Toronto The Britt Condos | 142.03m | 41s | Lanterra | Arcadis

WiddleBittyKitty said:
But you did Blanche, you did.

Start with the first point, then go to the second, etc.

So first; CapitalSeven is not the only member questioning the ethics of tearing down a perfectly serviceable 32-storey building. Are you saying, ThomasJ, that there's nothing to question there?
Click to expand...


*sigh* must i spell it out evvvvery time, kitty kat? what i'm saying is that the thing is going down.

I've decided to refrain from opining on these forums ever since the time I said "boom!" to an "administrator" and was issued a five-day suspension. Since then I've tried my best to stick to facts alone (let's see how long that lasts!).
 
ThomasJ said:
*sigh* must i spell it out evvvvery time, kitty kat? what i'm saying is that the thing is going down.

I've decided to refrain from opining on these forums ever since the time I said "boom!" to an "administrator" and was issued a five-day suspension. Since then I've tried my best to stick to facts alone (let's see how long that lasts!).
Click to expand...

Given the counter-arguments, why are you even so eagerly definitive about its coming down? Because "progress-minded" boomburgs elsewhere would have no qualms about taking it down?

Look at it this way analogously speaking: just because you see and are intrigued by certain hardcore or even violatory acts in stag films doesn't mean you should reenact them on a first date, or even on any date at all, let alone with a non-consenting partner...
 
Different perspective

I agree with Bentley. You don't pay $50,000,000 for this property only to demolish it.

What i find interesting about this deal is that it went to a company like Lanterra. The speculative nature of the market today all but excludes private capital from doing these sorts of deals as the exit strategy is just so ridiculous that no private investor would be able to compete. The market really belongs to those clever/slick enough to spin straw into gold in the mind of the clueless buying public. Same goes for 21 Avenue and their conversion plan though that location partially makes up for the dubious floor plans It's reallly just a sprint to the finish line to capture the remaining investor demand before the whole house of cards implodes.

It's a bit of a pity as this could have been a nice hotel again with a facelift instead of what most likely will become another wealthy foreign student dormatory.
 
Last edited:
adma said:
Given the counter-arguments, why are you even so eagerly definitive about its coming down? Because "progress-minded" boomburgs elsewhere would have no qualms about taking it down?

Look at it this way analogously speaking: just because you see and are intrigued by certain hardcore or even violatory acts in stag films doesn't mean you should reenact them on a first date, or even on any date at all, let alone with a non-consenting partner...
Click to expand...


what do you think would make me so "eagerly definitive" about it coming down, adma? remember, i've already stated that i'm not opining on whether or not it should be demo'd.
 
CN Tower said:
I agree with Bentley. You don't pay $50,000,000 for this property only to demolish it.

What i find interesting about this deal is that it went to a company like Lanterra. The speculative nature of the market today all but excludes private capital from doing these sorts of deals as the exit strategy is just so ridiculous that no private investor would be able to compete. The market really belongs to those clever/slick enough to spin straw into gold in the mind of the clueless buying public. Same goes for 21 Avenue and their conversion plan though that location partially makes up for the dubious floor plans It's reallly just a sprint to the finish line to capture the remaining investor demand before the whole house of cards implodes.

It's a bit of a pity as this could have been a nice hotel again with a facelift instead of what most likely will become another wealthy foreign student dormatory.
Click to expand...


actually, you do pay $50,000,000 for a property if you can demolish it and replace it with 500,000+ sf of GFA (in a market where land is penciling to $100 per buildable foot).
 
ThomasJ said:
actually, you do pay $50,000,000 for a property if you can demolish it and replace it with 500,000+ sf of GFA (in a market where land is penciling to $100 per buildable foot).
Click to expand...

I doubt you'd get that kind of density on this site, the market isn't $100psf in this area and you are underestimating the enormous demolition costs and opposition to re-development.
 
CN Tower said:
I doubt you'd get that kind of density on this site, the market isn't $100psf in this area and you are underestimating the enormous demolition costs and opposition to re-development.
Click to expand...


how big is the site?

500,000 sf GFA doesn't sound insane if you consider a building footprint of 120 ft x 120 ft = 14,400 ft2 per floor = ~35 floors.

double the floors to 70s and cost drops to $50 per buildable foot, which i believe is around current market ?!?
 
cdr108 said:
how big is the site?

500,000 sf GFA doesn't sound insane if you consider a building footprint of 120 ft x 120 ft = 14,400 ft2 per floor = ~35 floors.

double the floors to 70s and cost drops to $50 per buildable foot, which i believe is around current market ?!?
Click to expand...

The City's Tall Building Guidelines cap floorplates at about 8,000 sq ft. I dont see the planning rationale for 60+ floors at Bay & Wellesley. How about you?
 
CN Tower said:
The City's Tall Building Guidelines cap floorplates at about 8,000 sq ft. I dont see the planning rationale for 60+ floors at Bay & Wellesley. How about you?
Click to expand...

I guess I don't know enough about the guidelines regarding tall buildings but I don't understand why we have them for such a large area of the downtown where there is such great transit (subway) and other amenities. We should densify there as much as we can. Bay & Wellesley is so close to Yonge and University subway lines and the Bloor line. What reasons are there behind a cap of only 8,000 sq ft floor plates and why can't builders build tall (50+ storey) towers there? Is there a shadowing constraint there too? Asides from Queens Park and NPS, where else are there shadowing constraints? Much of the downtown area is off limits, apparently, for tall buildings with the east side due to the historic St. Lawrence market, the Entertainment district due to historic components, the Queens Park and NPS areas and now Yonge and Bay streets above Queen (due to tall buildings guidelines). That's too bad. By the way, I know there are many towers that have been or are under construction in areas north of NPS but I'm saying there still could be more.....
 
cdr108 said:
how big is the site?

500,000 sf GFA doesn't sound insane if you consider a building footprint of 120 ft x 120 ft = 14,400 ft2 per floor = ~35 floors.

double the floors to 70s and cost drops to $50 per buildable foot, which i believe is around current market ?!?
Click to expand...


"current market" is $100/sf buildable not $50/sf. several recent trades (in inferior locations no less) at that number.
 
cdr108 said:
how big is the site?

500,000 sf GFA doesn't sound insane if you consider a building footprint of 120 ft x 120 ft = 14,400 ft2 per floor = ~35 floors.

double the floors to 70s and cost drops to $50 per buildable foot, which i believe is around current market ?!?
Click to expand...


the lot is 42,000 sf btw. meaning that 15x coverage would yield close to 650,000 sf.
 
ThomasJ said:
the lot is 42,000 sf btw. meaning that 15x coverage would yield close to 650,000 sf.
Click to expand...

One Bloor has a FAR of 16. And you think Staff will support 15 here? Keep dreaming.

Current matket is not $100 psf of gross buildable area here. Forget it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top