cd concept
Senior Member
It would be nice to see a decent size round about with a garden parkette etc. Where the pedestrian intersection is colour coded green. As to represent this new office district as see in the last photo from previous page.
Toronto East Harbour | 214.2m | 65s | Cadillac Fairview | Adamson
- Thread starter taal
- Start date
abovegrade
Active Member
I really hope that the creative industries can have significant employment space. I know that much needed 'cultural space' is going to be implemented, but it would be cool to know what that means, a lot of people in the arts industries don't use the conventional 'office' model. Artists are leaving Toronto due to a lack of affordable studio space and affordable rent.
Deadpool X
Senior Member
They have been talking about 50,000 jobs in this area. Your numbers look way higher than that.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
He uses calculations that are too dense and uses the wrong numbers.
The Cadillac Fairview part has 9.5 million square feet of Office - that's 50-60,000 office jobs depending on the density of the office layouts. To get to the numbers northern lights is posting you would need to have extremely dense floorplans that very few companies actually employ, especially now in light of COVID.
3 million square feet of residential will result in likely a little over 3,000 units - which will be about 5,000 residents.
afransen
Senior Member
Still, 55k jobs plus 5k residents on 38 acres is 4000 people + jobs per hectare. That is very high density.
Northern Light
Superstar
I am, am I?
Its 17Mft2 for the entire Unilever Precinct which includes non-CF lands.
The jobs number is based on that, not the 9.5Mft2
If you extrapolate your 60,000 jobs on 9.5Mft2 to 17M, you get 107,000 jobs.
But that is only the office component. There will be retail jobs. Security, Cleaning etc.
Yes, the 17M is only conceptual, but that's what was being discussed.
150ft2 per employee is within normative post-Covid planning. Yes, I'm sure of that. Certainly, that may bump up, but there are plans being laid out now that are consistent with that.
However, if you do drop it 200ft2 you would shave the office job number by ~25%
innsertnamehere
Superstar
150ft gets you to 63k jobs on the Cadillac Fairview lands - and 150ft/employee is typical net leased space from my understanding and doesn't include things like lobbies, hallways, etc, so it would likely be a bit lower. Thus 50-60k assumption, which lines up with what the developer has stated.
retail, security, cleaning would likely be a few thousand at most.
The point is still tons upon tons of employment here. Just not 170,000.
Remember that the entire GTA grows at about (IIRC) about 60-70,000 jobs a year across all sectors. Office based employment is probably 30-40% of that. so 50,000 office jobs represents about 3-4 years worth of the entire GTA's office growth, with the wider complex taking up about 6-7 years worth of office employment growth across the entire GTA.
This thing has always been incredibly ambitious, if not teetering at unrealistic. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to build out and how much market interest they get in the space. There would have to be a fairly strong price discount to locate here over Union Station for most employers I imagine, and there is no shortage of office availability around Union right now for new construction. I'd love to know the type of tenants that end up locating here.
I used to think Great Gulf would make it work by offering rent discounts made possible from basically 0 land costs, but now that Cadillac Fairview paid $600 million, that's out the window. Going to be interesting for sure.
retail, security, cleaning would likely be a few thousand at most.
The point is still tons upon tons of employment here. Just not 170,000.
Remember that the entire GTA grows at about (IIRC) about 60-70,000 jobs a year across all sectors. Office based employment is probably 30-40% of that. so 50,000 office jobs represents about 3-4 years worth of the entire GTA's office growth, with the wider complex taking up about 6-7 years worth of office employment growth across the entire GTA.
This thing has always been incredibly ambitious, if not teetering at unrealistic. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to build out and how much market interest they get in the space. There would have to be a fairly strong price discount to locate here over Union Station for most employers I imagine, and there is no shortage of office availability around Union right now for new construction. I'd love to know the type of tenants that end up locating here.
I used to think Great Gulf would make it work by offering rent discounts made possible from basically 0 land costs, but now that Cadillac Fairview paid $600 million, that's out the window. Going to be interesting for sure.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
At 6% cap rate, $600M over 10M sqft is only $3.60/sqft/year land cost.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
12 million sf buildable at $600m for land costs is only $50/ buildable sq ft but you have to remember there is far, far more infrastructure obligations involved here than what is typically involved in a development site, to the tune of hundreds of millions more.
The timelines for return are also in the terms of decades, meaning years and years of carrying that land cost. They'll probably have 10 years of carrying costs by the time the first large building opens, yet alone before the whole development wraps up.
The timelines for return are also in the terms of decades, meaning years and years of carrying that land cost. They'll probably have 10 years of carrying costs by the time the first large building opens, yet alone before the whole development wraps up.
Northern Light
Superstar
Report coming to the June 28th Planning and Housing Ctte on a proposed City negotiation strategy with the Province and CF over the new MTSA (partially residential) status of East Harbour.
Report here:
From said report:
Very clear here, the City has set its sights on extra parkland in exchange for being cooperative:
The City clearly sees this as a lot of work:
The City is also focused on getting affordable housing:
Report here:
From said report:
Very clear here, the City has set its sights on extra parkland in exchange for being cooperative:
The City clearly sees this as a lot of work:
The City is also focused on getting affordable housing:
allengeorge
Senior Member
I think the density increases and the city’s position on parkland and staffing reasonable. I’ve no idea if the affordable housing requirements are commercially reasonable.
WislaHD
Superstar
"Private development is often expected to include a component of affordable housing." is a very interesting sentence to just casually throw into a staff report.
We don't have to rehash this topic from other projects on UT, but I do wonder if there is an appropriateness to affordable housing in all sites. This will be an upscale area with upscale amenities, retail, and local services by necessity of making the development viable. Tenants occupying affordable units here could wind up in somewhat of a "food & services desert" where they may have to travel longer distances to access affordable grocery and service options (at least the site will be a transit hub?).
That said, I understand that the city can't pass up the opportunity to acquire affordable units wherever they can, especially on a site with significant institutional and public ownership components
We don't have to rehash this topic from other projects on UT, but I do wonder if there is an appropriateness to affordable housing in all sites. This will be an upscale area with upscale amenities, retail, and local services by necessity of making the development viable. Tenants occupying affordable units here could wind up in somewhat of a "food & services desert" where they may have to travel longer distances to access affordable grocery and service options (at least the site will be a transit hub?).
That said, I understand that the city can't pass up the opportunity to acquire affordable units wherever they can, especially on a site with significant institutional and public ownership components
Northern Light
Superstar
Worth nothing there is already a large affordable housing stock in the area.
The Rivertown TCHC site is just north-west of Broadview and Queen.
There are extensive sites owned by Woodgreen (United Way) along Queen in the Logan-Carlaw area.
As well as many other sites.
Chinatown East, for now, continues to be an affordable source of produce and is a straight run up on the Broadview Streetcar.
The nearest existing discount supermarkets are 1.5km - 2km away at Gerrard-Carlaw (No Frills); Gerrard Square (Food Basics) and the Freshco at Leslie+Lake Shore.
The No Frills, I believe is to come down as part of plans for Ontario Line (certainly this was the case under the Relief Line); if that is so, I assume LBL/Choice will be looking to either replace that on site or find a suitable alternative.
GabrielHurl
Active Member
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
They can now take OL to Gerrard Square next door, if needed - and there is something fundamentally wrong about excluding those with lower incomes from the most accessible sites. That's how you end up with low income housing at the periphery. If you can have affordable housing at St. Lawrence or Regent Park, I am not sure how you can't have affordable housing here,.
AoD