King-Victoria Transit Hub

[tomh009]

Out of an abundance of optimism, I emailed the property management company for the Kaufman Lofts, asking whether they had considered building a parking garage on their property and revamping the recouped space to develop new townhouses/commercial/office space along Victoria Street, particularly because the transit hub has no commercial areas built into the plan (and also because it's an utter waste of space considering it's directly across the street from KVTH). Response I received:

This is not something that can be address as this would cost the condo owners in Kaufman millions to do, not to mention the logistics to both condos. It is not something the boards are willing to look into at all.

So that's disappointing, for sure. I am curious if a third party will eventually approach them to purchase the parking lot space and develop it, with the clause that parking will be provided for the loft tenants.

They would need to do a deal with a developer whereby the developer would build a parking garage on their existing parking lot (and hand over a bunch of cash in addition) in exchange for the Victoria St frontage property. If it's an attractive enough a proposal, I'm sure their board would consider it, and take it to their owners for approval.

[SF22]

Out of an abundance of optimism, I emailed the property management company for the Kaufman Lofts, asking whether they had considered building a parking garage on their property and revamping the recouped space to develop new townhouses/commercial/office space along Victoria Street, particularly because the transit hub has no commercial areas built into the plan (and also because it's an utter waste of space considering it's directly across the street from KVTH). Response I received:

This is not something that can be address as this would cost the condo owners in Kaufman millions to do, not to mention the logistics to both condos. It is not something the boards are willing to look into at all.

So that's disappointing, for sure. I am curious if a third party will eventually approach them to purchase the parking lot space and develop it, with the clause that parking will be provided for the loft tenants.

They would need to do a deal with a developer whereby the developer would build a parking garage on their existing parking lot (and hand over a bunch of cash in addition) in exchange for the Victoria St frontage property. If it's an attractive enough a proposal, I'm sure their board would consider it, and take it to their owners for approval.

That's sort of what I was thinking. Feels like it's only a matter of time before the money is too good NOT to develop it anymore. Every other spare corner in DTK is getting something built on it, someone will come knocking on their door eventually.

[ac3r]

The surface lot at those lofts is sooo ugly. But it makes sense that they won't consider building a garage. It's just way too costly to do that.

I'd love if they at least built a nice fence around it. Plant some trees, shrubs and commission some artists to do some work that could be put on the fence. Then at least the rest of us wouldn't have to stare at dozens of cars.

[tomh009]

I'd love if they at least built a nice fence around it. Plant some trees, shrubs and commission some artists to do some work that could be put on the fence. Then at least the rest of us wouldn't have to stare at dozens of cars.

It's almost all absentee owners so I don't think this perspective will sway them.

[danbrotherston]

This really isn't a problem with cost, but of condo policy. It would be wildly difficult to accomplish something like this. If a private company came to them and made them an offer, then, it would be possible for the board to present it as an option at an AGM or SGM but the membership would still have to sign on. And I'm not sure whether they'd need 66% support or 100% support, it depends on how their condo legal framework is structured, but either way, either a difficult majority to secure, or an impossible majority, and before even trying you'll have to do like 100k in engineering work just to provide a meaningful proposal to the owners (which is why the board could never do it).

There isn't a lot of room to wiggle on this kind of thing.

That being said, there are many many corners to tackle before that one. I remember looking at them from my windows...Charles and Ontario, David and Joseph, Gaukel and Joseph, three quarters of the Manulife site, and the giant lot on the other side of the Manulife site.

There is parking all over. I'm sure eventually Kaufman's lofts parking will get developed into something, but it's going to be a long time until land is so scarce that it's worth dealing with hundreds of owners in two condo corporations to try and build something rather than just negotiating with Manulife or whoever.

[cherrypark]

I am going to place a bet on the shops plot at Duke and Victoria getting purchased and re-developed coinciding with the lot getting partly re-developed at Kaufman. Seems like an easy way for someone with that parcel to acquire some of the land to improve their FSR and combine parking capacities while in the process of doing the assessment and proposal work for their plot.

As Dan said, lost of barren asphalt to go before this one. Parking lands downtown should definitely be given some greater economic incentive to move on by way of taxation...

[ijmorlan]

This really isn't a problem with cost, but of condo policy. It would be wildly difficult to accomplish something like this. If a private company came to them and made them an offer, then, it would be possible for the board to present it as an option at an AGM or SGM but the membership would still have to sign on. And I'm not sure whether they'd need 66% support or 100% support, it depends on how their condo legal framework is structured, but either way, either a difficult majority to secure, or an impossible majority, and before even trying you'll have to do like 100k in engineering work just to provide a meaningful proposal to the owners (which is why the board could never do it).

If it requires an amendment to the declaration or description, then approval of 80% or 90% of the units is required, depending on what sort of amendment it is:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19#BK231

Terminating the condominium entirely (which I assume includes the case of selling the whole thing; I thought 80% was required for a buyout but I can’t find an explicit provision) takes 80% approval:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19#BK253

[danbrotherston]

This really isn't a problem with cost, but of condo policy. It would be wildly difficult to accomplish something like this. If a private company came to them and made them an offer, then, it would be possible for the board to present it as an option at an AGM or SGM but the membership would still have to sign on. And I'm not sure whether they'd need 66% support or 100% support, it depends on how their condo legal framework is structured, but either way, either a difficult majority to secure, or an impossible majority, and before even trying you'll have to do like 100k in engineering work just to provide a meaningful proposal to the owners (which is why the board could never do it).

