Toronto 65 King Street East | 82.9m | 18s | Carttera | WZMH

[DSC]

I have never actually been inside. Did the restaurant previously occupy all three floors?

I am looking forward to seeing what retail comes to the Google building. It looks really nice from the street, and with the right businesses could really liven up that stretch of King. Hopefully we don't get a bank, cannabis shop and A&W/Popeyes.

I think Carttera are "curating" the retail very carefully. I doubt we will see the usual suspects (of which you forgot the nail salons!)

 

[Red Mars]

Mar 30, 2022

 

[DSC]

Though it's NOT part of the 65 King building, we seem to be using this thread to discuss the (former) Tom Jones restaurant adjacent to it. They put in a new application a couple of weeks ago - they have clearly given up on the restaurant idea they applied for last year:

Application Detail​

Application:
Building Additions/Alterations
Status:
Not Started
Location:
40 COLBORNE ST
TORONTO ON
Ward 13: Toronto Centre
Application#:
22 132332 BLD 00 BA
Accepted Date:
Apr 11, 2022
Project:
Office
Work:
Addition(s)
Description:
Convert the existing restaurant to an office building and add a fourth storey and rooftop patio,

 

[thecharioteer]

This project has turned out beautifully, particularly the King/Leader Lane corner. The quality of materials is much higher than in a typical residential development.

 

[Towered]

Though it's NOT part of the 65 King building, we seem to be using this thread to discuss the (former) Tom Jones restaurant adjacent to it. They put in a new application a couple of weeks ago - they have clearly given up on the restaurant idea they applied for last year:

Application Detail​

Application:
Building Additions/Alterations
Status:
Not Started
Location:
40 COLBORNE ST
TORONTO ON
Ward 13: Toronto Centre
Application#:
22 132332 BLD 00 BA
Accepted Date:
Apr 11, 2022
Project:
Office
Work:
Addition(s)
Description:
Convert the existing restaurant to an office building and add a fourth storey and rooftop patio,

Disappointing to lose a place with that rustic old-school atmosphere. There's not many of them left.

 

[AlbertC]

Since 40 Colborne St has an application submitted with a plan in place now, then it may be worth having its own separate thread.

I'll let the forum mods and admins make that final decision though.

 

[DSC]

Since 40 Colborne St has an application submitted with a plan in place now, then it may be worth having its own separate thread.

I'll let the forum mods and admins make that final decision though.

Maybe, my 5 cents is that it is a reno (and not a very big one) so best to keep any discussion of it here. It is a Building Permit application not a Development one.

 

[DavidCapizzano]

This project has turned out beautifully, particularly the King/Leader Lane corner. The quality of materials is much higher than in a typical residential development.

high quality materials, yes, deployed in the most boring way possible. It's really depressing seeing what kind of office projects get built in other countries meanwhile here we're stuck with curtainwall with a smattering of stone on the ground level for good measure. Not a lick of creativity or ambition here.

 

[Northern Light]

high quality materials, yes, deployed in the most boring way possible. It's really depressing seeing what kind of office projects get built in other countries meanwhile here we're stuck with curtainwall with a smattering of stone on the ground level for good measure. Not a lick of creativity or ambition here.

I agree for the most part; though I do think it's important to say, the principal lobby is quite nice and interesting; and the restoration of the heritage facades is great.

While many of us here, rightly, I feel, bemoan the loss of the actual heritage buildings behind said facades, I have met countless people from other places that are stunned by Toronto's ability perform facade retention, and that its done at such scale.

Many of those places where one finds those creative office buildings also saw the history on those sites completely obliterated, providing a clean-slate.

That isn't to excuse laziness or lack of originality here or anywhere else, just to put a little nuance in the overall consideration of this type of development at a City-wide scale.

*****

Noting that the Colborne side here was actually a parking lot immediately prior to development, I still feel it's a real shame that we didn't :

a) Originally preserve history on this block, as the south side of Colborne here is just wonderful and it would have been nice to have a complete heritage block here.

b) Failing that, I would have appreciated something a bit lower in scale on the Colborne frontage (could just mean setbacks), and use of brick and warm tones that complimented the heritage across the street rather than affording a sharp
contrast.

 

[DavidCapizzano]

I agree the heritage restorations are great - I hope they can snag some good retail tenants there to help liven up this stretch of king, which always felt more sleepy than the blocks to the east.

My complaint is mostly with the new construction and office sections. There is a belief here among developers and commercial realtors that tenants do not want to rent in a building unless it has floor to ceiling, wall to wall glass. The result is curtainwall dolled up 50 different ways (usually fins because it's the cheapest add on to gussy up a unitized curtain wall system)

We've had this convo earlier in this thread somewhere, but regardless of how "high quality" this particular curtain wall system is, it is virtually unknown to the average person. It just reads as another glass box. Not to mention that once the building is occupied, tenants mostly have to keep the blinds shut at all times in order to maintain a sense of comfort for workers.

