Southcore Financial Ctr: PricewaterhouseCoopers Tower (18 York St, bcIMC, 26s, KPMB)
Build Up
Active Member
thanks for the photo update on almost everything marc. I think they are almost at the bottom on the one side because it is only supposed to be three floors down. It looks pretty close to three imo. if not, its only one more floor down. Maybe a crane in a few weeks/month (fingers crossed)
jks
Continuous Lurker
It actually seems to be two floors down. I'd say three as well, but you see in the first image, although it looks like three below, it's really two below, as the rail corridor is above ground, and IT makes one side of the retaining wall.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
As of last week, the majority of the site was 2 levels down, and the eastern portion was 3 levels down.
taal
Senior Member
You really have to ask the question ... does a 26 story tower cut it on such prime real estate. I can't help but think how much better telus would have been if these two towers were combined. Instead of one 30 and 26 tower wed have a 56 tower (likely around 250m). The land on 18 York St could have sat empty until the next cycle when another large building could be built.
Build Up
Active Member
i was thinking the same thing about how we have so many small buildings taking up pefect lots that could be used for something huge. But the city seems to like taking up space with buildings other that building higher. But remember we still have tons of room by the waterfront, beside the core on both sides and tons of parking lots in between. And there is also the huge lot right beside this, and in the next construction cycle i have a feeling that we will have something big built there.
Side note: (imagine what they could have done with the cityplace lot.... sigh)
threnody
Active Member
I like tall buildings as much as the next guy, but it seems like some people think every building within 2 km of King and Bay should be over 50 stories tall. I think 26 stories is just fine.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
^ I totally agree. I see this building and Telus as great use of land. Given the amount of space to work with between Bremner and the rail corridor, is there even enough room? It would be very skinny and would add a lot of costs to engineer such a building (imo).
People like to talk about the "next cycle". But who knows when that will actually begin given the amount of time between the last two cycles.
People like to talk about the "next cycle". But who knows when that will actually begin given the amount of time between the last two cycles.
taal
Senior Member
Let the site sit empty until then I say!
Higher engineering cost ... skinny? Comments like this apply to tall buildings in general (i.e. that your against them). I love telus as much as the next guy but if anything it comes off a bit bulky. I agree not every building needs to be 50+ stories but this site I feel would have been ideal for one.
maestro
Senior Member
This cycle has certainly left the impression that 50 storeys is no big deal and 30 storeys is nothing at all. I can't wait once the current stock rising are completed to just see how hard reality sets in. I agree Telus looks a little stumpy (hopefully, the fins will correct that) however, disagree that this would of been the perfect site for a 50 storey tower with Union Station next door. That grand entrance to the city fully deserves all of its sunlight.
Canada is a relatively small nation with relatively small tenants. 50 storeys is huge task to sell here especially compared to the behemoth living to our south. The site may never get filled in your lifetime with a minimum requirement of that stature. This isn't King & Bay where a lead tenant may compromise by sharing with other lead tenants either.
Canada is a relatively small nation with relatively small tenants. 50 storeys is huge task to sell here especially compared to the behemoth living to our south. The site may never get filled in your lifetime with a minimum requirement of that stature. This isn't King & Bay where a lead tenant may compromise by sharing with other lead tenants either.
taal
Senior Member
Actually I was asking for a 56 story building ... not 50, just to be clear
The logic was simply based on the two building we see under construction now i.e. 18 York St and Telus across the street. Combine them both into one tower - if anything I'd argue the cost would be lower for Telus and PricewaterhouseCoopers then building two separate buildings (Granted a good portion of both of the buildings is up for lease to other companeis).
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
How does the suggestion that taller buildings cost more to build equate to being against tall buildings? That just doesn't make sense.
nstuch
Active Member
i admit to knowing nothing about these things, but there must be some optimum building size in terms of cost to build versus return on revenue. The taller you build the more elevators are required and the less leasable space there is on the lower floors plus each floor costs more because of that until you get to the upper floors in the building that are only served by one set of elevators
taal
Senior Member
How doesn't it ...
If it's a non issue why bring it up, it's not specific to this site. The same argument can be made anywhere, that a taller building cost more to build.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Saying a taller building costs more to build is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. That's why your comment did not make sense.
Maybe I should have rephrased my original statement. Taller buildings become less profitable the higher you build. I think I read somewhere or heard from one of my old professors that once a building gets to about 90 or so floors, it barely breaks even (construction, maintenance, leasable floor area, vacancy rate vs. revenues in rent).
Of course you mentioned only "56" storeys for this site, but it does have it's challenges. I first mentioned skinny because I thought the site was relatively small due to land constraints between the rail the corridor and Bremner. Therefore to get a 56 storey buildng with the same leasable floor area as Telus and 18 York combined, it would have to be a skinny building. There are more forces acting against a building that is 56 storeys than a 30 storey building such as wind and loads. This will require deeper foundations and materials that can handle the structural requirements to offset these forces. There's also the rail corridor with the hundreds of trains that go by everyday causing vibrations that would have to be addressed, again through structural engineering and materials. The loss of revenue due to extra elevators required, as nstuch mentioned, is another loss.
But, I'm not going to debate this anymore. You're of the opinion a 56 storey building and a parking lot (if not a vacant, fenced off dirt field) is better; and I feel a 30 and 26 storey building that both provide quality streetscaping and are more appropriately scaled for these locations are better. To each his own, just don't twist my words around. And for the record, I love tall buildings, but in the right location.
Maybe I should have rephrased my original statement. Taller buildings become less profitable the higher you build. I think I read somewhere or heard from one of my old professors that once a building gets to about 90 or so floors, it barely breaks even (construction, maintenance, leasable floor area, vacancy rate vs. revenues in rent).
Of course you mentioned only "56" storeys for this site, but it does have it's challenges. I first mentioned skinny because I thought the site was relatively small due to land constraints between the rail the corridor and Bremner. Therefore to get a 56 storey buildng with the same leasable floor area as Telus and 18 York combined, it would have to be a skinny building. There are more forces acting against a building that is 56 storeys than a 30 storey building such as wind and loads. This will require deeper foundations and materials that can handle the structural requirements to offset these forces. There's also the rail corridor with the hundreds of trains that go by everyday causing vibrations that would have to be addressed, again through structural engineering and materials. The loss of revenue due to extra elevators required, as nstuch mentioned, is another loss.
But, I'm not going to debate this anymore. You're of the opinion a 56 storey building and a parking lot (if not a vacant, fenced off dirt field) is better; and I feel a 30 and 26 storey building that both provide quality streetscaping and are more appropriately scaled for these locations are better. To each his own, just don't twist my words around. And for the record, I love tall buildings, but in the right location.