If it requires an amendment to the declaration or description, then approval of 80% or 90% of the units is required, depending on what sort of amendment it is:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19#BK231

Terminating the condominium entirely (which I assume includes the case of selling the whole thing; I thought 80% was required for a buyout but I can’t find an explicit provision) takes 80% approval:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19#BK253

It's been a long time since I've done the condo training, but I thought it was only a 66% majority for material changes to the common elements (which depending on how the condo is structure, is what parking could be defined as.

But I think the point remains...it would be extremely difficult and extremely risky.

[taylortbb]

I thought it was only a 66% majority for material changes to the common elements (which depending on how the condo is structure, is what parking could be defined as.

But I think the point remains...it would be extremely difficult and extremely risky.

If you look on the Kitchener GIS system, the west building (410 King) has dozens of parking spots individually drawn. The borders of the condo corp don't even go around the parking lot. So I suspect the parking spots aren't even common elements, but individually titled to the unit owners. It's probably even harder than suggested, and short of dissolving the condo corp a single parking spot owner could likely block the deal.

The east building (404 King) appears to have a more normal structure, with the parking lot appearing as one property with the building. It would probably be far more feasible for that to be combined with the adjacent building, creating a new development along Duke St. That won't help with getting something developed along Victoria St opposite the transit hub though.

[SF22]

I thought it was only a 66% majority for material changes to the common elements (which depending on how the condo is structure, is what parking could be defined as.

But I think the point remains...it would be extremely difficult and extremely risky.

If you look on the Kitchener GIS system, the west building (410 King) has dozens of parking spots individually drawn. The borders of the condo corp don't even go around the parking lot. So I suspect the parking spots aren't even common elements, but individually titled to the unit owners. It's probably even harder than suggested, and short of dissolving the condo corp a single parking spot owner could likely block the deal.

The east building (404 King) appears to have a more normal structure, with the parking lot appearing as one property with the building. It would probably be far more feasible for that to be combined with the adjacent building, creating a new development along Duke St. That won't help with getting something developed along Victoria St opposite the transit hub though.

I'm pretty sure I've seen individual parking spots at the Kaufman Lofts go up for sale on realtor.ca. Not the loft itself, just the space assigned to it. So that would track with what you're saying here. Ugh, what a mess.

[ijmorlan]

It's been a long time since I've done the condo training, but I thought it was only a 66% majority for material changes to the common elements (which depending on how the condo is structure, is what parking could be defined as.

But I think the point remains...it would be extremely difficult and extremely risky.

Sorry, yes, there is a 2/3 requirement for major changes to the common elements. I should have mentioned that too — the numbers I mention are for changes to the documents which legally define the condominium whereas the 2/3 is for changes to the realworld form of the condominium. Until approximately 20 years ago I believe changes to the declaration were required to be unanimous but that was changed to the 80% or 90%, presumably to avoid problems of holdouts (or even just owners simply being unreachable).

Your point definitely remains, no question. I just can’t miss an opportunity to be pedantic…

[ijmorlan]

If you look on the Kitchener GIS system, the west building (410 King) has dozens of parking spots individually drawn. The borders of the condo corp don't even go around the parking lot. So I suspect the parking spots aren't even common elements, but individually titled to the unit owners. It's probably even harder than suggested, and short of dissolving the condo corp a single parking spot owner could likely block the deal.

The east building (404 King) appears to have a more normal structure, with the parking lot appearing as one property with the building. It would probably be far more feasible for that to be combined with the adjacent building, creating a new development along Duke St. That won't help with getting something developed along Victoria St opposite the transit hub though.

I'm pretty sure I've seen individual parking spots at the Kaufman Lofts go up for sale on realtor.ca. Not the loft itself, just the space assigned to it. So that would track with what you're saying here. Ugh, what a mess.

I remember noticing that on the GIS map at some point. On the one hand, I’d be surprised if the parking spaces were freehold; who would pay for snow clearing of the parking lot? On the other hand, I could imagine a parking lot which was a condominium, with the units being the parking spaces and things like the entrance and access lanes being common elements, but I think that would appear on the GIS as a single large parcel.

So I don’t know what is up with those parking spots.

[Lebronj23]

What about the building on the north side of the lot, the yellowish brick building. Theres few business in there, could be large enough to redevelop but might be right up against the parking of Kaufman

[tomh009]

I thought it was only a 66% majority for material changes to the common elements (which depending on how the condo is structure, is what parking could be defined as.

But I think the point remains...it would be extremely difficult and extremely risky.

If you look on the Kitchener GIS system, the west building (410 King) has dozens of parking spots individually drawn. The borders of the condo corp don't even go around the parking lot.

Yes, but ... based on the Kitchener ownership database, all those parking spots and areas appear to be owned by 45 Victoria St Limited. Is that the condo corporation, or is that a separate company? It could even be that 45 Victoria St is a parking-only condo corporation, and thus a Kaufman loft owner would need to also buy a parking unit in the other condo corporation.

If it's a separate condo corporation, then the parking is no longer common elements, and I think redevelopment of the parking would likely require the entire corporation to be sold.

[ac3r]

There's some drilling going on today, but one truck belongs to A&B Rail so I'm unsure if it's related to this project or if they're just doing something else.