I could see this going ahead in the near future...Brookfield Properties know very well that the Toronto office vacancy rate is shrinking fast, and that in 3-5 years the demand will most likely be there for class-AAA office space...with Cadillac Fairview and Oxford Developments both predicting to build towers at 16 York, and 85 Harbour, Brookfield have no choice but to outclass its rivals.
I think that 2.5 million square feet (between 3 buildings) of new downtown office space in 3-5 years is nothing to be alarmed at for a city the size of Toronto.
 
Last edited:
Except for maybe a few select spots, there should be no reason why supertalls should not be allowed to be built between Bloor and Queen's Quay, Simcoe and Yonge.
 
Interesting tweet today by @ChrisFyvie, a Toronto ICI agent....

Brookfield Properties has started marketing Bay Adelaide East Tower - 900k over a 43 floor office building - can deliver by 2015
Click to expand...
 
Don't understand, given the good posts above regarding office space requirements in the future, Brookfield would limit to 43 floors. Shadowing would really only effect The Bay department store to the north. I would think this would be a prime spot for a 300 m building....one of the best and last remaining in the core. However, they are probably gunshy given the long leasing time it took for BA West. They need to take the long view here - Toronto is and will continue to attract major multi-nationals looking for large blocks of office spaces in signature towers downtown.
 
All this constant talk of "this should be a super-tall! The site can easily easily support a tower of 300 floors" etc., is kind of silly. Commercial property developers have certain priorities. For example "based on our analysis of market demand for commercial property in Toronto, what is the appropriate type and scale of development that will allow us to maximize profits?" = high priority. On the other hand, "what can we build that will make the most cool addition to a postcard shot of the Toronto skyline taken from a distance of 5 km?" = not a priority.
 
Mississauga Slim said:
All this constant talk of "this should be a super-tall! The site can easily easily support a tower of 300 floors" etc., is kind of silly. Commercial property developers have certain priorities. For example "based on our analysis of market demand for commercial property in Toronto, what is the appropriate type and scale of development that will allow us to maximize profits?" = high priority. On the other hand, "what can we build that will make the most cool addition to a postcard shot of the Toronto skyline taken from a distance of 5 km?" = not a priority.
Click to expand...

Yup very true, developers have their own legitimate concerns.
But that doesn’t mean we can't complain about their lack of concern in other areas :D
For many of us its an everyday view, not a postcard. Personally I'm more concerned with the lackluster design. Though its disappointing on both accounts.a
 
packers67 said:
Don't understand, given the good posts above regarding office space requirements in the future, Brookfield would limit to 43 floors. Shadowing would really only effect The Bay department store to the north. I would think this would be a prime spot for a 300 m building....one of the best and last remaining in the core. However, they are probably gunshy given the long leasing time it took for BA West. They need to take the long view here - Toronto is and will continue to attract major multi-nationals looking for large blocks of office spaces in signature towers downtown.
Click to expand...


There is a conservative perspective that Canadian developers share best demonstrated as follows:



In New York;


Developer: I have a great property and the market is ready for more office space.

Broker; Well, I'm confident we can lease 800,000 square feet as the vacancy rate is very low

Developer: Great - let's build 1,000,000 square feet and really sell it.



In Toronto;

Developer: I have a great property and the market is ready for more office space.

Broker; Well, I'm confident we can lease 800,000 square feet as the vacancy rate is very low

Developer: Great - let's build 400,000 square feet so there is no risk that we will fill it.
 
Of the most recent buildings built in NYC, the vast majority are between 40-60 stories.

Of the ten tallest buildings in NYC, 50% were built in the 30's.

Newer additions include two residential buildings (Trump World and the Spruce Tower).

The 3 office buildings that are in the top ten are actually only around 50-60 stories but have significant antenna's.

Other recent office construction:

Conde Nast building - 1999 - 48 stories
NY Times Bldg - 2005 - 54 stories

The exceptions would obviously be the Freedom Towers, but those are clearly operating in their own bubble and cannot be compared to any other office development (for obvious reasons)

I get the obsession with height but this "if this was new york" Bay Adelaide would be 80 stories... is bunk. If this were Pudong, sure.... but we're not the Chinese and neither is NYC or Chicago.
 
^^ You have obviously put a lot of research into that analysis so I wouldn't dare question it. What will you title your paper? "The Gonads Theory of Missed Toronto Development Potential"? Maybe you could work your avatar into the book cover as a subtle title reference.
 
Re Big Daddy,

Given that Brookfield is one of the largest commercial developers in both Toronto and New York and given that many of their brokers, upper management and real estate analysts work on projects in both cities and that they have the same base of shareholders that would require similar financial structures, net proceeds and risk factors the theory you've posted is rather silly. Also your criticism of Canadian real estate developers being too conservative is somewhat odd given the strength of the Canadian economy and real estate markets in contrast what is going on in the U.S. that is mostly attributed the failures in terms of real estate and financial risk management – we are certainly doing something right here in Toronto and Canada.

Furthermore, given that Toronto is undergoing one of the largest building booms in North American history this constant refrain from some quarters that the city is conservative and afraid of heights is getting tiresome. The bottom line is the numbers have to work and a project has to be feasible from a financial, planning, engineering and political perspective to proceed – no one beyond a few people on these skyscraper forums cares about height – in all my years in the development industry I’ve never even heard the term “super-tall†except on these skyscraper forums.
 
Good analysis pw20.

For every proposal mentioned on this forum, one always gets a few "it should be a supertall" and "the city is so terrible for not allowing the developer to build taller". Of course, "supertalls" do nothing to make a city more livable.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top