Academic / 2025

605 Bronson Avenue

A development feasibility study comparing the site as it stands against a fourteen storey proposal, taken through zoning, construction budget and pro forma to a recommendation on whether to build at all.

Project type: Development feasibility and cost analysis
Location: 605 Bronson Avenue and 275 Chamberlain Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario
Status: Academic
Area: 5,068 sq.m existing against 15,055 sq.m proposed
Role: Group 6, ARCC 4500 Assignment 3

An assignment about whether a building should be built, not what it should look like. The site is 605 Bronson Avenue and 275 Chamberlain, and the question is put twice: once to the site as it stands, once to a fourteen storey proposal.

Both options are taken through the same three stages. Site analysis fixes what the zoning actually permits, from lot area and setbacks down to the minimum parking count. A construction budget prices the programme by gross floor area. Then a pro forma converts that into a loan, a monthly payment and thirty years of interest.

The conclusion is the useful part, because it is not the flattering one. Holding the property is not economically viable, since the annual return sits near three per cent. Selling two years after completion returns roughly eighteen. The honest recommendation was to wait until construction costs and material prices come down, and only then build.

Learning to run those numbers is what stops a design being an argument you cannot defend in a room with a client in it.

Produced as Group 6 for ARCC 4500.

Site plan of the proposed option at 605 Bronson Avenue with the property line, setbacks and fire route marked, noting 15,055 square metres of floor area over fourteen storeys

Figure ground map of the surrounding blocks with the subject site marked in red at the corner of Bronson Avenue and Chamberlain Avenue — The site in its context, at the corner of Bronson and Chamberlain.

Site plan of the existing condition with the property line, highway setback and fire route keyed to a legend — Option A, the site as it stands. Five storeys and 5,068 square metres of floor area on 53 parking spaces.

Parking requirement calculation for the existing option, minimum spaces derived separately for office and retail floor area — Option A, the site as it stands. Five storeys and 5,068 square metres of floor area on 53 parking spaces.

Zoning provisions for the existing option, lot area, width, setbacks and building height with the governing clauses highlighted — What the Traditional Main Street zone actually permits, read line by line rather than assumed.

Permitted residential and non-residential uses in the Traditional Main Street zone, with the applicable use highlighted — What the Traditional Main Street zone actually permits, read line by line rather than assumed.

Site plan of the proposed option with the property line, setbacks and fire route marked, noting 15,055 square metres over fourteen storeys — Option B, the fourteen storey proposal. Three times the floor area and 137 parking spaces.

Permitted uses for the proposed option, annotated with the zoning by-law amendment the height would require — Option B, the fourteen storey proposal. Three times the floor area and 137 parking spaces.

Zoning provisions for the proposed option with the height clause annotated against the by-law amendment required — The proposal needs a by-law amendment, so the provisions are worked through twice.

Minimum required parking calculation for the proposed option, 74 spaces derived from the dwelling unit count — The proposal needs a by-law amendment, so the provisions are worked through twice.

Construction budget for the existing option, broken down by programme with gross floor areas and costs per square foot — Construction budgets, priced by programme against gross floor area.

Construction budget for the proposed option, adding underground parking, surface parking, servicing and landscaping to the programme costs — Construction budgets, priced by programme against gross floor area.

Development cost breakdown for the existing option with the hard and soft cost split shown as a pie chart — Development costs, land and construction split out with the financing on top.

Development cost breakdown for the proposed option with the hard and soft cost split shown as a pie chart — Development costs, land and construction split out with the financing on top.

Pro forma for the existing option, setting out the loan amount, interest rate, monthly payment and total interest paid over thirty years — The pro formas. A loan, a monthly payment and thirty years of interest, for each option.

Pro forma for the proposed option with a seventy million dollar loan amount and the resulting monthly payment and interest — The pro formas. A loan, a monthly payment and thirty years of interest, for each option.

Equity against years chart for the existing option, rising steadily to about twenty million dollars over nine years — Equity against time, over ten years, for each option.

Equity against years chart for the proposed option, rising to about forty million dollars over nine years — Equity against time, over ten years, for each option.

Develop and sell against develop and hold for the existing option, showing a negative ten year income and a low annual return — Develop and sell against develop and hold, which is where the recommendation comes from.

Develop and sell against develop and hold for the proposal, comparing development cost, market value, profit and approximate annual return — Develop and sell against develop and hold, which is where the recommendation comes from.

Advantages and disadvantages of both options tabulated side by side, covering zoning compliance, market interest and proximity to transit — The two options set against each other, and the conclusion that follows from the numbers.

The key takeaways, concluding that holding is not economically viable, that selling after two years returns about eighteen per cent, and that it may be worth waiting for costs to fall — The two options set against each other, and the conclusion that follows from the numbers.