Southcore Financial Ctr: PricewaterhouseCoopers Tower (18 York St, bcIMC, 26s, KPMB)

Just take a look at recent history, in the 90's when vacancies were in the 14% range and rents likely at some lower level as well, did we see shift from the 904 to the 416 ... I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I don't as I was too busy chasing tail in school. However, the 905 didn't truly take off until the late 90s when downtown was pushing towards a 4% high (or is that low?). The mid/late 80s to the early/mid 90s still saw companies fleeing the core for the likes of Scarborough, North York, and Etobicoke.
 
Last edited:
Dec 04 Visited

IMG_dec-04-09-0090.jpg


IMG_dec-04-09-0091.jpg


IMG_dec-04-09-0094.jpg


IMG_dec-04-09-0097.jpg
 
Dec 12 Visit

Putting up a sound barrier wall next to the track and a thick one at that.
IMG_dec-12-09-0203.jpg
 
Baron von Raschke said:
Perhaps the thickness has more to do with train derailments than acoustics?
Click to expand...
No derailments here. The trains travel slowly through here because Union Station is right there. It would be sound for sure though. Who wants to here that at work?
 
Baron von Raschke said:
Perhaps the thickness has more to do with train derailments than acoustics?
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. At the Market Wharf condo they had to design a crash barrier into their podium design because they were with in 100 feet of a railway. Trains will not be moving quickly past that building as it is only a block or so from Union. So, there is no way the 18 york bunker is just is for acoustics.
 
Baron von Raschke said:
Perhaps the thickness has more to do with train derailments than acoustics?
Click to expand...
savevp said:
No derailments here. The trains travel slowly through here because Union Station is right there. It would be sound for sure though. Who wants to here that at work?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how fast or slow the trains are moving at any given location. There are specific (and rather expensive to attain) standards that residential and commercial buildings constructed directly adjacent to rail corridors have to meet to obtain necessary approvals.
 
Mike in TO said:
It doesn't matter how fast or slow the trains are moving at any given location. There are specific (and rather expensive to attain) standards that residential and commercial buildings constructed directly adjacent to rail corridors have to meet to obtain necessary approvals.
Click to expand...

And let me guess, they're completely unnecessary, only enforced in Ontario, and a waste of developers money?
 
taal said:
And let me guess, they're completely unnecessary, only enforced in Ontario, and a waste of developers money?
Click to expand...

I don't really see why anyone would think it's a waste of money to provide safety barriers on major rail corridors so I don't really follow your logic?? Seems like a fairly sensible component to the planning process to ensure property owners/users adjacent to major railways are protected in the event of an accident.

The regulations are fairly consistent across Canada (similar regs are in place in many U.S. States) and it's not really the developer money anyways - just gets added to the cost any condo units or to commercial client.

taal said:
Sorry, I don't think you fully understood the motivation behind my post. Once MikeTO replies it should be clear.
Click to expand...

I don't get the "motivation behind your post" comment - I was simply clarifying to a couple previous posters that the barrier was not a sound requirement, and providing information that a regulation is in place to protect inhabitants in the event of a derailment and that those requirements are consistent along all rail corridors (and yes, they cost money to achieve).

It seemed like a fairly straight forward response to me – sorry if I struck a raw nerve?
 
Last edited:
Mike in TO said:
I don't really see why anyone would think it's a waste of money to provide safety barriers on major rail corridors so I don't really follow your logic?? Seems like a fairly sensible component to the planning process to ensure property owners/users adjacent to major railways are protected in the event of an accident.

The regulations are fairly consistent across Canada (similar regs are in place in many U.S. States) and it's not really the developer money anyways - just gets added to the cost any condo units or to commercial client.



I don't get the "motivation behind your post" comment - I was simply clarifying to a couple previous posters that the barrier was not a sound requirement, and providing information that a regulation is in place to protect inhabitants in the event of a derailment and that those requirements are consistent along all rail corridors (and yes, they cost money to achieve).

It seemed like a fairly straight forward response to me – sorry if I struck a raw nerve?
Click to expand...

Sorry MikeTO, didn't mean to come off in an aggressive tone.

I actually thought you were implying (similar to brown field sites - in another thread) that Ontario's regulations are to strict and the extra cost is not worth it for 'developers'.
 
Last edited:
I would think such a thick wall also protects from things other than just derailings. Could also be for explosions.
 
taal said:
Sorry MikeTO, didn't mean to come off in an aggressive tone. I actually thought you were implying (similar to brown field sites - in another thread) that Ontario's regulations are to strict and the extra cost is not worth it for 'developers'.
Click to expand...

No problem. This is a massive tangent, but the two issues really have nothing to do with each other. The proposed brownfields regs (EBR #010-4642) are provincial in nature and will have significant repercussions for most development sites in the GTA. The railway safety beams are a cost of doing business adjacent to rail corridors and those regs are federal in nature and CN has their own set of land-use standards for adjacent properties (CN Property Planning and Development Program).

Generally costs aren't really a problem for 'developers' - costs are simply passed on and the price for condos or commercial space increases for end users.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top