Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

http://business.financialpost.com/2...-set-to-succumb-to-citys-condo-craze-sources/

The Toronto Star parking lot is about to become the latest piece of land to succumb to the city’s condominium craze, according to multiple sources.

A deal is expected to close in the coming days that would see Vancouver-based Pinnacle International Realty Group develop the project which is expected to include up to three towers. The existing office tower at One Yonge St., home to the Toronto Star which has a long-term lease for its space, will not be impacted by the development.
Click to expand...
 
greenleaf said:
Nice to see a writer use the verb impact correctly.
Click to expand...

Well, language purists deny that "impact" is even a verb and consider such usage to be a vulgar neologism. They would say, "the development... will have no impact on the existing office tower..."

I took more notice of the Post's use of the loaded word "succumb"... as in the parking lot is succumbing to the condo craze... like this expanse of asphalt is some rare and fragile flower that hasn't a chance in the face of a brutal onslaught.
 
As much as I also dislike the Pinnacle Centre, I don't believe it's necessarily a lost cause at this point because Pinnacle has purchased the site. Other developers such as Pemberton and Cresford have shown noticeable improvements in their architect of choice to design their projects as they gain more experience in the downtown market (Pemberton: from Uptown to U Condos, Cresford: from BSN to Casa, etc). Pinnacle has chosen Hariri Pontarini for their most recent project, and the preliminary renderings for Pinnacle on Adelaide II look promising.
 
Last edited:
Blovertis said:
Well, language purists deny that "impact" is even a verb and consider such usage to be a vulgar neologism. They would say, "the development... will have no impact on the existing office tower..."

I took more notice of the Post's use of the loaded word "succumb"... as in the parking lot is succumbing to the condo craze... like this expanse of asphalt is some rare and fragile flower that hasn't a chance in the face of a brutal onslaught.
Click to expand...

Ah, fair enough!
 
Cityzen also paid WAY above normal for the ex-Greyhound site at 154 Front Street East and the building they proposed to build was so tall and dense (presumably so they could make a profit) that the whole thing goes to OMB in October. They may have better architects but if they fail to take account of context they will not do well.

The architecture of the proposed 154 Front building, certainly its first iteration, was not bad - it was just not right for that site.
 
Grump said:
http://business.financialpost.com/2...-set-to-succumb-to-citys-condo-craze-sources/
Click to expand...

With reference to Garry Marr’s Financial Post article referred to in Gump’s post (quoted), and the reported $225,000,000 for the One Yonge Street site: ‘One industry developer said the land could be worth as much as $70 to $75 per buildable square foot in today’s real estate market. “It’s a big lot, so we are talking very big numbers,” said the developer.’

Playing with some numbers: With a land cost of $75 per buildable square foot of net sellable space, the project would need to contain 3,000,000 square feet of condominium space to cover the $225,000,000. The 3,000,000 square feet would not include infrastructure and common element components , just what could be sold to customers. Hallways and corridors, lobbies, amenity space, elevator shafts, air shafts, electrical and mechanical rooms, parking spaces and lockers, etc. would all be on top of the 3,000,000. I am guessing that the overall building efficiency would be in the 75% to 80% range (in other words, 75% to 80% of the total building floor space ends usable sellable condominium space), meaning the total floor space (including basements) would need to be in the range of 3,750,000 – 4,000,000 square feet. I do not know what the typical ratios would be for a downtown building – I am just guessing – if someone could provide more accurate numbers – please let me know.

From what I recall, the City’s guideline for residential towers is for a footprint in the order of 7,500 – 8,000 square feet per floor. Allowing for several floors of basement (spanning the entire complex) – in the order of 400,000 to 500,000 square feet, that would result in 3,350,000 to 3,500,000 of ground level and above ground space. Ignoring for now the larger floor plates of the podium floors, at 8,000 square feet per floor, the result would be approximately 437 floors of space to be built on the One Yonge Street parking lot.

Tentative conclusions:
1. Reported purchase price is not accurate, or
2. Cost per buildable square foot of sellable condominium space is going to be a lot more than $75 per square foot,
3. If the purchase price is indeed $225,000,000 and the anticipated selling prices is in the range of $75 per buildable square foot, this is going to be one monster development, with a combination of very tall, very large footprint towers, and probable a very large podium. Or finally,
4. There is something very wonky with either my math or my assumptions.

Am I missing something here – could this site support a development with these parameters?
 
Last edited:
My guess would be that we will see larger average floor plates than 8000 sf, perhaps 50% larger for an average of 12000 sf. With the purchase price being $255 million and the cost per buildable square foot being $75, we would need about 330 floors to cover the purchase price. If there are four residential towers (which could easily fit into the quite large lot), they might be 75s, 80s, 85s and 90s in height.

What is the average floor plate for Aura? if it is around that, we might see four Aura-sized condo buildings here (five buildings if Aura has 10000 sf floor plates).

This is assuming all residential buildings. If one or more office towers were built, the numbers would change.

Not to mention that they might apply more than $75 per square foot against the land cost. With this prime location, I would not be surprised to see record PSFs for this development. If they add $25 per square foot to the price, the floor count could be reduced by 25%, reducing the building count to three (or keep four condo buildings, but with an average floor plate of 9000 sf).
 
Last edited:
You guys should re-adjust your calculations based on the value of the Toronto Star Office Building, which was severed from the parking lot, but sold in the bundle. Whippersnapper, the resident genius over at SSP, stated the office building is worth about $150 million dollars, giving the parking lot a value of $105 million dollars. Remember now, that Menkes paid $76 million for the 90 Harbour/1 York Site. [1 30 Storey office tower, 2 x 70 floor residentials)
 
caltrane74 said:
You guys should re-adjust your calculations based on the value of the Toronto Star Office Building, which was severed from the parking lot, but sold in the bundle. Whippersnapper, the resident genius over at SSP, stated the office building is worth about $150 million dollars, giving the parking lot a value of $105 million dollars. Remember now, that Menkes paid $76 million for the 90 Harbour/1 York Site. [1 30 Storey office tower, 2 x 70 floor residentials)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification - makes much more sense now. Don't know if I would pony up $150 Million for the Toronto Star building - not that it would be possible, which it most definitely is not......
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top