[tomms]

if they build something lame, like a 40 storey tower, i hope it collapses and kills everyone inside

thats right, i said it

 

[Automation Gallery]

Who's willing to go with my prediction that we see two 50's-60's on this site instead of one 50 or 60 storey tower? Financing would be easier, they'd sell like hotcakes at market rates and the size of the site could easily support it.

I agree plus it could be sold in two phases thus giving GG a better chance of financing a more upscale project.

 

[Redroom Studios]

someone in the development industry should be able to make a good guess at what size this project needs to be in order to make money. Considering the land alone is worth ~$55M, I doubt that 40 floors would be profitable.

 

[p5connex]

I opt for the new name of this thread to be:

Sucky-shit, ballstower, crap kazakh's, crash, burn, run away, money grab tower.

edit.: sorry, I forgot to put it into the correct order:

1 Sucky-shit Ballstower, Crash, Burn (Run Away/money grab tower, 0s,Crap Kazakh's)

 

[Swamp Thing]

Height is not the only way to make a tower stand out. But a tower in this location needs to stand out.

 

[maestro]

someone in the development industry should be able to make a good guess at what size this project needs to be in order to make money. Considering the land alone is worth ~$55M, I doubt that 40 floors would be profitable.

I'm not in the industry but still, have an opinion. I doubt we'll see as low as forty storeys however, it's a huge site. They could easily squeeze 800 units into 40 storeys.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Lest anyone forget, the old proposal is a boring, 3rd rate box by a Nth rate architect - quite a few members on here complaining about context seem to have forgotten that just because it is tall. I think the phrase "quantity over quality" seems rather apt. Where were the cries for a design competition, Jean Nouvel et al. then? Nowhere to be heard.

AoD

 

[BMyers]

I don't know if you can make money with a 75 storey tower.

If the land sold for $55 million and land usually accounts for 10% of the cost of a project, and assumming they would also be looking for 15% profit, we would be looking at $630 million in revenue.

With $630 million and a 75 storey bldg (assuming about a 8,000 sf floorplate) you would need to sell at over $1,000 psf?!


I'm sure someone can do better math on this than me.

I assume a 60 storey tower which sells at $750 psf, but that only generates $360 million? So I don't know what is feasible.

 

[lochlyn]

I don't know if you can make money with a 75 storey tower.

If the land sold for $55 million and land usually accounts for 10% of the cost of a project, and assumming they would also be looking for 15% profit, we would be looking at $630 million in revenue.

With $630 million and a 75 storey bldg (assuming about a 8,000 sf floorplate) you would need to sell at over $1,000 psf?!


I'm sure someone can do better math on this than me.

I assume a 60 storey tower which sells at $750 psf, but that only generates $360 million? So I don't know what is feasible.

Good logical analysis, but why land normally accounts for 10% of the cost of a project? Would a 20% hurt developer?

 

[Mike in TO]

^ One of the contributing reasons to the Bazis failure was speculation on the part of potential lenders and potential partners (Bazis was actively seeking a partner since spring 2008) that the 1BE project was going to be a money loser.

Typically high-rise projects have a land component in the 10%-15% range as mentioned by BMyers (this project may push that number upwards). The psf is going to have to be fairly high and/or a lot of units are going to have to be crammed in the site for it to be economically viable and meet net proceeds requirements by lenders for that 10% - 15% profit margin.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Lest anyone forget, the old proposal is a boring, 3rd rate box by a Nth rate architect - quite a few members on here complaining about context seem to have forgotten that just because it is tall. I think the phrase "quantity over quality" seems rather apt. Where were the cries for a design competition, Jean Nouvel et al. then? Nowhere to be heard.

AoD

A design competition for the podium and the two towers are definitely the order of the day as yyzer and archetype have also pointed out.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

dt_toronto_geek:

I was just referring to how there seems to be a double standard on the basis of height and nothing else. At the point I am not really terribly concerned or even convinced that we need a design competition, given the track record of GG (and esp. after X). Whatever it is, I wouldn't be surprised to see a proposal that is superior in every aspect to the Bazis project.

AoD

 

[greenleaf]

Instead of 2 point towers, I think something "I" shaped would work really well on this site (something like Royal York Hotel, except much, much taller).

At ground level, this would allow public park space just south of the corner along Yonge. The connection between the subway exit in the xerox building and the public space on Yonge could be connected via an open air passageway (with say, a wide 2-3 story tall pathway).

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

dt_toronto_geek:

I was just referring to how there seems to be a double standard on the basis of height and nothing else. At the point I am not really terribly concerned or even convinced that we need a design competition, given the track record of GG (and esp. after X). Whatever it is, I wouldn't be surprised to see a proposal that is superior in every aspect to the Bazis project.

AoD

Got it & agreed.