Automation Gallery
Superstar
And to boot...especially on this forum, people are calling structures of 180 meters/600 feet and up “super-talls†lol
Toronto Bay Adelaide Centre | 217.92m | 51s | Brookfield | KPMB
- Thread starter yyzer
- Start date
And to boot...especially on this forum, people are calling structures of 180 meters/600 feet and up “super-talls†lol
ahmad.m.atiya
Banned
Great analysis!
Come back when you have something interesting to post...thanks.
Red October
Senior Member
Generally in building booms you get a true landmark building or 2.. (Chrysler, Empire State, 40 Wall, Woolworth, etc.) (Sears (Willis) Tower, John Hancock, etc)
Yes we do have the Ritz and L Tower, and I don't want to sound like one of those who only wants height and nothing else, but what if the boom comes and goes and we miss the opportunity for a true tall landmark building? We would regret a developer not taking the chance and building one.
Hell, even a 1,200 ft landmark tower would be great, it doesn't have to be one of these 2,000 ft beasts like the Shanghai Tower and whatnot. I love this boom, it's great for the city, I just don't want to miss our best opportunity we've had to build one of these.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Yes we do have the Ritz and L Tower, and I don't want to sound like one of those who only wants height and nothing else, but what if the boom comes and goes and we miss the opportunity for a true tall landmark building? We would regret a developer not taking the chance and building one.
Hell, even a 1,200 ft landmark tower would be great, it doesn't have to be one of these 2,000 ft beasts like the Shanghai Tower and whatnot. I love this boom, it's great for the city, I just don't want to miss our best opportunity we've had to build one of these.
And that's all I have to say about that.
TonyV
Senior Member
Pretty much, I agree with you. I will only add that I am dreading a twin to BA 1. I'd rather see something really tall for BA 2, same finish, with a complementary shape. I previously suggested 85 storeys, with the east elevation stepped, so that the building is not another block.
An equally good spot for something in excess of 85 (office) storeys is Front/Simcoe. But that is all I have to say about it, too.
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Basically its about maximizing profit and reducing risk. Its sad that developers don't dream a little, but all very logical.
khris
Senior Member
We did get a landmark building. Two in fact. Absolute World.
Red October
Senior Member
Meh, I meant for OUR downtown. Mississauga is a different city, even if it's in the same metro area.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Wow..i was thinking three new office developments of aprox. 2.5 million square feet...and they are saying there are plans in place to deliver more than 9 million square feet of office space, spread over a dozen projects...holy mackeral.
Toronto's rapidly-changing office market conditions signal shift in landlord-tenant balance
"Tenants shopping for space are, in many instances, having to start the process earlier, make decisions faster, and be prepared to compromise more on flexibility. Competitive situations between multiple tenants with interest in the same premises, while not yet commonplace, are definitely occurring and becoming more frequent," he says.
Adds Argeropoulos: "Given the rapid improvement in the marketplace, new office development may be the only viable - in other words, economic - option for some of the dozen or so large tenants currently in play, or about to enter the market in downtown Toronto. In all, there are plans in place to deliver more than 9 million square feet of office space, spread over a dozen projects. Interestingly, more than two-thirds of the proposed office area is outside the traditional confines of the Financial Core - in the already active Downtown South market and areas east of the Core and along the waterfront."
But Argeropoulos also offers a proviso. "Of course, not all of the developments will go ahead at the same time. Some are more advanced in their planning process and/or negotiations in securing a lead tenant than others."
More....http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2011/18/c5886.html
taal
Senior Member
Wow..i was thinking three new office developments of aprox. 2.5 million square feet...and they are saying there are plans in place to deliver more than 9 million square feet of office space, spread over a dozen projects...holy mackeral.
Toronto's rapidly-changing office market conditions signal shift in landlord-tenant balance
"Tenants shopping for space are, in many instances, having to start the process earlier, make decisions faster, and be prepared to compromise more on flexibility. Competitive situations between multiple tenants with interest in the same premises, while not yet commonplace, are definitely occurring and becoming more frequent," he says.
Adds Argeropoulos: "Given the rapid improvement in the marketplace, new office development may be the only viable - in other words, economic - option for some of the dozen or so large tenants currently in play, or about to enter the market in downtown Toronto. In all, there are plans in place to deliver more than 9 million square feet of office space, spread over a dozen projects. Interestingly, more than two-thirds of the proposed office area is outside the traditional confines of the Financial Core - in the already active Downtown South market and areas east of the Core and along the waterfront."
