Da_Master
Active Member
From yesterday:
- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
1875
Senior Member
Beltline_B
Senior Member
A crane can’t be far off now.
1875
Senior Member
1875
Senior Member
ThujaPlicata
Active Member
Not the best pic but the crane is ready to go
1875
Senior Member
Beltline_B
Senior Member
It’s great to see the crane go in in anticipation of another high-rise, making its way into the skyline. Is it me or have a high-rise tower projects suddenly dried up? I can’t think of any poised for construction, and this might be the last new tower crane for a while.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
You're not wrong. Gallery might go? But outside of that I can't recall any others.
Calgcouver
Active Member
Concrete for-sale towers still don't provide the appropriate return needed to overcome the direct construction costs associated with them.
Averaged out, 6-storey wood-frame is ~$407.50psf, a point power would average ~$477.50psf. Based on some of the recent asking prices for tower sites, i would say land is transacting around $45-55 per buildable sf. Condos in places like Park Point and Verve are priced around $640-650psf. Once you add in soft costs, marketing, interest rates for financing, contingency, internal labour rates, etc. what is your actual profit on a for-sale high-rise project at the end of the day? Probably not great or Fram & Slokker wouldn't have handed land back to CMLC and Great Gulf wouldn't be marketing there site for sale. Qualex would've done Park Point 2 as a tower and not went for a 6-storey woodframe play instead.
Part of the problem with land pricing is that when you see downtown land like the YWCA site listed saying you can get 20FAR (assuming one can max out the density bonussing before shadowing on the river becomes an issue), people price the land based on 20 FAR per buildable sf. 20 FAR isn't a reasonable density, it is more likely 8-12 FAR that would get built. We give away too much density and because of it the land prices are highly speculative (read: out to lunch), and direct costs are too high to leave enough profit left over for a high-rise for-sale project. Land is cheaper when it can accommodate 6-storey developments under 4 FAR. So for woodframe the land and direct costs are cheaper, leaving enough margin for profit to make the projects enticing.
This is why i am fine with every surface parking lot in the downtown and beltline being developed as 5-over-1 (or similar scale buildings) because it can actually get built in the short to medium term. We aren't Vancouver, so it's stupid that we pretend that our market fundamentals can support so much density geared towards towers. So when i see a proposal like Midtown wanting tall towers near Chinook, what can those sell for if downtown is going for $650psf? They can give them 40FAR for all i care, it is never going to get built. The developer is just looking for a land lift to sell the land for whatever ridiculous aspirational price which is why they would ask for the completely asinine amount of density and floor area, and the city will give it to them. Now, if the Midtown site allowed for stacked townhomes and wood-frame apartments, with 5-over-1s for commercial mixed-use? It might actually get built in the foreseeable future.
This is also why when i see the Rivers District Master Plan looking for these densities, i know it will take a million years to build out, if it ever does because the land prices will be geared towards towers. If every one of these lots said 2-5 FAR, this place would build out closer to the pace of the University District.
I guess this is why i am now against giving away too much density, it isn't benefitting the City or improving our urban fabric, it only benefits speculative land holders that keep renewing temp DPs for surface parking lots, hoping some chump will overpay for a tower site, when the numbers don't pencil out.
Who cares about saving land for towers of the future, if surface parking lots filled in with 6-storey buildings in the EV, Victoria Park, the Beltline and TOD sites, the City can then prioritize high density sites in the downtown and they may be more coveted as endless swaths of surface parking lots become more scarce. The other thing the City can do is give density away when an actual homebuilder or developer that actually builds things comes in with a concurrent DP. Or just keep giving away tons of density to anyone that can produce a massing model and can afford the land use redesignation application. I think this could be a pretty straightforward land strategy to reprioritize the downtown and stop rampant land speculation.
Averaged out, 6-storey wood-frame is ~$407.50psf, a point power would average ~$477.50psf. Based on some of the recent asking prices for tower sites, i would say land is transacting around $45-55 per buildable sf. Condos in places like Park Point and Verve are priced around $640-650psf. Once you add in soft costs, marketing, interest rates for financing, contingency, internal labour rates, etc. what is your actual profit on a for-sale high-rise project at the end of the day? Probably not great or Fram & Slokker wouldn't have handed land back to CMLC and Great Gulf wouldn't be marketing there site for sale. Qualex would've done Park Point 2 as a tower and not went for a 6-storey woodframe play instead.
