allengeorge said:
Interview with the CEO of Dream re: this project:

www.thestar.com

Offices are empty, renters are fleeing — so why is this developer building a massive two-tower skyscraper at King and University?

‘Everything people like about the city is closed now,’ says Dream Office REIT CEO Michael Cooper, but he’s got a project coming to Toronto’s heart any...
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...

Good piece! Good post!

A few highlights from same:

In respect of the Office market:

Over the past three or four months, more large companies have been saying they expect people back at the office, and people are sick of working at home, they want to go to work like adults and be around other adults. We brought people back into the office in August and I literally heard shrieking, people were so happy to see each other.

****

I haven’t seen one company getting a bargain so far. Landlords have very little space to rent right now. The vacancies are due to tenants subletting their spaces and some of those leases are two years in duration, whereas the tenants you’re talking about may want to secure space for 10 or 15 years.

On the residential market:

I’m not fussed by the idea that somebody wants to live on a farm and Toronto will die as a result. That’s inconceivable. If I was in a different city, that might be a concern, but Toronto was absolutely thriving before the pandemic and it will thrive after

On troubled Condos specifically:

All the ones I know of were troubled before the pandemic but yes, there are fewer condominiums being launched right now. Still, we always underestimate how much housing is needed. In the last 20 years, everyone said we’re building too many condos, yet we still don’t have enough housing units. And while rents have come down, I would suspect that interest rates have come down more than rents.

Finally, on Quayside:

Yes. It’s well known that Waterfront Toronto will be looking for a developer there. We own 5.3 acres next door and we had been creating a master plan for the area with Sidewalk Labs.
 
Deadpool X said:
The skyline is already heavily biased towards the west because Yonge is the geographical centre of downtown. I will be happier if we can have some good density east of Yonge.

From waterfront's perspective, LCBO redevelopment and One Yonge will spread the skyline eastward along with a future Loblaws project, Lakeside residences and Monde (I have deliberately skipped Daniels in case someone feels like adding it to the list).
Click to expand...
East side of Yonge is very sketch with homeless shelters and public housing.

That whole area needs to be cleaned up and redeveloped.
 
leftfieldto said:
No. More efficient. Business cares about the bottom line.
Click to expand...
Can’t let that one go. Business does care about the bottom line which doesn’t relate to cheap and not necessarily efficiency. The box is efficient but there’s more to architecture than efficiency. Form still matters.
 
Mercenary said:
East side of Yonge is very sketch with homeless shelters and public housing.

That whole area needs to be cleaned up and redeveloped.
Click to expand...
Sure... /s

MurrMann said:
Can’t let that one go. Business does care about the bottom line which doesn’t relate to cheap and not necessarily efficiency. The box is efficient but there’s more to architecture than efficiency. Form still matters.
Click to expand...
It's true, it's not making any claims that what businesses do is in their best interest when it comes to their bottom line. Rather the bottom line is their ultimate goal, whether they're doing that right or not.

Edit: Removed the inflammatory component from the first part, as it was not necessary or warranted here.
 
Last edited:
Big Daddy said:
It would appear that this building was designed by engineers, not an architect. When I see some of the exciting buildings being built in other cities, this just isn't on the same page. It's certainly big but I would argue the location deserves something...more. Be a little creative maybe?
Click to expand...
I agree re dull design for such a huge (for Toronto) building (especially the smaller one), though the ground level looks interesting. I have long advocated we do not need a design review panel, except for the largest/tallest buildings which, since they stand out in the skyline, should only get extra height etc., if they stand out as good design and something Torontonians will long enjoy looking at and hence helping to make Toronto a distinctive place. The main tower is a thin "domino" so I suppose it could be seen as at least fitting in with the TD dominos down the street (though they have been largely obscured in recent decades - but the flanking tower is awful and wrecks the total effect.
 
I know this isn't the thread for it but I just can't help myself whenever the topic of DRP vs WIC comes up. I'd encourage everyone to watch some DRP sessions (they're on YouTube!). You will see that they give consistently smart, thoughtful feedback, but of course it's ultimately up to the developer to take the feedback and do something with it. In the case of the WIC, instead of working to improve the design, Menkes decided to value engineer their competition entry down to a conservative glass box. What do you think Menkes would have built if they hadn't had to go to the DRP first? Hint: they would have value engineered their competition entry down to an even crappier glass box.

Anyway, to bring this vaguely back to the topic at hand, I have no comment on the idea of a DRP specifically for tall buildings, except to say that I trust that this building will be very nicely detailed and probably needs design review less than the average tall building.
 
smably said:
I know this isn't the thread for it but I just can't help myself whenever the topic of DRP vs WIC comes up. I'd encourage everyone to watch some DRP sessions (they're on YouTube!). You will see that they give consistently smart, thoughtful feedback, but of course it's ultimately up to the developer to take the feedback and do something with it. In the case of the WIC, instead of working to improve the design, Menkes decided to value engineer their competition entry down to a conservative glass box. What do you think Menkes would have built if they hadn't had to go to the DRP first? Hint: they would have value engineered their competition entry down to an even crappier glass box.

Anyway, to bring this vaguely back to the topic at hand, I have no comment on the idea of a DRP specifically for tall buildings, except to say that I trust that this building will be very nicely detailed and probably needs design review less than the average tall building.
Click to expand...
Menkes first submission would have been a great building, when they had their first review from my recollection it was shot down for redesign due to the resemblance to the Ryerson Student Learning Centre, IMO it had some resemblance but had enough design differences to be unique.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top