I know it's an extreme comparison, but I would have loved to see something like R7 at Kings Cross here. The colour and texture are lovely and would have really helped pull the warmth and colour from St Lawrence further north.

 

[ProjectEnd]

While I appreciate the passion and don't necessarily disagree with your complaint @DavidCapizzano, you have to remember that all commercial buildings still need to make money. Take your example above: R7 in Kings Cross. A beautiful building, to be sure, but what about the costs and revenues?

• According to RIBA, the building cost the equivalent of $468/ft to construct in 2017;
• In 2017, things in Toronto were being constructed for half that;
• The building currently rents for ~$152/ft if you blend a couple of different leasing offers together (exclusive of additional rent);
• Currently, in Toronto, on average, you have: $40 at 160 Front, $35 at 25 Ontario, $45 at Bay Adelaide 3, $35 at The Well and...$40 at 65 King.
• Currently the highest face rates in a new build are at CIBC Square where space goes for $50 on average. That's a third of R7 and that isn't even close to the highest rate in London.

So what you have here is a building that leases for a little less than a quarter of what R7 does yet still looks pretty damn impressive. Again, I'm not trying to kill anyone's enthusiasm or desire for Toronto to do better, but remember that at the end of the day, the only reason we develop is to make money. Frankly, I'm frightened for a number of the new builds coming online in the next few years. Will companies pay New York or London rates to be in Toronto? No, and as our cost to construct accelerates, those margins get tighter and tighter and eventually you're not making anything on your new build. Tough times ahead.

 

[Yegger]

While I appreciate the passion and don't necessarily disagree with your complaint @DavidCapizzano, you have to remember that all commercial buildings still need to make money. Take your example above: R7 in Kings Cross. A beautiful building, to be sure, but what about the costs and revenues?

• According to RIBA, the building cost the equivalent of $468/ft to construct in 2017;
• In 2017, things in Toronto were being constructed for half that;
• The building currently rents for ~$152/ft if you blend a couple of different leasing offers together (exclusive of additional rent);
• Currently, in Toronto, on average, you have: $40 at 160 Front, $35 at 25 Ontario, $45 at Bay Adelaide 3, $35 at The Well and...$40 at 65 King.
• Currently the highest face rates in a new build are at CIBC Square where space goes for $50 on average. That's a third of R7 and that isn't even close to the highest rate in London.

So what you have here is a building that leases for a little less than a quarter of what R7 does yet still looks pretty damn impressive. Again, I'm not trying to kill anyone's enthusiasm or desire for Toronto to do better, but remember that at the end of the day, the only reason we develop is to make money. Frankly, I'm frightened for a number of the new builds coming online in the next few years. Will companies pay New York or London rates to be in Toronto? No, and as our cost to construct accelerates, those margins get tighter and tighter and eventually you're not making anything on your new build. Tough times ahead.

Thanks for this analysis. It helps understand the differences in cost/revenue between a place like London and Toronto.

I'm happy to see a trend towards higher standards (when it comes to architecture and design) and more refined tastes generally in Toronto. Of course there is still a lot of garbage (RAWs Church/Dundas) but you get what you pay for.

 

[egotrippin]

While I appreciate the passion and don't necessarily disagree with your complaint @DavidCapizzano, you have to remember that all commercial buildings still need to make money. Take your example above: R7 in Kings Cross. A beautiful building, to be sure, but what about the costs and revenues?

• According to RIBA, the building cost the equivalent of $468/ft to construct in 2017;
• In 2017, things in Toronto were being constructed for half that;
• The building currently rents for ~$152/ft if you blend a couple of different leasing offers together (exclusive of additional rent);
• Currently, in Toronto, on average, you have: $40 at 160 Front, $35 at 25 Ontario, $45 at Bay Adelaide 3, $35 at The Well and...$40 at 65 King.
• Currently the highest face rates in a new build are at CIBC Square where space goes for $50 on average. That's a third of R7 and that isn't even close to the highest rate in London.

So what you have here is a building that leases for a little less than a quarter of what R7 does yet still looks pretty damn impressive. Again, I'm not trying to kill anyone's enthusiasm or desire for Toronto to do better, but remember that at the end of the day, the only reason we develop is to make money. Frankly, I'm frightened for a number of the new builds coming online in the next few years. Will companies pay New York or London rates to be in Toronto? No, and as our cost to construct accelerates, those margins get tighter and tighter and eventually you're not making anything on your new build. Tough times ahead.

I'd be curious to know how much of that cost to build is just the economics of building in London vs. Toronto though. R7 is a beautiful building, I'd definitely prefer it to what we got here, but is the cladding system really that much more expensive? I'm sure commercial developments could be considerably more imaginative and still make money at average Toronto leasing rates.

 

[Justelena]

 

[Red Mars]

May 13, 2022