RBC Centre Vs. Bay Adelaide Centre

[mg100]

Hi,

I have a question about the two recently completed Toronto office towers – The RBC centre and the Bay Adelaide centre.

According to the media, the 1.2 million sf, 43 storey, RBC centre cost around $400 million, while the 1.2 million sf, 50 storey, Bay Adelaide centre cost only $290 million.

I don’t understand why the RBC centre cost $110 million more than the Bay Adelaide centre if their square footage generally the same. I am assuming that both buildings were built using the most modern technology/methods.

Thanks,

MG.

 

[Automation Gallery]

It could have something to do with land value where one development has it included and the other one hasn't..really dont know.

 

[TOareaFan]

It could have something to do with land value where one development has it included and the other one hasn't..really dont know.

That is, most likely, the case. Don't forget, BA was on land that had been acquired over 20 years ago and was a site of a "capped" development. So, even if land is in their numbers, it would have been acquired at much lower cost and the cost would have been amortized down over the years where it was nothing but an underground parking lot.

There is, also, the possibility that the numbers being quoted for RBC include the Ritz as they are being developed by the same people and are, essentially, the same project.....I don't know.

Unless you know what is (and isn't) in the numbers the comparison is pretty meaningless.

 

[Canuck]

Moving this thread to B, A, & UD.

 

[whatever]

RBC is LEED Gold NC, while B/A is only LEED Gold CS. That alone might account for a significant expense.

 

[Alex S]

^ Agreed.

Attaining LEED NC status will cost you two arms and a leg.

 

[valkoholic]

BA's parking and loading was already largely built for the stump. RBC had to build new parking and loading facilities. That alone could be $50 million.

It also depends how you measure things. My guess is these costs are comparing apples with apples.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

RBC while, still a box generally, has a bit more to it's architecture than BA does. BA is essentially a box, while RBC is a box with a podium, cut outs, some architectural features and it's lantern. I would imagine that construction costs would be marginally higher than BA.

 

[marcus_a_j]

BA was constructed using steel beams while RBC was constructed with a concrete frame. I am not sure how much difference there is between the capital costs of the two materials, but BA did rise quicker, thereby offering some savings in labour costs perhaps.

 

[valkoholic]

RBC while, still a box generally, has a bit more to it's architecture than BA does. BA is essentially a box, while RBC is a box with a podium, cut outs, some architectural features and it's lantern. I would imagine that construction costs would be marginally higher than BA.

True. I think RBC actually has two separate elevator cores, one for the tower and one for the west podium. BA is pretty much just straight up.

 

[mg100]

Thanks folks.

 

[Redroom Studios]

BA's parking and loading was already largely built for the stump. RBC had to build new parking and loading facilities. That alone could be $50 million.

It also depends how you measure things. My guess is these costs are comparing apples with apples.

thats not entirely correct - a large portion of the parking garage was demolished so that the new elevator cores could be constructed down to the parking levels: