Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 17 245560 STE 20 SA
1 Draper St; 6 Spadina Ave; 8 Spadina Ave; 10 Spadina Ave; 12 Spadina Ave; 14 Spadina Ave; 16 Spadina Ave; 18 Spadina Ave; 19 Draper St; 425 Wellington St W; 439 Wellington St W; 440 Front St W; 443 Wellington St W; 444 Front Street West; 450 Front St W; 462 Front St W
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 10 October 2017
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 1 Draper St; 6 Spadina Ave; 8 Spadina Ave; 10 Spadina Ave; 12 Spadina Ave; 14 Spadina Ave; 16 Spadina Ave; 18 Spadina Ave; 19 Draper St; 425 Wellington St W; 439 Wellington St W; 440 Front St W; 443 Wellington St W; 444 Front Street West; 450 Front St W; 462 Front St W
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 10 October 2017
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 659 units
- Related file
- 14 116571 STE 20 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
One of four site plan applications for the residential portion of the redevelopment of the former Globe and Mail lands (aka "The Well"). These residential site plan applications are related to the non-residential "Master" site plan application (file no. 16 269540 STE 20 SA). This application refers to Building "D" and "E", (22 and 39 storeys), with a total of 659 residential units.
Linked lobbying registrations
No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.
Other registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- RioCan Real Estate Investment TrustSM26017 · 7 April 2018 · “19 Draper Street”
- RioCan Real Estate Investment TrustSM26017 · 7 April 2018 · “443 Wellington Street West”
- DiamondcorpSM24223 · 21 March 2017 · “19 Draper Street”
- DiamondcorpSM24223 · 21 March 2017 · “443 Wellington Street West”
- DiamondcorpSM24223 · 21 March 2017 · “462 Front Street West”
- RioCan Real Estate Investment TrustSM19043 · 12 March 2013 · “19 Draper Street”
- Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM18940 · 14 February 2013 · “19 Draper St”
- Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM18939 · 14 February 2013 · “443 Wellington St. W”
- Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM18940 · 14 February 2013 · “443 Wellington St. W”
- Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM18939 · 14 February 2013 · “462 Front St W.”
- Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM18940 · 14 February 2013 · “462 Front St W.”
- The Woodbridge Company LimitedSM17451 · 14 November 2011 · “19 Draper Street.”
- The Woodbridge Company LimitedSM17440 · 11 November 2011 · “444 Front Street West”
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 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 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.