But Argeropoulos also offers a proviso. "Of course, not all of the developments will go ahead at the same time. Some are more advanced in their planning process and/or negotiations in securing a lead tenant than others."
More....http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2011/18/c5886.html
I wouldn't read into that at all ... they probably just found out every single proposed development throughout the core ... there are a ton we know (including a couple in the east and west end of the core) but the odds of even a few getting underway in the short term are unlikely.
Also the Queen-Richmond Center news seems to contradict this ? They've had no luck finding a lead tenant for a mid-size development (i.e. 300,000 range) - a lead tenant only really needs to imply 20-40% of the space. You can argue it's the location though and what they're trying to find.
Lansdown
Banned
WRT to skyscrapers or "super-talls" or "truly iconic buildings": the biggest d--- contest in North America is over, and has been for decades. Only soaring industrializing economies in the east value the symbolism of height beyond rational risk, and they value it at the same point in their economic evolution as the west did. Only countries with more nouveau-riches than they know what to do with plow their money into these ozymandian projects that will be "see through" for years and won't pay back on the initial outlay for decades, if they pay back at all. Risk management, liveability, green practices, and medium-term turnover are our concerns, specifically in Toronto, which doesn't have the argosy of capital that New York or even Chicago does. I love tall buildings just as much as the average Joe, but there is an economic/social moment for every tower of babel, and this isn't it.
Mississauga Slim
Active Member
^^ Well put. This "ohboy ohboy ohboy, it's gonna be a supertall it's gonna be a supertall!!!" thing is soooooooo "Dubai."
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Strange
Who is talking supertall here...we are just debating on an extra 9 million square feet of office space proposed for Toronto, and a 43 storey building planned for this location.
taal
Senior Member
Strange
It seems every thread needs to turn into some supertall fantasy rant at some point or another, multiple times ...
CITY_LOVER
Active Member
Well, I'm very happy to hear that the downtown Toronto office market is strong and I hope over the next decade most of the 9 million square feet potential actually materializes. I'm hoping that we see a few large office towers that are above 40 stories, not just because of any obsession with 'talls' or 'supertalls' but rather to ensure we're maximizing our usage of key sites for development and to also have office towers that actually 'register' on the skyline.
Initially, I was hoping that we would see four office towers in the 40+ storey range (BA II, 45 Bay St, 880 Bay St, and the Richmond Adelaide III). Now it seems like only three of those will be 40+. Toronto seems most likely to get 30 storey office towers. I wonder if there are possibilities of seeing office towers in currently unutilized or poorly utilized sites that are ripe for development on and near Bay St north of City Hall?
I don't want us to be in a situation where the best sites for tall office towers are taken up by non office towers or moderately sized ones (which, in my eyes, would be Richmond Adelaide III).
In terms of penis contest, I hate saying it but in Canada, it's Calgary that probably has the best downtown office market in terms of the number of buildings that are 40+ floors, the number of buildings that are proposed in the 40+ range, and even the designs of many of them (i.e. not all their office towers are boxes). (I won't post any links as this information can be googled.)
I don't like the idea of Calgary having more tall office towers than Toronto (I know Toronto's core has more office space in sq. ft. than Calgary).
Rant over.
Initially, I was hoping that we would see four office towers in the 40+ storey range (BA II, 45 Bay St, 880 Bay St, and the Richmond Adelaide III). Now it seems like only three of those will be 40+. Toronto seems most likely to get 30 storey office towers. I wonder if there are possibilities of seeing office towers in currently unutilized or poorly utilized sites that are ripe for development on and near Bay St north of City Hall?
I don't want us to be in a situation where the best sites for tall office towers are taken up by non office towers or moderately sized ones (which, in my eyes, would be Richmond Adelaide III).
In terms of penis contest, I hate saying it but in Canada, it's Calgary that probably has the best downtown office market in terms of the number of buildings that are 40+ floors, the number of buildings that are proposed in the 40+ range, and even the designs of many of them (i.e. not all their office towers are boxes). (I won't post any links as this information can be googled.)
I don't like the idea of Calgary having more tall office towers than Toronto (I know Toronto's core has more office space in sq. ft. than Calgary).
Rant over.
sixrings
Senior Member
what ever happened to 140 front street west.. The IT hotel??? it was suppose to attach to the skywalk.........