News   Jan 18, 2022
 2.3K     1 
News   Jan 18, 2022
 1.4K     1 
News   Jan 18, 2022
 495     0 

Saks Fifth Avenue Flagship (Queen & Yonge)

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,654
Reaction score
3,255
Location
South Parkdale
the Bay store could have at least two towers (would 80 stories be granted as of right?) above the existing store. As well, the office tower could be torn down, reclad or have stories added on top. .

Hmmm, there would probably be all kinds of shadowing issues with NPS
I cant see anything built at those heights unless its south of King Street
 

CN Tower

Banned
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
0
This block has immense development potential; the Bay store could have at least two towers (would 80 stories be granted as of right?) above the existing store. As well, the office tower could be torn down, reclad or have stories added on top. And the dated bridge over Dundas could also be twinned or greatly widened as well as having a second walkway above.

Lesson #1 in real estate development: you don't pay $650,000,000 for an occupied building in order to knock it down!
 

thecharioteer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
3,499
Reaction score
2,395
One critical piece in terms of design will be how both entities connect to TEC. This is more important than which street they face. If Saks is located on the Bay/Richmond corner, somehow the ground and second floors will have to be redesigned with "neutral" space connecting to the bridge and main Queen Street crosswalk at grade. This would, of course, been the elimination of the new shoe department on the ground floor which, in my opinion, is one of the worst designed shoe departments in a major department store, in terms of layout, materials and traffic flow (certainly does not compare to what we used to have on Eaton's main floor, or what we can expect from the new Nordstrom's.)
 

rdaner

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
235
Lesson #1 in real estate development: you don't pay $650,000,000 for an occupied building in order to knock it down!

No one is assuming they would knock it down (although you obviously did) and there is nothing preventing them from putting up towers over the existing structure. What number lesson would that be, sweetie? Don't respond in a nasty manner and clutter up this thread with pointless posturing.
 

pw20

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
917
Reaction score
185
No one is assuming they would knock it down (although you obviously did) and there is nothing preventing them from putting up towers over the existing structure. What number lesson would that be, sweetie? Don't respond in a nasty manner and clutter up this thread with pointless posturing.

Lesson #2 - you don't pay $650M for a partially occupied class b office tower that's half the height of what it could be.

I don't think this is the immediate plan - but consider:
1) The Bay has moved most of its workforce to Brampton
2) The Simpsons Tower hasn't been upgraded in years and is a dinosaur compared to South Core competition.

I'd be surprised if C-F doesn't envision redevelopment of that portion of the building.

All of this being said - the detailing on the 1929 building is really gorgeous - just noticed it today.
 

JasonParis

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
1,357
Location
Corktown
Sounds like they are taking a conservative approach and hopefully the co-location will allow them to expend the Saks over time.
I agree a vertical store (side-by-side stores) would be best. Saks needs a street presence.
I would expect the Saks to be on the art deco Bay Street side (not Yonge) and in the base of the Simpson's Tower.
... and if they're smart, they'll reclad the base of the Simpson's Tower to modernize it (replacing the bronze glazing with something sparkley)
I think you got it actually. It may not be totally apparent now, but all the additions to the Simpson's complex over the years makes it easier to subdivide than we may think. Sak's gets a Bay Street address and a largely different exterior than the older eastern half which will likely remain Hudson's Bay.

The new bridge, Top Shop, the Queen subway passage and connections via the mezzanine level all remain a bit of a mystery (at least in my head though).
 

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,847
Reaction score
1,086
A logical division. The 1929 Chapman & Oxley addition has a presence all its own:

View attachment 22055

That addition is quite elegant and screams "high end".
The old Robert Simpson Co. logo even has a similar script to Saks Fifth Avenue.

Another article in the Globe about this. It confirms there will be separate entrances for the two stores.

With separate entrances, that suggests, as others have mentioned, some sort of common area or mall space at the end of the overpass within the Hudson's Bay Building (as well as separate street entrances) Hopefully it's an inviting 2 or 3 storey space.
 
Last edited:

CN Tower

Banned
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
0
No one is assuming they would knock it down (although you obviously did) and there is nothing preventing them from putting up towers over the existing structure. What number lesson would that be, sweetie? Don't respond in a nasty manner and clutter up this thread with pointless posturing.

Nothing preventing them from putting up towers over the existing structure? For super tall project? Thanks for the laugh. You are light years out of your league.

Don't call me sweetie.
 

khris

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
8,582
Reaction score
426
Location
Toronto, ON
This block has immense development potential; the Bay store could have at least two towers (would 80 stories be granted as of right?) above the existing store. As well, the office tower could be torn down, reclad or have stories added on top. And the dated bridge over Dundas could also be twinned or greatly widened as well as having a second walkway above.
You can't add a second walkway above, because there's nowhere for it to connect to on the Eaton Centre side.
 

buildup

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
294
Toronto's malls are crappy performers too. Only five of the six major malls in the city crack the Top 20 for performance in North America. There can be only hundreds if not thousands of malls out there. We've totally overbuilt here.

Are you saying Toronto has 5 malls in the Top 20 in North America? Not bad!!
 

taal

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
6,679
Reaction score
164
Location
NYCC
Lesson #2 - you don't pay $650M for a partially occupied class b office tower that's half the height of what it could be.

I don't think this is the immediate plan - but consider:
1) The Bay has moved most of its workforce to Brampton
2) The Simpsons Tower hasn't been upgraded in years and is a dinosaur compared to South Core competition.

I'd be surprised if C-F doesn't envision redevelopment of that portion of the building.

All of this being said - the detailing on the 1929 building is really gorgeous - just noticed it today.

huh ... what are you talking about ... the 320K office tower is just about 96% full (and I'm including sub leases ...) ... more then just about all the older large building in the core ...
http://www.realinsite.com/index.php?page=searchengine&building_name=simpson&locationc=&searchbyabldgbtn=Find+Buildings

Actually about 5 years ago ... a ton of space was available ... because as you said Bay moved it offices to offices on Bloor and Brampton ..

But its all been leased out since .. to other firms ..
 

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,847
Reaction score
1,086
You can't add a second walkway above, because there's nowhere for it to connect to on the Eaton Centre side.

In theory they could add a platform a level up (below the overhang of 20 Queen West (maybe even taking some of the current office space for retail) accessed by escalators) - and maybe even starting farther north using some of those unused columns with the rebar on top. The only way you could widen the bridge (other than twinning to the other arched window), is to raise it a level to the less heritage-sensitive brick part of the facade of Hudson's Bay. If wide enough, the bridge could house kiosks, like the bridge at Cadillac Fairview's Pacific Centre.

4782691879_69de42aefa_o.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canmark/4782691879/
 
Last edited:

pw20

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
917
Reaction score
185
huh ... what are you talking about ... the 320K office tower is just about 96% full (and I'm including sub leases ...) ... more then just about all the older large building in the core ...
http://www.realinsite.com/index.php?page=searchengine&building_name=simpson&locationc=&searchbyabldgbtn=Find+Buildings

Actually about 5 years ago ... a ton of space was available ... because as you said Bay moved it offices to offices on Bloor and Brampton ..

But its all been leased out since .. to other firms ..

HBC is giving up most of their space and moving most staff to Brampton.
It's a class B building - in the financial district.

FYI - the concourse building was fully rented too. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but C-F didn't buy the Simpsons tower to keep it as is. I dont' pretned to know their plans for the site - but it won't be stagnant.
 

Top