Toronto Ïce Condominiums at York Centre | 234.07m | 67s | Lanterra | a—A

Remember, somebody saying "the building is 70% sold," is just like Worf telling the captain "the shields are down to 30%!"

It happens every episode, and implies impending drama while functionally meaning nothing.

worf_yacht.jpg
 
Last edited:
http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/...ff02eb639696&projectid=9107384&region=ontario

CONDOMINIUM BUILDING Proj: 9107384-4
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON NEGOTIATED/PLANS COMPLETE
Ice Condo, Phase One, 16 York St, M5J 2Z2
$98,000,000 est
Start: June, 2010 Complete: October, 2013
Note: Sales and marketing are ongoing. Const Mgr is seeking building permits. Sub trades will be awarded sequentially from an Invited list. Shoring and excavation are underway. Construction start is expected June/July, 2010. Further update June, 2010.
Project: concrete foundation, cast-in-place concrete structural frame, structural steel frame, fuel fired heating system, proposed construction of a 55-storey condominium building with 453 suites. Units will range in size from 400 to 1,00 sq ft. The project will feature retail space at grade level and will be connected to the underground PATH system to Union station, Maple Leaf Square, the Air Canada Centre, Rogers Centre and the CN Tower.
Scope: 900,000 square feet; 55 storeys; 2 storeys below grade; 453 units; 2 hectares
Development: New
Category: Apartment bldgs
First report Fri Sep 04, 2009. Last report Fri Feb 12, 2010.
This report Mon Apr 05, 2010.


http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/...412964df39a7&projectid=9098331&region=ontario

CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT BUILDING Proj: 9098331-5
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON NEGOTIATED/WORKING DRAWINGS
Ice Condominium Phase Two, Bremner Blvd, York St, Lake Shore Blvd, M5J
$89,000,000 est
Start: March, 2011 Complete: July, 2014
Note: Working drawings are underway. Sales and marketing are ongoing. Const Mgr expects construction Spring, 2011 pending occupancy. All Sub trades will be secured from an Invited list. Further update early Winter, 2010.
Project: concrete foundation, concrete tilt-up structural frame, fuel fired heating system, proposed construction of a 65 storey condominium building a 2.8 acre site bounded by Bremner Street to the north, York Street to the east, and Lake Shore Boulevard to the south. The building will have retail space at grade and will be connected to the underground PATH system to Union Station, Maple Leaf Square, the Air Canada Centre, Rogers Centre and the CN Tower.Suites will range from 400 to 1,100 sq ft. The project will be connected by a podium to Phase One, a 55 storey condo building, followed under report number 9107384.
Scope: 850,000 square feet; 65 storeys; 4 storeys below grade; 647 units; 3 acres
Development: New
Category: Apartment bldgs; Retail, wholesale services
First report Fri Mar 27, 2009. Last report Fri Feb 12, 2010.
This report Mon Apr 05, 2010.
 
I just can't get over the pricing at this project. I would just go over to 208/218 Queens Quay and pick up a unit there. A water view (totally unobstructed) is cheaper than units at ICE per square foot.

I just don't see what the hype is. For me the architecture is nothing crazy. It's simply a tall structure. Nothing unique, nothing special about it.
 
FutureBuilder said:
I just can't get over the pricing at this project. I would just go over to 208/218 Queens Quay and pick up a unit there. A water view (totally unobstructed) is cheaper than units at ICE per square foot.

I just don't see what the hype is. For me the architecture is nothing crazy. It's simply a tall structure. Nothing unique, nothing special about it.
Click to expand...

Even if you don't think the architecture is all that, you have to agree that a respected designer makes an investment worthwhile, doesn't it? Clewes is highly respected; therefore, units in his buildings will retain their value more than a building that does not have a respected designer, correct? It's why people buy Hermes, and not, say, some street vendor scarf with a tag that says "Bermes." Both scarves could have equal quality of design; it's the name that distinguishes them, and provides a guarantee that other people will think the scarf is important.

When you come to sell your unit, you can tell people that it's in a Clewes building. Even if they don't know who he is, they will respect the fact that you can name him, and will therefore pay you more. Most of the people buying investment properties in this building don't give a fig about Clewes; they give a fig that other people like him.
 
Parkdalian said:
Clewes is highly respected; therefore, units in his buildings will retain their value more than a building that does not have a respected designer, correct?

When you come to sell your unit, you can tell people that it's in a Clewes building. Even if they don't know who he is, they will respect the fact that you can name him, and will therefore pay you more. Most of the people buying investment properties in this building don't give a fig about Clewes; they give a fig that other people like him.
Click to expand...