Part of the problem with land pricing is that when you see downtown land like the YWCA site listed saying you can get 20FAR (assuming one can max out the density bonussing before shadowing on the river becomes an issue), people price the land based on 20 FAR per buildable sf. 20 FAR isn't a reasonable density, it is more likely 8-12 FAR that would get built. We give away too much density and because of it the land prices are highly speculative (read: out to lunch), and direct costs are too high to leave enough profit left over for a high-rise for-sale project. Land is cheaper when it can accommodate 6-storey developments under 4 FAR. So for woodframe the land and direct costs are cheaper, leaving enough margin for profit to make the projects enticing.
This is why i am fine with every surface parking lot in the downtown and beltline being developed as 5-over-1 (or similar scale buildings) because it can actually get built in the short to medium term. We aren't Vancouver, so it's stupid that we pretend that our market fundamentals can support so much density geared towards towers. So when i see a proposal like Midtown wanting tall towers near Chinook, what can those sell for if downtown is going for $650psf? They can give them 40FAR for all i care, it is never going to get built. The developer is just looking for a land lift to sell the land for whatever ridiculous aspirational price which is why they would ask for the completely asinine amount of density and floor area, and the city will give it to them. Now, if the Midtown site allowed for stacked townhomes and wood-frame apartments, with 5-over-1s for commercial mixed-use? It might actually get built in the foreseeable future.
This is also why when i see the Rivers District Master Plan looking for these densities, i know it will take a million years to build out, if it ever does because the land prices will be geared towards towers. If every one of these lots said 2-5 FAR, this place would build out closer to the pace of the University District.
I guess this is why i am now against giving away too much density, it isn't benefitting the City or improving our urban fabric, it only benefits speculative land holders that keep renewing temp DPs for surface parking lots, hoping some chump will overpay for a tower site, when the numbers don't pencil out.
Who cares about saving land for towers of the future, if surface parking lots filled in with 6-storey buildings in the EV, Victoria Park, the Beltline and TOD sites, the City can then prioritize high density sites in the downtown and they may be more coveted as endless swaths of surface parking lots become more scarce. The other thing the City can do is give density away when an actual homebuilder or developer that actually builds things comes in with a concurrent DP. Or just keep giving away tons of density to anyone that can produce a massing model and can afford the land use redesignation application. I think this could be a pretty straightforward land strategy to reprioritize the downtown and stop rampant land speculation.
Last edited:
MichaelS
Senior Member
There will be more tower cranes, just maybe not downtown. I expect West District will be getting one soon, now that Quarters is underway there. Might be a couple more this year too, as Plaza and Mondrian get going also.
Hopefully we see Broward, Gallery and Sovereign break ground this year as well.
Thanks for the rundown @Calgcouver. I would be on-board with most of the empty lots downtown being taken up with 5/1s or other smaller scale projects. It would be nice to have a few really tall res towers that look cool, but the rest made up of lowrise projects.
By smaller projects, I mean small scale buildings that aren't necessary a 5/1 format, but small format buildings with some style. I know this is blasphemy on a skyscraper site, but I would forego a half dozen 50 storey highrise towers, for 50 buildings like these without even giving it a second thought.
Last edited:
Calgcouver
Active Member
Those are all cool examples! I like towers as much as the next guy, but it takes certain circumstances to make them happen in large, sustained numbers like in Vancouver and Toronto. All i'm suggesting is we take a more Montreal approach to creating density, i think it would improve our urban fabric quicker, be more economical and fit our context better.
Alex_YYC
Senior Member
Thanks for posting that info Calgcouver. TBH I’m surprised that there isn’t a bigger gap between wood frame and concrete. I thought wood frame have been much cheaper.
To me, concrete builds make more sense if building as a condo, or a long term asset for rental.The concrete building will hold its value better over the long term.
zagox
Active Member
I can see the merits of your argument, but I am still reluctant to suggest that the city should try to out-think developers. If everyone is fine with Victoria Park being filled with 20-storey towers, it's just very strange to suggest that the city should impose a 6-storey height limit, because land buyers -- putting their private capital at risk -- are too dumb to calculate that they cannot make money building 20 storey towers.
I would lean towards using height limits to communicate to developers what our city's infrastructure and land use patterns will support, and let them decide what built form maximizes their private profits. If there is no chance of a tower being economic on a particular site, then the value of a parcel zoned for 20 storeys should be about the same as the value of a parcel zoned for 6 storeys, and the city's decision to zone it for 20 storeys will have no effect on the value of the land.
If a buyer is willing to pay more for the land after the upzoning, they are betting that a tower will be economic at some point, and it is strange to second-guess the buyer's decision to risk their own money on that speculative risk.