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.

Great analysis! :)

^^ 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.

Come back when you have something interesting to post...thanks.
 
Generally in building booms you get a true landmark building or 2.. (Chrysler, Empire State, 40 Wall, Woolworth, etc.) (Sears (Willis) Tower, John Hancock, etc)

Yes we do have the Ritz and L Tower, and I don't want to sound like one of those who only wants height and nothing else, but what if the boom comes and goes and we miss the opportunity for a true tall landmark building? We would regret a developer not taking the chance and building one.

Hell, even a 1,200 ft landmark tower would be great, it doesn't have to be one of these 2,000 ft beasts like the Shanghai Tower and whatnot. I love this boom, it's great for the city, I just don't want to miss our best opportunity we've had to build one of these.
And that's all I have to say about that.
 
Generally in building booms you get a true landmark building or 2.. (Chrysler, Empire State, 40 Wall, Woolworth, etc.) (Sears (Willis) Tower, John Hancock, etc)

Yes we do have the Ritz and L Tower, and I don't want to sound like one of those who only wants height and nothing else, but what if the boom comes and goes and we miss the opportunity for a true tall landmark building? We would regret a developer not taking the chance and building one.

Hell, even a 1,200 ft landmark tower would be great, it doesn't have to be one of these 2,000 ft beasts like the Shanghai Tower and whatnot. I love this boom, it's great for the city, I just don't want to miss our best opportunity we've had to build one of these.
And that's all I have to say about that.

Pretty much, I agree with you. I will only add that I am dreading a twin to BA 1. I'd rather see something really tall for BA 2, same finish, with a complementary shape. I previously suggested 85 storeys, with the east elevation stepped, so that the building is not another block.

An equally good spot for something in excess of 85 (office) storeys is Front/Simcoe. But that is all I have to say about it, too.
 
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.

Basically its about maximizing profit and reducing risk. Its sad that developers don't dream a little, but all very logical.
 
Generally in building booms you get a true landmark building or 2.. (Chrysler, Empire State, 40 Wall, Woolworth, etc.) (Sears (Willis) Tower, John Hancock, etc)

Yes we do have the Ritz and L Tower, and I don't want to sound like one of those who only wants height and nothing else, but what if the boom comes and goes and we miss the opportunity for a true tall landmark building? We would regret a developer not taking the chance and building one.

Hell, even a 1,200 ft landmark tower would be great, it doesn't have to be one of these 2,000 ft beasts like the Shanghai Tower and whatnot. I love this boom, it's great for the city, I just don't want to miss our best opportunity we've had to build one of these.
And that's all I have to say about that.
We did get a landmark building. Two in fact. Absolute World.
 
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.

Wow..i was thinking three new office developments of aprox. 2.5 million square feet...and they are saying there are plans in place to deliver more than 9 million square feet of office space, spread over a dozen projects...holy mackeral.:confused::cool:

Toronto's rapidly-changing office market conditions signal shift in landlord-tenant balance

"Tenants shopping for space are, in many instances, having to start the process earlier, make decisions faster, and be prepared to compromise more on flexibility. Competitive situations between multiple tenants with interest in the same premises, while not yet commonplace, are definitely occurring and becoming more frequent," he says.

Adds Argeropoulos: "Given the rapid improvement in the marketplace, new office development may be the only viable - in other words, economic - option for some of the dozen or so large tenants currently in play, or about to enter the market in downtown Toronto. In all, there are plans in place to deliver more than 9 million square feet of office space, spread over a dozen projects. Interestingly, more than two-thirds of the proposed office area is outside the traditional confines of the Financial Core - in the already active Downtown South market and areas east of the Core and along the waterfront."

But Argeropoulos also offers a proviso. "Of course, not all of the developments will go ahead at the same time. Some are more advanced in their planning process and/or negotiations in securing a lead tenant than others."