Frankly ... a Peter Clewes building has zero implication on property value when it comes to resale, real estate is not about who is the "star architect", which some may believe aA qualifies as .... they are just one of the many mass producing architectural firms in the GTA and can hardly be compared with a brand name ~

I do agree ICE is good looking, but I would never buy into a building 'just because it was by aA/Clewes" ... it means nothing
 
Last edited:
Respectfully, UD, you'd be a more significant indicator of the market's tastes if you didn't have a tagline that read "I'd rather be homeless than live in a condo... but I do like watching attractive ones get built."

It's all well and good to dabble in the Fantasy Condo League, but things change when you actually have money on the line.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
Respectfully, UD, you'd be a more significant indicator of the market's tastes if you didn't have a tagline that read "I'd rather be homeless than live in a condo... but I do like watching attractive ones get built."

It's all well and good to dabble in the Fantasy Condo League, but things change when you actually have money on the line.
Click to expand...

hahah good laugh, Clewes as the be all end all of class...ok sure its nice but its not godly. I can assure you as a real estate appraiser, and former MPAC'r (unfortunately) architectural firm means nothing to property values. Maybe in Dubai or elsewhere, Im not sure, but in Toronto, its all based on comparables in that location, with sqft, quality, etc being important, or using cost approach.
 
Last edited:
Time and again, Torontonians have shown, with their wallets, that they couldn't care less about who designs a building AND they're not willing to pay more for it - otherwise, the demand would be there. We are a second tier city and that sort of money only flows in the first tiers. Clewes is a complete unknown to most in Toronto and while some in the industry might know him around the world, his name carries absolutely zero cache. The one condo tower in all of Toronto that might have a shot at any sort of cause celebre is the "L" tower because Libeskind is a known architect throughout the world, but even that tower is less expensive than ICE. I predict that a unit here (if bought at the current price of between $750-800/ft) will be worth exactly the same in 10 years as it is now (meaning less because of inflation) because of the ridiculous traffic and complete lack of any neighbourhood (besides the suburban chains of Jack Astor's, sports bars like Hoops, Tim Hortons, etc.) that will surface. You're stuck between a freeway and a railway, between a baseball stadium and a hockey rink and while still smack in the southern middle of the core, there's nothing around of any interest. No nightclubs, no lounges, no cool little cafes, no art galleries, only one theatre company (and only 1 of its theatres) and a hockey hall of fame. The area screams boredom and will simply reflect the feeling of the financial district on a Sunday morning OR the mayhem of a continual tailgate party, neither of which is attractive to most. As a rental investment, it would be great...but considering rents these days, the price would have to be 1/2 of what it is to make financial sense.
 
simuls said:
Time and again, Torontonians have shown, with their wallets, that they couldn't care less about who designs a building AND they're not willing to pay more for it - otherwise, the demand would be there.
Click to expand...

Actually, "Torontonians" as a population don't get to choose the architects employed to design buildings. Most would quite likely want a very well designed building, but as they don't have a direct say in the design process, they can't be blamed for any assumed failings. As for being unwilling to pay more for a "designer" building, since the cost of home purchase is quite significant, why would you think that people would (or more importantly, could) shell out more for that?

It strikes me as a little narrow-minded that others should be told to spend more of their money in order to satisfy your exclusive aesthetic choices.

Can your provide an example of a failed project that did not get built because people refused to purchase on the basis of the design or the designer?
 
Sure, nobody knows who Clewes is, but even in Toronto an apartment in a decent-looking building is more likely to hold its value over the long term than an apartment in a POS.

Case in point: Those Huang & Danczky monstrosities on Queen's Quay vs. Arthur Ericson's King's Landing down the street. Both built around the same time. Wonder which one has appreciated faster?
 
gristle said:
Can your provide an example of a failed project that did not get built because people refused to purchase on the basis of the design or the designer?
Click to expand...

Toronto's a huge market, and there's always someone willing to compromise money against aesthetics. But that said, look at the price points on Star of Downtown compared to the price points on 500 Sherbourne and Verve. Same neighbourhood, same land values, which developers made the most money on their properties?

Something similar is happening up the street with X/X2/Couture. In the time it took Monarch to hit its sales mark Great Gulf managed to sell out the first building, build it, and sell most of the second building. Again, which developer really came out ahead?

And really, the ultimate in scientific proof on this one (in that *all* of the variables are constant other than design) look at Casa and BSN. Same location, even the same developer, and Casa was occupied first despite BSN having a several year headstart.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top