Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
25 Price St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.67995, -79.38940
- How this address was located
- Matched exactly to a City of Toronto address point.
Sources: City of Toronto Lobbyist Registry, Development Applications, Committee of Adjustment Applications and Address Points (open data). Lobbyist Registry · Development Applications · Committee of Adjustment · Address Points
Email alerts · at most one a day
Registrations that mention this address
4These registrations name this address in their particulars, after the address was standardised (street type and direction abbreviations). This is a text match, not an inferred link.
Registrations by communications
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
Data table· 7 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 6 | 0 | 20 July 2018 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 17 January 2012 |
| Office of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 5 February 2013 |
| Office of Councillor Perks, Ward 14 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 31 October 2011 |
| Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 31 October 2011 |
| Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 31 October 2011 |
| Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 31 October 2011 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM26391 | Timbercreek Asset Management | 25 Price Street | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 21 June 2018 – 19 January 2022 | 2 |
| SM26392 | Timbercreek Asset Management | 25 Price Street | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 21 June 2018 – 21 June 2019 | 4 |
| SM16628 | Timbercreek Asset Management | 25 Price Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 24 June 2011 – 31 May 2013 | 6 |
| SM11680 | Timbercreek Asset Management | 25 Price Street | Planning Application - Zoning By-law | 6 May 2008 – 5 February 2014 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 16 August 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 207936 STE 27 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 15 August 2011Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 11 257217 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 207936 STE 27 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 16 August 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 257217 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 15 August 2011 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.
Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored
21 Price St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 257217 STE 27 OZ · submitted 15 August 2011 · Closed · from registration SM11680 (Timbercreek Asset Management)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM11680: Redevelopment of 21, 23, 25 Price Street, City of Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 257217 STE 27 OZ at 21 Price St: To demolish existing two storey semi-detached structure, and to construct a new five storey office building complete with one storey below grade and four surface parking spaces. Permit includes 21, 23, 25 Price Street. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Redevelopment of 21, 23, 25 Price Street, City of Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 25 PRICE ST
- application_address
- 25 PRICE ST
21 Price St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 257217 STE 27 OZ · submitted 15 August 2011 · Closed · from registration SM16628 (Timbercreek Asset Management)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM16628: Redevelopment of 21, 23, 25 Price Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 257217 STE 27 OZ at 21 Price St: To demolish existing two storey semi-detached structure, and to construct a new five storey office building complete with one storey below grade and four surface parking spaces. Permit includes 21, 23, 25 Price Street. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Redevelopment of 21, 23, 25 Price Street
Matched fields
- address
- 25 PRICE ST
- application_address
- 25 PRICE ST
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
Development applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 11
46 lobbied · 113 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 46 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | 1,629 | 100% (n=12) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.
Development applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 11
69 lobbied · 60 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 69 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 0.05 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.