News   Aug 23, 2024
 1.1K     0 
News   Aug 23, 2024
 1.8K     4 
News   Aug 23, 2024
 539     0 

905 building boom

  • Thread starter billy corgan19982
  • Start date
B

billy corgan19982

Guest
From The Star

905 building boom
Suburban development has far outpaced that of downtown as lower costs and lower taxes draw businesses and residents
Sep. 8, 2006. 06:04 AM
TONY WONG
BUSINESS REPORTER

Most area residents wouldn't know it to look at it, but in a few months, the first phase of the tallest office complex in York Region will be ready for occupancy.
At five and 12 storeys, the anonymous steel and glass buildings of Liberty Square, Markham's newest class A office "towers" built on former farmers' fields in the city's downtown don't exactly exude the marble and limestone-lined prestige of say, a First Canadian Place. But it is representative of a quiet revolution that has taken a decade to happen, transforming the 905 region.
While much of the attention lately has been on the three skyscrapers announced for downtown Toronto this year, dozens of significant projects such as Liberty Square have slipped by unnoticed. But their cumulative effect on development in the Greater Toronto Area has been arguably much more profound.
"There is so much focus on the downtown core that I think the general public really hasn't noticed what's going on," Keith Reading, vice-president of research for Colliers International, said in an interview. "But what's going on is huge."
According to a study by Colliers, since 2000 there has been about a million square feet of office space built in downtown Toronto. In that same period, the suburbs saw a staggering nine times as much, or 9.4 million square feet of space being built.
Toronto is just starting to catch up. In the next two years, 19 office buildings will be completed in the 905 region versus a confirmed three in the downtown core.
The three are massive, totalling more than 3 million square feet. They are the first skyscrapers to be built downtown since BCE Place in 1992.
In July, Brookfield Properties Corp. said it would restart building the moribund Bay Adelaide Centre project, a 1.1 million square foot project with KPMG LLP as the lead tenant.
That announcement followed on the heels of Menkes Developments saying it would be building adjacent to Union Station with Telus Corp. as its tenant. And earlier this year RBC Financial Group and RBC Dexia Investor Services said they would move into the Cadillac Fairview Corp. tower being built in the city's entertainment district. But if you add all the available space created by the three towers, Reading says, that's not much more than the 19 office buildings totalling 2.6 million square feet slated to be built in the suburbs during the same period.
There is no single explanation for the growth of the 905 and the corresponding lacklustre development of the downtown core over the last decade.
One large reason has been cost. Land in the suburbs has been cheaper and more plentiful, and that hasn't escaped the notice of corporations.
Taxes are also significantly less, and companies that don't need the prestige of a downtown office have decided that it's okay to be away from the central core.
Meanwhile, some companies have acknowledged that their employees would rather work and live in the suburbs.
Even small things such as parking can be a big attraction. With so many condos being built downtown and much of the surface parking disappearing, the median price for monthly parking increased by 5 per cent to $300 in 2006, according to a recent study by Colliers International. Suburban parking is usually free.
"There is a real sense of optimism in the 905 — you build it and they will come. The suburbs have developed into true self-sustaining cities," says Glenn Crosby, vice-president of JJ Barnicke Ltd., responsible for leasing the Liberty project.
"And people have realized they don't necessarily have to be downtown. There isn't the same loyalty to geography. They are looking for the best real estate deal. And the best deal is sometimes found in the newest, most modern buildings. It's a win-win situation — if you're willing to move."
