Rascacielo
Senior Member
Get one of the penthouse owners to construct a 6-storey treehouse on their rooftop terrace and we're back to 91
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
xy3
Active Member
the proportions are less elegant on the 306 meter version . it looks awkwardly truncated
khaldoon
Active Member
All this discussion assumes the Star article is factual. Secondly, reducing the height doesn’t actually make sense. The idea of adding more floors was to increase the return since it is an incremental cost to what is already been paid in startup costs. Unless of course they think they can’t sell the extra units.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
For good or bad, this article is not the first to be saying that regarding the height change. But the two things I gleamed off of said article that maybe at play here: First that there was an indication of significant numbers of buyers who got spooked and bailed over this, so they don't have as much of the monied clientele in the pocket as they did before the insolvency shite hit the fan with Mizrahi. And secondly, the extra floors may have fell upon an extended contract that hasn't fully been sussed out or agreed upon yet. Meaning, it could be subject to cutting with little on no penalties on the road to recuperation and "let's get it done with!", or something like that...
This is not to say any this is true or factual here, rather how I am reading it and for what that's worth. As well as to say, I hope this all incorrect and they still going with the 91 in the end floors. But I guess we shall see.
Truncates is also a poor term here, as the crown will remain unaffected regardless of what height the building is decided upon in the end. You can safely go with a tad shorter, but stubby or truncated it will most certainly not be.
Last edited:
skycandy
Senior Member
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Part 1 of 2 taken on March 23, 2024:
Bay and Cumberland:
Balmuto Side:
Back Alley:
Bloor Side:
Bay and Cumberland:
Balmuto Side:
Back Alley:
Bloor Side:
EBT
New Member
I read the Toronto Star article about the height being capped at 85 floors. Hopefully, this will be reversed since as we all know they have approvals to go to 91 floors. Why go to all that trouble (and expense) of getting approvals to go to 91 floors which will provide a higher return on investment only to cap the tower at 85 floors? It doesn't make any sense to me. I get that they are deep underwater with this project, but it seems to me building 6 more floors will only help to minimize the massive losses on this project. Heck, why not just say to the new developer "Build as many floors as you wish to recoup your investment"? Doesn't that make sense? I do note that it says Mizrahi made the decision to cap at 85 floors and he is out of the picture so it gives me hope that this decision will change.
It seems to me City Hall could intervene to make possible completion of this tower at 91 floors. No doubt major commitments were made by Mizrahi worth many millions of dollars as a concession for the increased height. The city could say to the new developer that they will rescind these requirements (extorsion payments) if they complete the tower at 91 floors. Of course, this won't happen because the politicians want to maintain the ability to extort millions from developers for their pet projects which only serve to drive up the price of housing in an already unaffordable environment. Don't condo owners already pay enough in property taxes on the inflated price of their homes?
In retrospect, the fatal decision made on this project was to have a column-free triple-height first-floor retail space to accommodate an Apple store. The complexities of building a super-tall tower over a column-free first floor probably doubled the cost of the tower and quadrupled the timeline and for what? In the end, Apple abandoned the project. Who is going to go into that first-floor retail space? A bank (TD?)? McDonalds? Shoppers Drug Mart? Winners? Dollarama? Who? Not only did this requirement add to the complexity and cost of the tower it also drastically reduced the attractiveness and convenience of the tower for potential condo owners who by necessity have to take an elevator up to a sky lobby to transfer to another bank of elevators up to their condo. No possibility of a private elevator for buyers of Penthouses costing over $20 million! If you could afford $20 million for a condo (or home), would you buy into a project like this?
It seems to me City Hall could intervene to make possible completion of this tower at 91 floors. No doubt major commitments were made by Mizrahi worth many millions of dollars as a concession for the increased height. The city could say to the new developer that they will rescind these requirements (extorsion payments) if they complete the tower at 91 floors. Of course, this won't happen because the politicians want to maintain the ability to extort millions from developers for their pet projects which only serve to drive up the price of housing in an already unaffordable environment. Don't condo owners already pay enough in property taxes on the inflated price of their homes?
In retrospect, the fatal decision made on this project was to have a column-free triple-height first-floor retail space to accommodate an Apple store. The complexities of building a super-tall tower over a column-free first floor probably doubled the cost of the tower and quadrupled the timeline and for what? In the end, Apple abandoned the project. Who is going to go into that first-floor retail space? A bank (TD?)? McDonalds? Shoppers Drug Mart? Winners? Dollarama? Who? Not only did this requirement add to the complexity and cost of the tower it also drastically reduced the attractiveness and convenience of the tower for potential condo owners who by necessity have to take an elevator up to a sky lobby to transfer to another bank of elevators up to their condo. No possibility of a private elevator for buyers of Penthouses costing over $20 million! If you could afford $20 million for a condo (or home), would you buy into a project like this?
Northern Light
Superstar
If every single floor built is being sold at a loss, this is far from a given. We don't have that information, but the Reciever does.
No, this makes no sense at all, that's not how Planning is done, nor how it should ever be done. The City does not grant height permissions in order to mitigate the bad financial decisions of others.
No it cannot.
There are 'community benefits' / S.37, these are not extortion payments, and characterization of them as such does not reflect well here. They are a legitimate, legal exercise in which a benefit is offered to a community in exchange for permission that a property owner previously lacked, and partially offsets the hassles of years of construction/disruption as well.
This is again a complete misrepresentation of how things work in the real world and suggests a disconnection from same.
On many developments the City effectively loses money, which is to say, that assessment growth + development charges neither fully covers the capital or operating costs of serving the new development.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...that evil city government that shakedown poor developers so they can't build higher! /s
rbt
Senior Member
That's the big question: How many $5M+ units do they think they can move. Competition, for locals, at that price range includes single detached houses just across the road in Rosedale. Being over 2 subway lines isn't all that beneficial to someone in that income bracket. Do we still get abundant foreign interests buying places for travel? Turnkey/self-maintaining is a strong benefit for that group.
There's also interest on $2B in loans to consider. Adding 8 to 12 weeks of construction for 6 floors isn't trivial.
Last edited:
Collingwoodbuildinglover
Active Member
They wouldn't have to sell the higher units more expensive they could take their buyers of their lower units and basically move them up higher into the tower and sell the lower units at a lower cost still probably 2 million but not 5 million for like the 80th floor
maestro
Senior Member
There's no point to this. The creditors could pull the plug next week and sit idle until It's sold. The new owner may then decide 328 metres not enough y'know like a North American tallest in Oklahoma lol
Torontoemerald68
New Member
Today, I read an article in the Toronto Star... The One has $1.9 B in hole! It does not look good. I think it's very slow to build up because they have to pay the pick up for more crane additional to make it higher, pay to the deliveries, pay to the policemen to control the street, pay to employers, pay to the workers, pay supplies of electricians, etc etc etc. $.1.9 would be paid off in 50 years who knows? Blame on the city hall of Toronto to approve in the first the place, did they?
vinny_the_hack
Active Member
This is the most nonsensical comment I've ever seen on this forum. Doesn't warrant explanation.
MasterJay731
New Member
Yes, the project has dealt with a lot of disarray, but at least they are still plannin' to finish it on time. It's not like the complex's been rottin' for the last six years at ground level; it's just been a VERY messy puzzle that will eventually get its shit together. In my honest opinion, it is better to do all this now than later when the complex is completed before some other wild shit starts to happen. Like the foundation begins to crack.Cough Millenium Tower, in SF Cough. At least they won't have to go to 91 storeys anymore. Sad, but it's for the better.