lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 152025 STE 20 SA

19 Duncan St; 219 Adelaide St W; 223 Adelaide St W; 225 Adelaide St W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
9 May 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
6
0 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
19 Duncan St; 219 Adelaide St W; 223 Adelaide St W; 225 Adelaide St W
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
9 May 2016
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
15 164825 STE 20 OZ

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

Site Plan Approval to redevelop the site with a 57-storey mixed-use development including an eight-storey podium containing retail and office uses with residential units in the tower portion. A total of 124 parking spaces and 523 bicycle parking spaces are located in a below grade parking garage. The existing heritage building will be largely retained.

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 6 communications · 0 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Joe Cressy, Ward 204
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina2
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Joe Cressy, Ward 20Councillor staff4024 April 2018
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council2024 April 2018

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

Comparison with similar 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 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,881

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied1651,881100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.