On a rainy weekday, Crosby drives his BMW sedan around a sold-out Markham condominium project, which is right beside a Hilton hotel, in the heart of a new higher-density planned city centre. Highway 7, the main thoroughfare, is jammed with cars and employees on their way to head offices of high tech companies such as Apple Computer Inc., IBM Canada Corp. and ATI Technologies Inc.
Markham already has a "cachet" with corporate Canada, says Crosby, that is being solidified by the current suburban building boom.
Even in the suburbs, space is at a premium. While there may have been a dozen options a few years ago for large blocks of space, corporations may now have three or four to choose from, he says.
"You can have all the amenities of downtown without the hassle."
This is no idle boast.
Developers are so confident in the 905 region that many, such as Liberty Development Corp., which is building the Markham office development, are doing something that is unheard of for a developer of a downtown skyscraper. They are building on "spec" or without a confirmed tenant. In fact, seven of the 19 buildings slated for completion have yet to find a tenant.
That would be unthinkable in the downtown core, where a lead tenant like the Royal Bank of Canada is needed to start a million square foot project such as the Cadillac Fairview building in the city's entertainment district.
In other cases, corporations may decide to move to the 905 area and have a building made especially for them. That was the case with the highly publicized move by financial services company Citigroup to start building a 200,000-square-foot headquarters in Mississauga this year.
About 1,100 employees will move from several locations, including from the company's 70,000-square-foot One Toronto St. downtown office when the complex opens by the end of next year.
"The driver was costs and the ability to consolidate different offices and operate in a new building that had all the technology they needed," says Robert Armstrong, senior vice-president at Jones Lang LaSalle, who helped to broker the deal.
Even if the three new towers scheduled for downtown Toronto were available today, Citigroup likely still would have moved outside the core, he says.
"They wouldn't be downtown in the first place; it wouldn't be economically feasible," Armstrong says.
One issue was finding a downtown location with large floor plates suitable for call centre operations. First Canadian Place, the biggest office tower in Toronto, has some of the largest floor plates at 30,000 square feet. But call centres typically need 40,000 square feet and up.
"Because space is such a premium, you have to build up and go vertical, but it gets exponentially much more expensive to build that way," said Eamonn Murphy, senior vice-president at Jones Lang LaSalle.
According to Colliers, the western fringe of the GTA, such as Mississauga, Brampton, Oakville and Burlington, will lead the way in development over the next two years, representing about half the total slated for completion. Demand for new suburban office space has been driven by expansion from companies such as Loblaws and the relocation of companies such as Citigroup and Maple Leaf Foods, Colliers says.
Still, Armstrong cautions that the suburbs are not the solution for every company.
Citigroup, for example, will still maintain a downtown presence with its 125,000 square feet Canadian headquarters. "It's a prestige issue, and it's a business decision. If you want your presence known, you have to be on Bay Street or on Wall Street, especially when you're working with other banks and financial players," Armstrong says.
In the case of the Maritime Life Building, built in 2000 and the first significant office space to be developed downtown in a decade, the lead tenant actually wanted to move to the suburbs, says Murphy. But after Murphy and Armstrong did the analysis, it made more sense for their client to stay downtown.
 
