to get a chance to buy at 1 Bloor? Give me a break.) Even north of the city, farmland is becoming scarce between Toronto and Barrie. I was amazed at how many townhouses had been put up since I had been home last.

Oddly enough the person who sparked my interest in this was my landlord, who has lived in Toronto his whole life, who told me the older community doesn't like the condo sprawl at all. It may be bringing more well off twenty-somethings in, but it's threatening to push everyone else out.

*goes to Russia* ;)

m, you're correct to say that a condo uses a lot of energy as a whole, but you have to divide that amongst all the people that live there. The biggest savings don't come from the building itself. Most of it comes from the location of the building. When you live close that close to work and that close to daily amenities you'll end up with a much lower carbon footprint for sure. Especially in this case when you have access to the subway.

I'm sure some condos are worse than others, but the same goes for detached housing and the area that Laura refers to, between the Annex and Yorkville (isn't that still the Annex?) contain some of the worst offenders. Old buildings that people have failed to bring up to par with newer housing. It might have character, but the neighbourhood is a carbon hog.

Secondly, one of the bigger environmental savings comes from the lack of sprawl. I live in an area surrounding by several tall apartment buildings with a population about equal to the ENTIRE city I grew up in (pop. 50,000). The difference in surface area not covered by pavement, the difference in area of grasslands and forests that were clear cut is HUGE. As is the amount of carbon required to commute around such a sprawl.

The difference between the same number of people living in 38,000 acres of land and 150 acres of land is massive. The cost to power the security system I'm afraid doesn't make a dent in that.

If you were soooo into your neighbourhood, wouldn't you have noticed this barrier go up AT LEAST a year ago?

Those "precast concrete and glass" condos are ugly as anything. They're efficient, but I sure wish that somebody would step in and start putting some thought into the aesthetics of these things. Has anyone ever heard of colour? What about some design creativity? Cheap, cookie-cutter "cash grab" indeed.

Colour: the reason the CBC building is the greatest bit of architecture in this city.

Laura,

Don't let the folks dying to live on "mink lane" get you down... they're pumped about owning gentrified boxes in the sky and struggling to pay for them.

The condo boom has opened up the rental market in the last few years. How long have you had your $500 place? I bet if you rented it in the last couple years, the pricei s that low because of condos.

Where do you want everybody to live? If they lived in the kind of houses in much of the Annex, Toronto would sprawl past lake simcoe.

It's fine to debate the merits of condo design, etc -- but to be "anti condo everywhere" is really to be anti-people. You don't want more people in your city. If you do, condo's are just about the only way they will fit, and the only way most people can afford to own something. Most condo's are not located at the end of Mink Mile and are much cheaper.

But you certainly fire up anti-condo folk who don't think through their arguments.

Great Blog Laura! Some basterd is building a Giant condo across the street from my 5 story apartment. I randomly met the guy's son and asked him if it was going to block my view of The CN Tower. He said "I Hope So!" Son of a prick!

@City: Can you honestly say that all the pro-condo commenters have thought through their replies? I think you need to read them again.

How on earth is it being anti-people? Have you ever heard of a little magazine called "Renter's News", or a website called viewit.ca? There are THOUSANDS of houses, apartments, lofts, etc. already for sale without having to throw up a condo tower at every corner. It's just not necessary to have as many going up as there are.

Are you one of the people who wanted them to put one up where the Queen West fire occured?

Everyone is so quick to jump down the throats of people who don't like the condo boom, but can't seem to accept the fact that there's a hefty portion of Toronto residents who don't want to lose the city's atmosphere entirely. Do the people who already live here not matter?

Hey, Laura and the anti-condo crowd: what is the alternative to condos and urban intensification then???

Not to mention that the title of the post is a total fail. The condo is replacing something that was far from paradise, just a few crappy buildings that were begging for renewal or replacement.

The new city NIMBYs: people opposed to people who oppose densification, or antideintensificationism.

In regards to this location, it's silly not to put up a high rise. It's right at the intersection of both subway lines offering extremely convenient transportation and access to all the amenities the city has to offer. There should be tall buildings surrounding St. George station (and for the most part, there are).

Actually, "tripper", I'm referring to my friends who have lived downtown their whole lives. Perhaps you were sleeping during the whole Queen West debacle when rumours of a condo going up in it's place had everyone that lived there flat out pissed off.

Anything else you'd care to assume? You look like you're arguing just to hear yourself speak.

@Laurence: It was a spin on an old song title. Maybe you're too young to remember it.

@City: Forgive my lacking "editorial skills", as I'm obviously new at this. Why not give pointers, or contribute yourself, rather than complaining about how the content isn't up to your standards?

"Actually, "tripper", I'm referring to my friends who have lived downtown their whole lives. "

So that's how many people? 10? 20? 30?

"Perhaps you were sleeping during the whole Queen West debacle when rumours of a condo going up in it's place had everyone that lived there flat out pissed off."

The hysterical conspiracy theories surrounding that "debacle" is relevant to this situation ... how?

"Anything else you'd care to assume? You look like you're arguing just to hear yourself speak"

I'm conversing you, Laura, and everyone else here who has posted an opinion. Jeez, get a grip. Lose the anger. Do you only want to hear from people who pat you on the back for your super cool thoughts opinions? Is this really what blogto has come to?

"Forgive my lacking "editorial skills", as I'm obviously new at this"

Obviously.

"Why not give pointers, or contribute yourself, rather than complaining about how the content isn't up to your standards?"

This isn't an English class.

I'm shocked that BlogTO editors allowed this post. Not because Laura's opinion is bad (I mean it is but everyone's entitled to an opinion) but because there is no link to anything remotely current. This debate was had at the turn of the century, not even last year.

