Dan416
Senior Member
I've heard that too, and I'll leave it at that.
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
I've heard that too, and I'll leave it at that.
ThomasJ
Active Member
300 million cost of land....what a joke. almost as funny as the vendor's comment that he sold the building to mizrahi - despite dozens of offers from a plethora of potential purchasers across the globe - because he liked Mizrahi the best. riiiiiiight.
travis3000
Active Member
Are you calling The Globe and Mail liars? Maybe you should interview the business owner and Mizrahi yourself and see if you can get some corrected information. Until then, I'll stick with this.
buildup
Senior Member
What are you saying, you don't believe the figure? What would be your estimate, and on what assumptions.
Mongo
Senior Member
If $15 million was spent to acquire that tiny plot of land, then I could easily see the rest of the land costing another $260 million to $280 million (to make the total "almost $300 million").
ThomasJ
Active Member
read the article mate. the 300 reference is loose at best.
LNahid2000
Senior Member
Do you have a better reference?
Automation Gallery
Superstar
If they are planning to buy all of these. id say two 250m+ towers
TDotTeen
New Member
Geez I hope they didn't buy all of those properties. Am I the only one tired of seeing massive developments which take up the whole block? I find it much more interesting and attractive when there are multiple narrower buildings side by side, creating a more varied streetscape. Toronto has way too many mega-developments in my opinion. Cityplace is an extreme example (giant lot sold to single developer), but there are many others which are similar. One bloor east, while amazing, takes up the whole north-south length of it's block. The harbour plaza towers and one york take up a whole block. Ice, infinity...the list goes on. IMO one of the reasons many of our newer developments are failing on the ground is because they have way too much space to work with.
Ramako
Moderator
To be fair, it's almost impossible to build a 200+ metre tower anywhere without it taking up a full block, save for rare and exceedingly complex examples like Massey Tower.
P23
Active Member
I'm not fond of it either. I also prefer a varied streetscape with lots of smaller structures of different heights, designs and materials. Maybe over time places like Southcore will develop their own character as the area matures, I doubt they'll ever match streets like Queen West though.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Stolleys & that $15M building (I can't remember what the retail is), then Stollerys down to Burgendy's/Florida Jacks is plenty of space for single project. Funny how Famous Players Inc is still imprinted over Uptown condos. Actually, it makes me sad.
arvelomcquaig
Active Member
Exactly. Block-filling developments are awful to the street-level experience and more conducive to homogeneity and sterile corporate retail. I wish development would happen at the scale/width of the older buildings, as exemplified by those south of Stollery’s on Yonge. They couldn’t be as tell, but in Manhattan there are still fairly tall buildings that are built in narrow lots. A street wall of multiple narrow buildings—all different heights, uses, architectural styles, etc.—is infinitely preferable to one or two buildings.
Mongo
Senior Member
You've got to love Urban Toronto. Here we have the possibility of a very tall, iconic building that might very well be even better than One Bloor East across the street, and people are already whining about how they would prefer smaller, less ambitious projects at the corner of Bloor and Yonge.
Bad Bear
Active Member
Too bad I can't "like" your post a million time.