More....http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2011/18/c5886.html
 
Wow..i was thinking three new office developments of aprox. 2.5 million square feet...and they are saying there are plans in place to deliver more than 9 million square feet of office space, spread over a dozen projects...holy mackeral.:confused::cool:

Toronto's rapidly-changing office market conditions signal shift in landlord-tenant balance

"Tenants shopping for space are, in many instances, having to start the process earlier, make decisions faster, and be prepared to compromise more on flexibility. Competitive situations between multiple tenants with interest in the same premises, while not yet commonplace, are definitely occurring and becoming more frequent," he says.

Adds Argeropoulos: "Given the rapid improvement in the marketplace, new office development may be the only viable - in other words, economic - option for some of the dozen or so large tenants currently in play, or about to enter the market in downtown Toronto. In all, there are plans in place to deliver more than 9 million square feet of office space, spread over a dozen projects. Interestingly, more than two-thirds of the proposed office area is outside the traditional confines of the Financial Core - in the already active Downtown South market and areas east of the Core and along the waterfront."

But Argeropoulos also offers a proviso. "Of course, not all of the developments will go ahead at the same time. Some are more advanced in their planning process and/or negotiations in securing a lead tenant than others."

More....http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2011/18/c5886.html

I wouldn't read into that at all ... they probably just found out every single proposed development throughout the core ... there are a ton we know (including a couple in the east and west end of the core) but the odds of even a few getting underway in the short term are unlikely.


Also the Queen-Richmond Center news seems to contradict this ? They've had no luck finding a lead tenant for a mid-size development (i.e. 300,000 range) - a lead tenant only really needs to imply 20-40% of the space. You can argue it's the location though and what they're trying to find.
 
WRT to skyscrapers or "super-talls" or "truly iconic buildings": the biggest d--- contest in North America is over, and has been for decades. Only soaring industrializing economies in the east value the symbolism of height beyond rational risk, and they value it at the same point in their economic evolution as the west did. Only countries with more nouveau-riches than they know what to do with plow their money into these ozymandian projects that will be "see through" for years and won't pay back on the initial outlay for decades, if they pay back at all. Risk management, liveability, green practices, and medium-term turnover are our concerns, specifically in Toronto, which doesn't have the argosy of capital that New York or even Chicago does. I love tall buildings just as much as the average Joe, but there is an economic/social moment for every tower of babel, and this isn't it.
 
^^ Well put. This "ohboy ohboy ohboy, it's gonna be a supertall it's gonna be a supertall!!!" thing is soooooooo "Dubai."

Strange:confused:Who is talking supertall here...we are just debating on an extra 9 million square feet of office space proposed for Toronto, and a 43 storey building planned for this location.
 
Strange:confused:Who is talking supertall here...we are just debating on an extra 9 million square feet of office space proposed for Toronto, and a 43 storey building planned for this location.

It seems every thread needs to turn into some supertall fantasy rant at some point or another, multiple times ...
 
Well, I'm very happy to hear that the downtown Toronto office market is strong and I hope over the next decade most of the 9 million square feet potential actually materializes. I'm hoping that we see a few large office towers that are above 40 stories, not just because of any obsession with 'talls' or 'supertalls' but rather to ensure we're maximizing our usage of key sites for development and to also have office towers that actually 'register' on the skyline. :)

Initially, I was hoping that we would see four office towers in the 40+ storey range (BA II, 45 Bay St, 880 Bay St, and the Richmond Adelaide III). Now it seems like only three of those will be 40+. Toronto seems most likely to get 30 storey office towers. I wonder if there are possibilities of seeing office towers in currently unutilized or poorly utilized sites that are ripe for development on and near Bay St north of City Hall?

I don't want us to be in a situation where the best sites for tall office towers are taken up by non office towers or moderately sized ones (which, in my eyes, would be Richmond Adelaide III). :(

In terms of penis contest, I hate saying it but in Canada, it's Calgary that probably has the best downtown office market in terms of the number of buildings that are 40+ floors, the number of buildings that are proposed in the 40+ range, and even the designs of many of them (i.e. not all their office towers are boxes). (I won't post any links as this information can be googled.)

I don't like the idea of Calgary having more tall office towers than Toronto (I know Toronto's core has more office space in sq. ft. than Calgary).

Rant over.
 
what ever happened to 140 front street west.. The IT hotel??? it was suppose to attach to the skywalk.........
 

Back
Top