Toronto Southcore Financial Centre & Delta Toronto | 159.71m | 45s | GWL | KPMB

AlvinofDiaspar said:
TOareafan:

MY point of comparison is that miniscule differences in location and accessiblity is an absolutely meaningless measure of its suitability as a site for office uses in the grander context, which also suppliments the greater argument that such a level of accesiblitily is meaningful in comparison between uses, vis-a-vis office vs. residential.
Click to expand...

and that is a valid point....but when you get down into a specific node then the points of comparison become finer. All of the office sites in this node have decent access to all of the items listed in Big Daddy's rebuttal to my flippant "it's not a very good office site comment". Big Daddy's points were good but once you are down to comparing specific sites within a node then one site is better than the other....which brings us back to my belief (and no one really has to share it) that of the office sites, in this node, this site is weaker in comparison to the others and that relative weakness probably explains why the others have gone ahead and this one hasn't...and, IMO, probably won't for a very long time.



AlvinofDiaspar said:
By the time it is or becomes an issue, it is clear the planning regimes have already failed. Surely you aren't proposing to wait until something becomes an issue before acting - which is the very antithesis of planning (read forethought).

AoD
Click to expand...

Another excellent point but it should not stop you from making site specific judgements as you go along. Note the differences and make sure before you rezone one piece of land that the reasons for it are quite site specific and appropriate and that you have good arguments for when the next guy wants to do it and you (the city) don't feel it is as appropriate there.

You can't let zoning from years/decades ago handcuff your moving forward.
 
I get the point you're making about how some plots of land may be more desirable than others for any number of reasons, but I think what has a bigger impact on the pace of development is the question of who's holding the cards. bcIMC seems to be fairly bullish, and they hold the land, so of course that plot is going to get developed sooner rather than later. Compare this to the SITQ held land east of the ACC, where they seem to be much more content to sit on that land for as long as it takes to get the offer they want.

It kind of reminds me when people complain about why a new condo is going 'there', where an historic Victorian house is sitting, and not 'there', where there's a surface parking lot. Developers can't develop things they don't own, this is just another example
 
and that is a valid point....but when you get down into a specific node then the points of comparison become finer.
Click to expand...

Actually there is very little meaningful difference even when you get down into a specific node - in fact, one can easily argue that the decision to proceed or otherwise is determined by the needs and goals of the developer, not the specifics of the site.

Another excellent point but it should not stop you from making site specific judgements as you go along. Note the differences and make sure before you rezone one piece of land that the reasons for it are quite site specific and appropriate and that you have good arguments for when the next guy wants to do it and you (the city) don't feel it is as appropriate there.
Click to expand...

Just how is this site so significantly different from all the others in the area that it would demand "site specific judgements"?

You can't let zoning from years/decades ago handcuff your moving forward
Click to expand...

Considering the amount of rezoning going on in the neighbourhood and the addition of residential elements where none is originally allowed - clearly some sort of balance is already sought (read Maple Leaf Square, ICE). What you have proposed is to upend that balance and call it good planning.

AoD
 
whatever said:
I get the point you're making about how some plots of land may be more desirable than others for any number of reasons, but I think what has a bigger impact on the pace of development is the question of who's holding the cards. bcIMC seems to be fairly bullish, and they hold the land, so of course that plot is going to get developed sooner rather than later. Compare this to the SITQ held land east of the ACC, where they seem to be much more content to sit on that land for as long as it takes to get the offer they want.
Click to expand...

At one point, SITQ looked like the most likely to go ahead on (mostly) spec basis....then they were sort of sidetracked into conservatism by the cash needs and financial losses of their parent. One of the owners of this site (CF) has also been pretty bullish on office development...yet they have not unearthed a tenant that would let them go ahead with this site...despite (obviously) being in the market leasing space on a variety of sites.

whatever said:
It kind of reminds me when people complain about why a new condo is going 'there', where an historic Victorian house is sitting, and not 'there', where there's a surface parking lot. Developers can't develop things they don't own, this is just another example
Click to expand...

This always baffles me......I live in Brampton....for decades, the city has been trying to steer development into their "ideal" and tell people exactly where to put what. The current debate is over a new high density development in Heart Lake...the city keeps saying "we want that kind of development on Queen Street".....aside from the fact none of the landowners on Queen Street seem at all keen to do that....the guy with the current development simply does not own that land...he owns land in Heart Lake!
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Actually there is very little meaningful difference even when you get down into a specific node - in fact, one can easily argue that the decision to proceed or otherwise is determined by the needs and goals of the developer, not the specifics of the site.
Click to expand...