"You can have all the amenities of downtown without the hassle."
...and without the constant harrassment of aggressive panhandlers and parking enforcement officers. However, watch out for the Canada geese, they can get pretty nasty during nesting season in spring.

We moved our office to Markham from Toronto 2 years ago. We got double the space for a lot less rent and free parking to boot. I've been able to hire more people who live in the Markham area who take less pay to work closer to home and they dont have to commute downtown. The only downside, most people who live in the city must drive to work in the 905. Transit options are poor. We lost one employee who just could not handle the 90 minute commute on 3 seperate bus routes coming from Scarborough.
 
I'm happy the 905 region is doing well, but I'm not sure this is progress in the long run. I think this trend is a bad one because it encourages sprawl and discourages transit use.

I worked for a large corporation that moved from north downtown, where there was decent transit, to an isolated "campus" up in Markham where useable transit was almost non-existent. I did the reverse driving commute from downtown to the burbs for two additional hellish years before I quit. I would never again consider working in the burbs, since I have zero interest in buying a brick box on the other side of the highway from my office, which is what most of my coworkers did, in a neighbourhood where it's a 15 minute drive to buy a jug of milk.

What particularly angered me was that the company received monstrous tax breaks from our government for building in an "environmentally sustainable" manner because they preserved part of a river that passed through the property. Now 2,500 people must -- and I mean must -- drive to work every day. The beautiful field beside the beautifully preserved river is now a gigantic parking lot. That this is worthy of environmental accolades fascinates me.

Taxes are cheaper in the suburbs, in part, because the transit infrastructure is poor. Companies are just passing the buck to their employees by taking away their option to take transit, which can save individuals a lot of money. Less tax income coming in to the city will mean that the existing transit gets poorer, and this will feed a cycle of more downtown abandonment. Building is cheaper in the burbs because companies can build "out" not "up": again, this is good for the self-interest of the company but bad for society as a whole because it paves over more farmland and forces us to commute further.

I have little faith in any of these new suburban developments to be truly friendly to walkers, bikers, or non-drivers in anything but the most superficial manner. Companies will always do what is cheapest for them in the short run. It's governments need to step in to make sure that the development is sustainable and part of a wider regional plan that protects environmental, sprawl, and quality-of-live concerns. But, these days regions and governments are so desperate to attract business to their particular area that all of this goes by the wayside.
 
Sounds like the IBM Software Lab. I used to work there, too.
 
This article fails to take into account all the negative aspects of this suburban office development. Mixing jobs and residential is very good..and I think we will see more of this, but they don't mention that most of the "underclass" of workers, cleaning staff, clerical staff don't own big houses in the suburbs and these new suburban offices forces them to commute on non-existent transit, which is part of the reason why the taxes are lower in these suburbs in the first place.
 
P1050206.jpg

Liberty Square u/c

I'm actually surprised that this will be York Region's tallest office building. There are some office buildings in the Hwy 7/404 area that look just as tall as Liberty Square, if not taller (partly because they are built on higher ground).
 
Taxes are cheaper in the suburbs, in part, because the transit infrastructure is poor. Companies are just passing the buck to their employees by taking away their option to take transit, which can save individuals a lot of money

This article fails to take into account all the negative aspects of this suburban office development. Mixing jobs and residential is very good..and I think we will see more of this, but they don't mention that most of the "underclass" of workers, cleaning staff, clerical staff don't own big houses in the suburbs and these new suburban offices forces them to commute on non-existent transit, which is part of the reason why the taxes are lower in these suburbs in the first place.

The city of Toronto spends as around the same amount of money per capita as Mississauga, Brampton, and York Region to subsidize the operation of its transit system. The suburbs have lower taxes for business only... the residential taxes in Toronto are actually lower than in the 905. Who has been raising taxes more these past few years: Toronto or the 905?

I think the effect of high taxes on business has been overrated. Probably the higher cost of land in the downtown core has been a bigger factor. Business would still move to the suburbs even if the taxes were competitive with the 905.

I would never again consider working in the burbs, since I have zero interest in buying a brick box on the other side of the highway from my office, which is what most of my coworkers did, in a neighbourhood where it's a 15 minute drive to buy a jug of milk.

Even if you consider only an average driving speed of 20 km/h, a 15 min drive would mean that the convenience and grocery stores are 5 km away, and 10 km apart from each other.

I worked for a large corporation that moved from north downtown, where there was decent transit, to an isolated "campus" up in Markham where useable transit was almost non-existent.

If you consider transit downtown to be merely "decent" then it's no wonder you find transit in the 905 to be not "useable" at all. Many have to take transit to work every day in the 905 and somehow they manage and they don't bitch about it as much as you do.

Less tax income coming in to the city will mean that the existing transit gets poorer, and this will feed a cycle of more downtown abandonment

There is nothing at all to indicate that this sort of abandonment is happening downtown. There are even 50 story and 41 story office buildings under construction right now. If there is ever any large-scale abandonment of downtown, it certainly won't because of crappy transit in the 905.
 
The city of Toronto spends as around the same amount of money per capita as Mississauga, Brampton, and York Region to subsidize the operation of its transit system.

