Toronto CIBC SQUARE | 241.39m | 50s | Hines | WilkinsonEyre

  • Thread starter Suicidal Gingerbread Man
  • Start date
Everytime I see this tower now in the skyline shots really makes me wish they’d have clad L in the same glass. I know, it’s nice to wish right. these towers will fill it all in so nicely. A shame that the second tower still couldn’t be taller. But as is is still a very quality addition.
 
Dec 24 sunny am and cloudy pm
ABC48704-8E3B-4428-A925-11FB42678ACA.jpeg
43C1DA8E-3B53-4673-BCD1-A055731293DB.jpeg
F1BA4779-BE0A-464D-B5FF-895EAA2FA7FA.jpeg
F0902CDF-51CB-4FE2-8BF2-8D4129AE2C6A.jpeg
C472BDE8-C96C-4C15-BF95-8473A14A0A53.jpeg
D0245786-F321-4DCA-8B44-1965D0CA4052.jpeg
1F4A2F6D-3733-4A07-A99A-76ECCACA0B6C.jpeg
A0D6C775-1F15-47CF-84D7-08CBCEEA8140.jpeg
824E879C-A8F7-45B5-BD09-912662B2DED8.jpeg
 
This building has created a new norm on how to enhance the Toronto's office skyline look in all glass facades . By just creating indentation in the curtain wall. As seen in the first few photos up above . For this building its diamonds look does the jobs showing three or more images of reflection . When the sun is at dusk or dawn.
 
light and reflection control of this facade is truly remarkable..
also worth pointing out is that the location and positioning of the tower(s) over the rail corridor makes it possible to showcase this playfulness, glass tint colour becomes almost irrelevant..
 
cogito ergo said:
light and reflection control of this facade is truly remarkable..
also worth pointing out is that the location and positioning of the tower(s) over the rail corridor makes it possible to showcase this playfulness, glass tint colour becomes almost irrelevant..
Click to expand...
I just hope that this building's facade doesn't get obstructed by some other big monstrous building in front of it in the future. That's why I wished this building to be 300M or more. Because of its iconest facade look!
 
cd concept said:
I just hope that this building's facade doesn't get obstructed by some other big monstrous building in front of it in the future. That's why I wished this building to be 300M or more. Because of its iconest facade look!
Click to expand...

The number of office buildings in North America (outside New York) built after 1992 and occupied above 900 feet is incredibly low (I count 3). The economics just aren't there to turn a profit on it as a landlord.

Salesforce in San Fran, and Comcast in Philly (2 buildings) are the only ones I know of. Atlanta BOA Plaza was 1992 which is how I picked that date.

Union Park is a very unusual proposal, not just in Toronto but for the entire continent.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
The number of office buildings in North America (outside New York) built after 1992 and occupied above 900 feet is incredibly low (I count 3). The economics just aren't there to turn a profit on it as a landlord.

Salesforce in San Fran, and Comcast in Philly (2 buildings) are the only ones I know of. Atlanta BOA Plaza was 1992 which is how I picked that date.

Union Park is a very unusual proposal, not just in Toronto but for the entire continent.
Click to expand...
Maybe I misunderstand you but what do you mean "the economics just aren't there to turn a profit on it as a landlord"? If you have a site that is large enough to give you a decent efficiency on the lower half of the building, you can certainly fit the servicing to go that high or higher. The issue isn't the building itself, it's that most American cities don't have enough prospective tenants to fill it.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Maybe I misunderstand you but what do you mean "the economics just aren't there to turn a profit on it as a landlord"? If you have a site that is large enough to give you a decent efficiency on the lower half of the building, you can certainly fit the servicing to go that high or higher. The issue isn't the building itself, it's that most American cities don't have enough prospective tenants to fill it.
Click to expand...

There are non-trivial inefficiencies/costs to height. A landlord with a 70 floor 1 million sqft usable space competing with no other advantages against several other landlords with 10 floor 1 million sqft usable spaces is going to take a substantial loss when trying to land tenants. NA commercial tenants haven't willingly paid a premium for high floors since the early 90's.

What they're paying for in Toronto is transportation accessibility and since that's restricted to about 1km around Union Station, is enabling an indirect premium to be charged for height (there simply isn't another option with pedestrian access to Union).
 
rbt said:
There are non-trivial inefficiencies/costs to height. A landlord with a 70 floor 1 million sqft usable space competing with no other advantages against several other landlords with 10 floor 1 million sqft usable spaces is going to take a substantial loss when trying to land tenants. NA commercial tenants haven't willingly paid a premium for high floors since the early 90's.

What they're paying for in Toronto is transportation accessibility and since that's restricted to about 1km around Union Station, is enabling an indirect premium to be charged for height (there simply isn't another option with pedestrian access to Union).
Click to expand...

There are a number of things tenants will pay for. Location will always be one. A building with a clear identity also attracts a premium, if it isn’t compromised in other ways as a result. Not always something a commercial client knows how to do. That’s one way in which good architects earn their fees. Good amenities attract tenants. More and more if a building is sustainable too.

All that said, and as per your point, for good quality tall buildings, you need competition. Otherwise, mediocrity will always be good enough. I don’t know if this building is a game changer, or just riding the wave, but it’s noticeable that the quality of commercial tower proposals coming out in Toronto now is at a higher level of quality. Now they’re competing, and expectations are higher.
 
Good architecture can sell - case and point is KING Toronto. That's probably going to be the most profitable project in the city over the next 5 years and it's all because of the unique architecture and the strong marketing of it. It sells at ridiculously high prices because people believe they are buying into the next Habitat 67.

To a lesser extent even projects like EX and M City in Mississauga and CG Tower in Vaughan use architecture as a marketing and sales method, banking on the success of the Absolute towers. All 3 projects rely heavily on architect interviews in marketing materials, and focus heavily on the architectural and urban design merits (height for CG and M City, "Spanish steps" for EX) of the project for the marketing. In the case of CG tower, most of the unit layouts are hot garbage yet people continue to buy into the project at a significant price premium over the other projects in the area as they believe they are buying into an "icon".

It's a very different approach than the more standard system in Toronto which Tridel really refined and perfected which focuses on lush interior amenities and interior finishes, with minimal attention to the exterior.
 
I seriously can't get over how lucky we are now. Those of us who've been on Urban Toronto for the last couple of decades will remember the longing on these forums for new office towers, only to be disappointed by cheap materials and buildings devoid of any aspirations for architectural excellence. Then suddenly, Toronto is on the map and we're building high-rises at an unprecedented pace and the quality of those designs and materials used keeps going up. I'm excited for what's coming in the next decade in the next wave with Frank Gehry, Norman Foster and BIG leading the charge.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top