Strange Advance
Active Member
I'm not too fancy on the curlicue crown on the tallest.
- Thread starter Conrad Black
- Start date
Amare
Senior Member
For what is perhaps the most prominent site for the city's skyline, what we're about to get proposed here is a pure laughable joke.
And i'm being generous in that assessment, because that render of the eastern most tower certainly aint gunna be happening as rendered or envisioned. From my understanding, that's the last Phase.
And i'm being generous in that assessment, because that render of the eastern most tower certainly aint gunna be happening as rendered or envisioned. From my understanding, that's the last Phase.
reinventingthewheel
Active Member
Yes the shared renders lack context. To be clear, phase 1+2 would demolish and replace 325 Front St. W and retain the ~16 story tower at 315 Front St. W.
Phase 3 would then replace 315 with that tallest tower in the renders.
I wouldn’t call it laughable but I agree it certainly will be revised several more times before the third phase of construction begins.
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
WHEEEEEEE MORE BLAMING CIVIL SERVANTS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPER CHOICES!
Never change, UT Forums.
The fact is they intended to sell this as expensive office space, that market no longer exists to the scale it did when this was planned before the pandemic. So now it's been redesigned. But yeah totally the faulty of regulation and the planning department. Not to say City Planning is perfect (and I personally have been plenty critical of them in the past), but there's a weird constant insistence on this forum that any perceived negative change to a project is always the fault of City Planning, and never because the developer themselves made changes independently based on market conditions and what would be the best investment for them.
Last edited:
jxmyth_
Senior Member
The one video I posted and confused for this project, cited numbers on the smallest of residential units needing to be $850k ea. and given the market for those shoeboxes, never mind where offices are these days- just can’t see how anything gets built for a long time.
reinventingthewheel
Active Member
Gross misinterpretation but I give benefit of doubt, you understood enough but you bungled the paraphrasing.
For the estimated development cost ($6.5B, no citation from video but assumed accurate for argument sake) and number of units (~8000), the average unit price would need to be at least ~$800K for the developer to break even.
For a relatively risky development (from an engineering perspective), they may realistically aim for a ~20% profit margin. So then you’re looking at an average unit price just shy of $1M.
You’ve said smallest units but more accurately it is the average unit price. While 74% of units are 1 bed, there is still a wide range of sizes for those. The smallest studios would be at least a little cheaper.
But yes, even ignoring the park space this development makes no economical sense.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
He's used this post as the basis for that
Rail Deck Development | 239.43m | 72s | LIUNA | Sweeny &Co
The neighbourhoods surrounding the tracks downtown are the ones with the highest growth in households with children recently. https://raisingthevillage.ca/child-family-demographics-3/
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Those worried about the office demand (high vacancy) are missing some key info. Trophy builds, (AAA+,) never suffered as much as other office product during the pandemic. B and C class space in many cases might never recover, but new A class and 'trophy' towers in the core or at this location, have not experienced nearly as much of a challenge with absorption, and that will likely get even better in the medium term.
There was a pretty good CBRE presentation recently, which had an overview of the real estate market. (It was actually a great overview and covered all the asset classes I work on -- until the speaker ruined it by pandering to the development community with political attacks and perspectives on how good the next gov will be in 2025. Totally oblivious to the likely impact PP might have on regular people, but to be expected given the wealth of the speaker and the audience. Anyway, credit where credit is due, as it was one of the better overviews I have heard this year,, just wish they didn't add the personal political preference part.)
There was a pretty good CBRE presentation recently, which had an overview of the real estate market. (It was actually a great overview and covered all the asset classes I work on -- until the speaker ruined it by pandering to the development community with political attacks and perspectives on how good the next gov will be in 2025. Totally oblivious to the likely impact PP might have on regular people, but to be expected given the wealth of the speaker and the audience. Anyway, credit where credit is due, as it was one of the better overviews I have heard this year,, just wish they didn't add the personal political preference part.)
Northern Light
Superstar
@UrbanAffair is on point above.
I've been making similar points for awhile; which include the the shift away from hybrid and remote work in many offices as well, resulting in increased demand.
I don't think we're likely to see a AAA office tower building boom again, in the near term, though one of the signature towers going up would not surprise at all.......
What does have my attention is that Oxford is not the only one reviving their past proposals, and that is a very clear indication of shopping and market interest.
I suspect only one will attract enough interest to go forward in the near term; but ya never know.
That will also depend on how much Class B and C stuff gets removed from the market over the next couple of years.
I've been making similar points for awhile; which include the the shift away from hybrid and remote work in many offices as well, resulting in increased demand.
I don't think we're likely to see a AAA office tower building boom again, in the near term, though one of the signature towers going up would not surprise at all.......
What does have my attention is that Oxford is not the only one reviving their past proposals, and that is a very clear indication of shopping and market interest.
I suspect only one will attract enough interest to go forward in the near term; but ya never know.
That will also depend on how much Class B and C stuff gets removed from the market over the next couple of years.
maestro
Senior Member
This appears as a in the moment reaction to market conditions that you wouldn't expect from a holding company like Oxford. That is curiously disconcerning. Rentals do not amount to class A office space even with taxpayer subsidize low interest mortgages and securities. You would expect a long game here.
Koops65
Senior Member
Undead
Senior Member
So weird how people think we need billion dollar office towers to do nothing but send emails all day lmao.
Yes the current shit show has been so good for people's well being lmao.
Northern Light
Superstar
The Trudeau government's shortcomings are something I've discussed at length, generally, in the appropriate political or policy-based thread.
Here, I would only note, that Polievre does carry potential political risks different from those of the current regime; will (if given the PMO) he be more injurious to the interests of the middle or lower economic strata, TBD, but there are reasons to be
concerned. That should not read as an endorsement of the status quo.
***
Let me then add, the real complaint here, by @UrbanAffair I thought read as one of a professional, giving an address on a non-political subject, to a non-partisan audience and then ad-libbing his partisan pontifications on to the end of same, which seems unprofessional.
I would tend to concur that it would be, even if those pontifications had been anti-Conservative or pro-Liberal, not the place or time.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I mean lmao?
jxmyth_
Senior Member
If this project would be looking for trophy builds to happen, I ask how many more towers do the banks need their names on? Also, did they achieve that tech and banking hub known as “south core” along Queens Quay- or could they reframe the concept for this?