But I don't know anyone in the suburbs who uses transit unless they are dirt poor or under the age of 16. Where does all the money go? Is it because the population density is less, so they have fewer people over a larger area? If so, I guess that's sort of a chicken-and-egg, huh.

I think the effect of high taxes on business has been overrated.

But I've read many, many articles over the past decade or so quoting business owners as saying that business taxes in Toronto are killing them. Is this just the usual grumbling that people do when they have to pay tax, or is there a real misunderstanding going on here?

Business would still move to the suburbs even if the taxes were competitive with the 905.

There is nothing at all to indicate that this sort of abandonment is happening downtown.

So... is there an abandonment or isn't there? Or are you saying that some movement to the suburbs is going to happen regardless and that it's not a concern? That I can agree with.

Even if you consider only an average driving speed of 20 km/h, a 15 min drive would mean that the convenience and grocery stores are 5 km away, and 10 km apart from each other.

I'm talking round trip. If your trip involves a couple left turns at a fairly busy time of day at those monster multi-lane intersections that are common in Markham, a 15 minute trip to a plaza almost within view of your home is entirely reasonable. I count driving time as the time spent moving, stopped at a light, turning into a parking lot, finding a parking spot, etc. Door to door.

If you consider transit downtown to be merely "decent" then it's no wonder you find transit in the 905 to be not "useable" at all.

Compared to transit in many other cities around the world, yes, Toronto transit can generously be described as merely decent. It takes you from point A to B in a tolerable amount of time... usually. But on any given day you can still experience very long waits, overloaded buses that pass by without even stopping, streetcars that suddenly shortchange on their planned routes without warning, rude and indifferent staff, bus and streetcar stops languishing without bus shelters for years in a city with an extreme climate, and so on.

My experiences with transit in the suburbs, and those of my friends and co-workers, were drastically worse. I'm talking about full half hour waits for buses along Highway 7 at stops so underserved and underused that carloads of hooligans felt free to regularly stop and harass females waiting in the shelter. For this reason alone I knew coworkers who refused to commute for one minute longer than they had to.

So I'm not just bitching, thanks: I lived and worked in the suburbs of Toronto for over 20 years and everybody I know there agrees that the transit system as a whole is a joke, unless things have suddenly transformed magically in the past few years.

Many have to take transit to work every day in the 905 and somehow they manage and they don't bitch about it as much as you do.

My point: I have high expecations for transit. I think it should be of a quality that makes it a viable and realistic alternative to an automobile. It should be a method of travel that people choose rather than are forced to take. It should not be something people "manage" to endure, as you suggest.

I realize this contrasts with the typical opinion of Canadians, which seems to be that public transit is a type of charity or welfare service for the poor who can't afford cars, and that those people should just be grateful it exists, suck it up, and not complain. I may be idealistic, I think this view is shortsighted and that for a number of economic and environmental reasons we'd be better off investing in better transit and reducing the number of cars on the road.

If there is ever any large-scale abandonment of downtown, it certainly won't because of crappy transit in the 905.

Huh? That's not at all what I said. My concern is that companies who move to the suburbs from the downtown for shorterm personal savings are locking all their employees, clients, etc., into a suburban car-centric lifestyle. Since our government claims it wants to fight sprawl, this should be discouraged: instead it's being touted as "progress". Opportunities to invest in transit, high density areas, and to stop sprawl are being lost forever in a race to the bottom.
 
"But I don't know anyone in the suburbs who uses transit unless they are dirt poor or under the age of 16."

You must not know many people in the suburbs, then.
 
"You must not know many people in the suburbs, then."
^yeah, Mississauga has pretty high usage/cap

I think the new businesses coming into the suburbs is good, as long as it has good transit (i.e. VIVA [york] or express buses [mississauga]) and it is higher density (5+ stories). If it is the same sprawling 1 story office park with 30 minute bus service then id say no.
 
"^yeah, Mississauga has pretty high usage/cap"

And there are virtually no poor people in York Region, so there's clearly middle class+ people using it.

