Union Centre | 298m | 54s | Westbank | Bjarke Ingels Group

[Northern Light]

like all regulation it would distort the market with older space becoming more preferable for the larger floorplates, reducing new construction and limiting more affordable spaces within the core. Tenants would choose to stick in their older buildings and renovate it instead of jumping off to new product where they need twice the number of floors to hold their footprint.

I agree, it would have that effect.

Pretending any regulation comes for free is a fallacy and needs a greater amount of inclusion in the discourse.

Who was pretending that? I certainly wasn't. In fact, I expressly identified the consequence that grandfathered space would then go for a premium.

This building is just a particularly large offender as it is narrower and wider than typical new office blocks. Other projects are closer to "square" which make the mass not as offending.

Also true.

****

You really must make note that I didn't necessarily argue for the change in question, I only illustrated that it was possible; and that the market would not collapse if it was done.

Of course all regulation distorts the market; requiring indoor plumbing in new builds once distorted the market; it made all properties still using outhouses less valuable.

That distortion, unto itself, is not a reason to avoid regulation; but neither is it a reason to adopt it; it's simply a reality, nothing or less.

 

[officedweller]

I think that the slab massing with rectangular floorplates provides more window exposure than a square floorplate.

Still though, as hinted in my narrative, a tree or limb falling 298m to the ground is going to cause more an issue than one only 6m off the ground. Something to do with kinetics, gravity and that nine-point-eight-meters-per-second-squared thing. Making it for more a spectacular landing and very bad day for anyone underneath it. >.<

As well as patio furniture!

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I think that the slab massing with rectangular floorplates provides more window exposure than a square floorplate.


As well as patio furniture!

Yeah...some Karen lobbing a chair over the railings for the YouTube clicks can almost be as fatal as a falling branch from that height. /sigh

 

[travis3000]

I personally like this project. Im not one of those people who thinks in order for a building to be nice it must be "slim, sexy, skinny, etc". I personally like it when a skyscraper has some girth. It's more commanding and makes a bigger impact on the skyline. Don't get me wrong, I do like a slim tower as well, but we need some thickness thrown into the mix sometimes too. We don't have a single tower in TO like this one, so I'm all for it.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Im not one of those people who thinks in order for a building to be nice it must be "slim, sexy, skinny, etc".

...it will be that if you look at it from its sides though.

 

[officedweller]

Yeah...some Karen lobbing a chair over the railings for the YouTube clicks can almost be as fatal as a falling branch from that height. /sigh

Here' some furniture flying of a condo in last November's storm in Vancouver:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460350521198342146

 

[ProjectEnd]

So this is now public:

Mike Mercatus

Got it. Okay. That's okay. Thank you. Maybe just refresh our memory, team, I thought you owned the air rights for Union Center and I just noticed the $50 million transaction referencing the air rights at Union Center. Could you maybe elaborate on what the difference is about?

Michael Emory

Sure. That is roughly 5.2 acres immediately to the south of the Union Center site above the rail lands where we closed the acquisition of their rights, I believe in the fourth quarter. So it is literally 5.2 acres of land that really runs directly south of the Union Center site, I guess with the boundary on the east being North [Indiscernible] and the boundary on the West being Simco. And it basically goes to the far side of the rail lands and that is a very, very good incremental asset for us at union center and will, in time, augment our ability to create value on that larger site.

Mike Mercatus

Okay, that's great. Would that be followed by a resubmission of the proposal for Union Center as it currently stands?

Michael Emory

Fortunately, it isn't necessary. We just got approval for what I would call Union Center 3.0, which we're very happy with. I think it's now at about 1.33 million square feet. We will clearly build it and construct on the remainder of the existing site in a way that allows us to utilize the air rights most efficiently. But we don't have to change how we're going to use the portion of the site that Union Center 3.0 is on

 

[interchange42]

It's all gotta be years off…

42

 

[generalcanada]

So this is now public:

ontop of the skywalk or the actual rail corridor?
sounds like another version of union park. could be an interesting proposal in a few years

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I'm not getting this.

 

[Koops65]

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...also, they seem to be using the Webster version of "Centre" in that exchange. Is that the result of whatever method they're using to transcribe the conversion is in some sort of auto-correct mode? Or they actually planning to rebrand the name as "Union Center"?

 

[travis3000]

So does this conversation have any relevance for construction to begin in the near future...or is it some fantasy plan 10+ years down the road?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Allied purchased the air rights above Union Station directly to the south of Union Centre. By the sounds of it, the development area there doesn't impact this project and this will be built independently.

Whatever Allied is planning on the rail corridor, I'm very interested in.

 

[Northern Light]

Inclusive of Skywalk, this will get you ~5 acres (Trainshed to Simcoe, Skywalk to the southern extent of the USRC)

FWIW, as '42' noted above; unless PE sees fit to correct, I don't see anything on this block (over the rail corridor) in the next several years.

I think Allied has a few buildings in front of it in the queue.