And, Laura, you seem rather new to the city but that whole West Queen West issue wasn't about intensification in the area, it was about affordable live-work space for artists who were being displaced by the new condos. Can you tell us about the artists who were displaced by this condo? Were any residents displaced at all?

If you want a cheap condo, look at the place around the old Canadian Tire just north of Keele and Dundas. The last time I was by there they were advertising units from the high 100s.

Anyways, Laura should feel fortunate that her boss isn't Donald Trump because you know what he'd say...

Hey the condo market is well within anyone's grasp - if I can own two condos, anyone can own one.... lol

A $250,000 zero down mortgage carries for around $1000/month... well worth owning vs. renting!

@City: There's constructive, which I completely appreciate, and then there's...well, very much not. It's hard to get your point across when people take a statement you make and rip it apart soley because they have a different opinion.

Like I said before, I'm fine with condos. I'm not fine, with the ridiculous amount of them I see popping up everywhere. It's really a matter of opinion, is it not? Locals, students, residents that have been here for 60+ years...people from all of these groups have all clearly stated that they, too, don't like all the condos going up because they feel it takes away from what Toronto has been for so long.

Yes, I know, the future is coming, etc...but in 20 years, is there even going to BE an Annex left? The point I've been trying to make that has been ignored is that at the rate things are going, condos are going to eventually replace everything from Bloor to Finch. I can comment about the replacing of farm land with townhouses, because I've lived there and seen it. The space between Toronto and Barrie is getting much smaller, and eventually Highway 400 is going to be a huge stretch of suburbs with Canada's Wonderland in the middle. What I'm saying is that I'm not okay with that, and I know for a fact I'm not the only one.

I really hate condos, especially the condo boom within Toronto. The ones along Spadina, on Front, blocks the view of the Skydome. Oh, the precious view we once had for Torontonians and tourist who come off the highway into the city.

I'd really like to own a home, with a lawn and trees, in Toronto. Laura, can i borrow $900,000?

Some of you are being really unfair to Laura.

Sure her timing on the 1 Bedford issue was a little late, but she had an opinion and she shared it. Don't like it? Oh well, life goes on.

As a side note, I can't believe that there has been over 80 comments on this post debating the merits of condos in Toronto and no one has mentioned the words "City Place" ;)

So, what do y'all think of the condo going up that's gonna block the view of the Royal York from the lake, the island, the harbourfront, etc ?

@Ryan: I agree it's good for the environment. But like someone said earlier, you see alot of the owners on lakeshore leaving their parking garages in SUVs. It's a bad stereotype, but the people who spend several million on a condo aren't normally the type to take publis transit.

@gl: I don't know what your price argument is since there's homes all over the city for less than half that. I'm not about to purchase a home along the bridal path.

alright Laura: $450k. in the annex, near where those new condo developments are. go.

point being - you can buy an affordable house in toronto, but it will be in scarborough or north york or some other shitty area, real estate is about location, the only way most people can afford to live downtown is to rent an apartment or buy a condo

since ownership is still the better financial option, condos are the smart choice

but, by all means, please move to scarborough (and that won't be anywhere near the bluffs)

While most of us seem to agree that we don't have the option of building only single-family homes (unless we want to look even more like Los Angeles), I think there is a need for debate on the form that our condos should take. For example, I don't have any statistics, but it seems that there is a very small proportion of condos that are true conversions of old industrial buildings, even compared to many American "rust-belt" cities. I am guessing that this is because it is less profitable for developers to convert a six-story warehouse, than to tear it down and build a new 37-story tower. So in order to encourage more of the former, some zoning restrictions or "master plan" have to exist. This might improve the architectural character and variety of available condos. Whether it is better to have fewer 37-storey condos, and many more 6-storey condos (a la Paris?) should be debated. I don't want to put words into Laura's mouth, but perhaps on some level, the feeling she has of "sky high human stackers" everywhere is caused by Toronto's decision to forgo the latter option for the former one.

Wow... So many comments posted in here and almost a quarter of them are personal attacks. This has got to be a record by BlogTO standards... I think everyone should really just relax and realize this is a blog and that people have the right to their opinions.

Laura has some good points, some not so good points (it did come across as NIMBY). But the thing is, maybe in some places we are intensifying too much. Cities like Paris and London (well... I didn't see ALL of London), don't have massive skyscrappers but they manage their density pretty well. We need to start managing our density better and intensifying other areas of the city.

I also feel that a lot of those condos going up will turn into ghost-towns or completely lose value as the young folks living in them realize that they want more space. There aren't any three bedroom apartments going up - nobody wants a family these days?

Now... Building a condo at a major intersection of public transit - that may be a good idea. I'm not against this condo at all.

@City: I disagree - There is room for smaller lawns ;) Not the 60" frontage that a lot of homes in North York have.

I'm all for a lot of low rises. Space isn't being used as efficiently as it can be at the moment - but it's changing. Sheppard between Dufferin and Bathurst has sen a huge number of smaller low rises go up in recent years, replacing the individual homes that were on Sheppard. I think this is the start of a good thing.

Developing more areas of the city (not just with condos, but also office space, small industry, etc) encourages services to be spread out - instead of everyone crushing onto the Yonge line to go downtown every morning, people go to a job closer to where they live, seek entertainment in other areas, etc.

While not the best example, I think North York city centre is a good draft of what future city planning should involve - a smaller satellite "downtown". This place has entertainment, office space, restaurant, community services, public transit, condos, detached homes, parks, etc. We need more places like this in other areas of the city. This could take the pressure off the downtown core, which risks becoming over populated.

@ds: Why did you use those quotes? They are both regarding the fact that some users were resorting to childish insults to get their "pro-condo" point across, nothing else. How does that even relate at all to what you said?