True as that may be, I made the comment that the site (IMO) is inferior and I still believe it so...it is a matter of degrees but it is not as good a site as the other 3 office towers or, even, the office component of MLS.

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Just how is this site so significantly different from all the others in the area that it would demand "site specific judgements"?
Click to expand...

This would be down to the city to determine.....but I would suggest that with MLS, Telus, the two BCIMC towers there just is no further need for office space in the node nor is there demand for it....and that the highest and best use for the land is, now, another condo tower.


AlvinofDiaspar said:
Considering the amount of rezoning going on in the neighbourhood and the addition of residential elements where none is originally allowed - clearly some sort of balance is already sought (read Maple Leaf Square, ICE). What you have proposed is to upend that balance and call it good planning.
Click to expand...

What I would suggest is not upending anything....just recognizing that the goals for the area of a mixed used area of office, recreational, residential and retail have been met and that dealing with this specific site some rezoning would be in order (like I said, earlier, no one has to agree and it is not even known if it is being contempalted by Lanterra/CF).
 
TOareaFan said:
True as that may be, I made the comment that the site (IMO) is inferior and I still believe it so...it is a matter of degrees but it is not as good a site as the other 3 office towers or, even, the office component of MLS.



This would be down to the city to determine.....but I would suggest that with MLS, Telus, the two BCIMC towers there just is no further need for office space in the node nor is there demand for it....and that the highest and best use for the land is, now, another condo tower.




What I would suggest is not upending anything....just recognizing that the goals for the area of a mixed used area of office, recreational, residential and retail have been met and that dealing with this specific site some rezoning would be in order (like I said, earlier, no one has to agree and it is not even known if it is being contempalted by Lanterra/CF).
Click to expand...

If you say there's no demand, your arguing there will never be any future demand ... in the next 100+ years ... if not, the point is to keep this space available to then.

Enough said - this getting kinda silly ... you make an argument that in your mind is valid - someone rebuts, and your counterargument is simply "that's a good point" ... :)
 
The ICE rezoning and restrictive covenant for the office site is only just over a year old. It was done with the knowledge of MLS, 18 York and a hotel on the GWL site.
 
taal said:
If you say there's no demand, your arguing there will never be any future demand ... in the next 100+ years ... if not, the point is to keep this space available to then.

Enough said - this getting kinda silly ... you make an argument that in your mind is valid - someone rebuts, and your counterargument is simply "that's a good point" ... :)
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever simply said "that's a good point" without expanding further my thinking....so debating a point now you're not allowed to acknowledge the strength of the other side's points?

I also never said there would never be demand, I think I said no near or mid term demand for further office space (beyond the 2 BCIMC towers, Telus and MLS).

I would argue that holding land for an indefinite period of time hoping there will be demand for the municpally zoned use is a bit harsh. There has to be some time frame where the city and the landowner can agree. I know you were exagerating to make a point but let's carry the exageration forward....if everyone agreed that in 100 years there would be office use demand.....is it good for the city to wait that long with an undeveloped surface parking lot or are they better with another residential builinding? We certainly know that it is not good for the landowner.

Surely there is some sort of acknowledgement of the rights of the property owner to maximize the profit of his land, within negoitated reason?
 
waterloowarrior said:
The ICE rezoning and restrictive covenant for the office site is only just over a year old. It was done with the knowledge of MLS, 18 York and a hotel on the GWL site.
Click to expand...

and any notion of a rezoning application is only a hypothetical that I raised in response to somone's comment about how the owners of ICE must feel now that their commercial plans have been passed by the GWL/BCIMC announcement of their Phase II. Just want to be clear that this is not based on any Lanterra/CF statements or anything like that.
 
The city needs to pressure developers to "think outside the box" The era of Boutique style condos and BA style office buildings needs to end.

Some detailed brick/stone streetwall podium would do wonders for the area.
 
what... 4 walls and glass isnt good enough? :rolleyes: I'll second that sentiment. Its all about build cheap and charge above market value here. I think the problem with Toronto and this area more specifically is that no thought is put towards creating a vibrant community, inspiring spaces or giving anything back to the city other than square footage wrapped in monochrome glass.
 
From the report:

The proposed heights of the hotel and office building are 159.79 m and 135.45 m respectively.

159.79m = 524.25 feet
135.45m = 444.39 feet
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top