interchange42 said:
This looks like an upzoning exercise to me. Firstly, we don't have a developer proposing this, we have a landowner doing it. Secondly, the exterior design looks nowhere near complete. To me this looks like Sun Life is just doing the work they need to, to make the property worth a lot more, so they can either sell it as an approved redevelopment site at considerable profit, or—somewhat less likely—would be Sun Life partnering with a developer once they have their rezoning. Either way, I think it's too early to panic in regard to the exterior expression (or specifically the lack thereof).

In regards to the proposed massing, if they were to propose that the tower rise closer to Simcoe, they could leave room for another tower at 217 Adelaide, but they are not doing that. Owing to the narrowness of the 217 Adelaide W lot, the City does not see it as a tall building site. Unless the OMB sees the lot otherwise and allows Humbold to go ahead, Humbold would have to work with Sun Life to shift the 100 Simcoe tower to the east for Humbold to build anything tall on their lot.

42
Click to expand...

If I am a conspiracy theorist I would suggest that Sun Life had to push through a proposed plan quickly to reduce the likelihood that 217 Adelaide is approved by the OMB. If so the plan will change (and hopefully improve) over the coming months.

Sun Life was smart....they are just over 12.5 m setback from the other lot...so they are following the rules and expect the other property developer to do the same (or else get compensated by the other developer to move their tower)

If the OMB completely rejects the Humbold proposal the value of the vacant lot is a lot less. Sun Life can then pick it up for a fairly reasonable price and have a larger lot to develop.
 
interchange42 said:
This looks like an upzoning exercise to me. Firstly, we don't have a developer proposing this, we have a landowner doing it. Secondly, the exterior design looks nowhere near complete. To me this looks like Sun Life is just doing the work they need to, to make the property worth a lot more, so they can either sell it as an approved redevelopment site at considerable profit, or—somewhat less likely—would be Sun Life partnering with a developer once they have their rezoning. Either way, I think it's too early to panic in regard to the exterior expression (or specifically the lack thereof).

In regards to the proposed massing, if they were to propose that the tower rise closer to Simcoe, they could leave room for another tower at 217 Adelaide, but they are not doing that. Owing to the narrowness of the 217 Adelaide W lot, the City does not see it as a tall building site. Unless the OMB sees the lot otherwise and allows Humbold to go ahead, Humbold would have to work with Sun Life to shift the 100 Simcoe tower to the east for Humbold to build anything tall on their lot.

42
Click to expand...

an upzoning exercise such as the one at play here is precisely the type of endeavour that a "developer" undertakes. granted, more often than not, the developer of a site also serves the function of "builder" (ie: Tridel/Daniels/etc.). but in many cases, the land owner fills the "developer" role.
 
maestro said:
Development services and property management for large institutional players that don't have their own real estate subsidiary. Doesn't mean this isn't a zoning exercise.
Click to expand...
I doubt though, that Sun Life a company with a large (and growing) commercial real estate portfolio, having just bought Bentall Kennedy, and moving their staff out of this building to their new building, are simply re-zoning this to sell it pre-development.....they are, more than likely, legitimately trying to grow their portfolio via (re) development of an existing asset as the IRR they will achieve is greater than what they would get from an equivalent purchase....but, sure, they could just be rezoning it to flip it.
 
TOareaFan said:
I doubt though, that Sun Life a company with a large (and growing) commercial real estate portfolio, having just bought Bentall Kennedy, and moving their staff out of this building to their new building, are simply re-zoning this to sell it pre-development.....they are, more than likely, legitimately trying to grow their portfolio via (re) development of an existing asset as the IRR they will achieve is greater than what they would get from an equivalent purchase....but, sure, they could just be rezoning it to flip it.
Click to expand...

They're probably not rezoning it to flip, but I definitely think this is a reaction to the site beside them. It happens frequently in the city. With this proposal they are demonstrating that they have a well functioning tower site. Small sites keep trying to justify their proposal by saying the the large site beside them has room to move over and provide the appropriate separation on their site. But in doing so they are essentially reducing the size of that site, which understandably rubs those landowners the wrong way. So they work it to their advantage either getting cash from the smaller site guys to provide more separation on their site, or a trade off for height or density or something of the like for coming to an agreement with the other property owner on a reduced separation distance.

Either way, I highly doubt this is what is actually going to be proposed, I would also guess that the development of this site probably won't happen for a few years.
 
Well considered first post. Welcome to UT @ilikemilk!

Thanks for filling in the blank on Bentall Kennedy @TOareaFan.

It does still seem like an exercise rather than a real proposal. It will be fun to watch where both this and 217 Adelaide go next!

42
 
TOareaFan said:
I doubt though, that Sun Life a company with a large (and growing) commercial real estate portfolio, having just bought Bentall Kennedy, and moving their staff out of this building to their new building, are simply re-zoning this to sell it pre-development.....they are, more than likely, legitimately trying to grow their portfolio via (re) development of an existing asset as the IRR they will achieve is greater than what they would get from an equivalent purchase....but, sure, they could just be rezoning it to flip it.
Click to expand...

Sound reasoning however, that's not the context of my post you quoted. I was referring to Bentall Kennedy's real estate services in that post. They, on the behalf of clients, (ex. Sun Life , BCIMC) have undertaking zoning exercises for a variety of reasons before. The purchase of Bentall Kennedy and their likelihood of spearheading this proposal doesn't mean it can't be a zoning exercise.
 
My initial impression also was that this is a hurried proposal, hence the poor renders, being put forward to react to 217 Adelaide and preserve their future right to development.

In terms of the heritage issue: I think this is one of the poorer examples of the warehouse typology in the area, and has an unfriendly ground-level presence. The proposed podium does not look so bad. It may be worth the tradeoff of losing the heritage building here (or what remains of it) for better animated streetfronts, provided the development delivers in that respect.

I agree with other comments as to the banality of the tower as presented.

When this becomes a serious proposal, I hope it treats Pearl Street nicely. Right now it is being used as a service alley, but if the building were set back a little, I think it would be a great location for relatively peaceful alleyway patios. Certainly restaurants seem to do well in this part of the Entertainment District.
 
I don't think the podium looks any better than the tower. It's a quickly pasted up piece of mid-urban medical centre, not the base for a 59-storey Downtown tower. The whole thing is a zoning play at the moment, with nothing to recommend it.

42
 
Automation Gallery said:
upload_2016-7-19_6-3-40-png.81585
Click to expand...
Maybe I am confusing the location of this development site, but I think that building pictured would make for a nice heritage podium.

This is the place to attempt a facadectomy (just like at 19 Duncan).
 
Very ordinary building !
It deserve some decorations .
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top