"I'm actually surprised that this will be York Region's tallest office building. There are some office buildings in the Hwy 7/404 area that look just as tall as Liberty Square, if not taller (partly because they are built on higher ground)."

There's an 11 storey office building at Woodbine & Steeles, right across from, I think, a 9 and an 8 storey building. I can't think of much else that's over 10 stories in York Region. However, the height is not nearly as important as the square footage and number of employees - some of the ~5 storey complexes are truly enormous. I believe, at one time, each of the IBM buildings at Vic Park and Steeles held over 2500 workers...the complex pretty much translates into a 50 storey tower downtown. Of course, when you add in the 20 acres or so of grass and parking lots, it gets a bit silly.

As long as there's enough office buildings close to transit routes, it doesn't really matter how dense or sprawlly they actually are or how much land is wasted by parking lots and grassy knolls - people will end up taking transit there if it's easy.
 
But I've read many, many articles over the past decade or so quoting business owners as saying that business taxes in Toronto are killing them. Is this just the usual grumbling that people do when they have to pay tax, or is there a real misunderstanding going on here?

Well, a lot of people grumble about taxes all the time but it is not really what is driving certain types of business out of Toronto.

So... is there an abandonment or isn't there? Or are you saying that some movement to the suburbs is going to happen regardless and that it's not a concern? That I can agree with.

Abandonment in Toronto is of industrial land only and it is because of high property values and this is a good thing. It means that downtown is a desirable place. There is no office abandonment in Toronto. If you want to see office abandonment, you should go to Hamilton, a city that has control of its suburbs no less.

I'm talking round trip. If your trip involves a couple left turns at a fairly busy time of day at those monster multi-lane intersections that are common in Markham, a 15 minute trip to a plaza almost within view of your home is entirely reasonable. I count driving time as the time spent moving, stopped at a light, turning into a parking lot, finding a parking spot, etc. Door to door.

Riiightt, driving takes so long.

Compared to transit in many other cities around the world, yes, Toronto transit can generously be described as merely decent. It takes you from point A to B in a tolerable amount of time... usually. But on any given day you can still experience very long waits, overloaded buses that pass by without even stopping, streetcars that suddenly shortchange on their planned routes without warning, rude and indifferent staff, bus and streetcar stops languishing without bus shelters for years in a city with an extreme climate, and so on.

Wow, you complain about every little thing...

My point: I have high expecations for transit. I think it should be of a quality that makes it a viable and realistic alternative to an automobile. It should be a method of travel that people choose rather than are forced to take. It should not be something people "manage" to endure, as you suggest

People are not "forced" to take transit at all. Even in the 905, most transit users are over 16 and from middle-class families that have at least one car. GO Transit in particular caters to motorists.

I realize this contrasts with the typical opinion of Canadians, which seems to be that public transit is a type of charity or welfare service for the poor who can't afford cars, and that those people should just be grateful it exists, suck it up, and not complain.

Who thinks this? Most people using transit in Toronto use it because they want to. I think a lot of people want to see transit improved.

Huh? That's not at all what I said. My concern is that companies who move to the suburbs from the downtown for shorterm personal savings are locking all their employees, clients, etc., into a suburban car-centric lifestyle. Since our government claims it wants to fight sprawl, this should be discouraged: instead it's being touted as "progress". Opportunities to invest in transit, high density areas, and to stop sprawl are being lost forever in a race to the bottom.

You can't have all business downtown and the lack of investment in transit in the Toronto area has nothing to with the suburban office parks or lack of high density development, because in fact there is a considerable amount of high-density development in the suburbs.
 
"because in fact there is a considerable amount of high-density development in the suburbs"

I really don't think so. There is very little high density development or high density in general in the city of Toronto either.
 
^ actually the GTA conventional suburbs have been constructed at much higher densities than the U.S. It seems most of us here like to relentlessly bash the 905, but the reality is that we are far ahead of our North American cities and towns.

A lot of American developers are stunned at the densities here and the fact that Canadian consumers are accepting of these densities.
 

Back
Top