When will Canada get a supertall???

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

No, this is distictly untrue.

Building above 800ft is prohibitively expensive for a multitude of reasons. This is why someone123 said, and he is correct, that in most cases building 300m is not necessary.

It is much more sensible and cost effective for a developer to build a fatter, shorter building, or multiple buildings, than one supertall. Given Canadian's propensity towards sensibility I would put my vote in that it will be at least 10 years before we see a supertall, with a 65% chance of it being in Toronto, 25% chance of it being in Calgary, and a 5% chance of it being in Metro Vancouver or Montreal. If you like give Edmonton a 1% chance too, but the land economics there just make so little sense to build a supertall it would ahve to be someone with an enormously large ego and correspondingly small common sense to do it.

And again , no , it's not untrue. Just as we have all now said (which is why I'm not sure why you're belaboring the point) in most cases a supertall makes no sense . We're not talking about most cases here .

As I said before , just look at the Bow in Calgary . Encana already had the space but it was all in separate locations . Even though it cost far more to build it at one location , EnCana needed the space consolidated . There are other factors to consider than the rent which was what I said in the beginning . Building and leasing costs are often enough just not that important to large companies . Consider for example how much of a profit EnCana can pull in on a good year . For them The Bow is chump change . This is obviously not an argument for a supertall per se but rather to underscore the point that the economics of any building are not necessarily the same for the one next door . EnCana could have built a supertall and they could have also built a suburban office campus . Was it necessarily vanity that influenced EnCana to build the Bow ? Seems unlikely to me but sure , let's say that that was the case . My guess is that they'd have spent far more than necessary no matter what format they opted for .

[LeftCoaster]

??? Encana is a perfect example of exactly the opposite point you are making.

Encana is easily large enough in square footage to be a supertall but it was built shorter and fatter becuase it is much cheaper and more efficent to build that way. Notice how it is just under that magic 800ft number?

Encana did exactly what I said most developers do, in fact I was going to use Encana as a point to support cutting height in favour of bulk, it really is the perfect example.

Like I said before, building a supertall is more about ego than economics. With the exception of a few select cases it does not make sense.

[WhipperSnapper]

Encana's chosen site had to contend with shadow restrictions.

Regardless, it's a poor example as it's a once in a blue moon building. It doesn't matter how much profit they make or if a building, the relocations, and subleasing is merely chump change. Most of the ownership would not support such a decision. They want it all for themselves or to re-invest that billion dollars into the core business and make more profit. It may be only coincidental but, notice how the CEO was replaced not too long after the architect and drawings of the Bow were released?

Land prices tripled in downtown Toronto over the past 5 or 6 years. We would likely need them to double again though. The odds greatly improve should the current round of proposals get built.

[caltrane74]

Chinese and Middle Eastern money is flooding Toronto real estate right now, due to the stable Canadian polictical climate, good rental returns, and of course weak US dollar and currency instability at present and into the near future look for Toronto to explode with more developments as it is becoming internationally known through the connections of people landed here whom seem to be recommending Toronto investments to friends back home.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

??? Encana is a perfect example of exactly the opposite point you are making.

Encana is easily large enough in square footage to be a supertall but it was built shorter and fatter becuase it is much cheaper and more efficent to build that way. Notice how it is just under that magic 800ft number?

Encana did exactly what I said most developers do, in fact I was going to use Encana as a point to support cutting height in favour of bulk, it really is the perfect example.

Like I said before, building a supertall is more about ego than economics. With the exception of a few select cases it does not make sense.

No , it doesn't act against my point . The Bow is deluxe and EnCana paid far more than they had to for their needs ... that's the point .

Supertalls are still profitable because they also tend to be prestige buildings and can therefore command higher rental rates per square foot . So yes , that ties in to the vanity argument but it doesn't seem to be doing much to disprove that a supertall can be profitable . More expensive , sure , but not unprofitable . Again , it's a function of the going lease rates per square foot . If a developer can turn a profit on a supertall then it's because the lease rates in some city are high enough . As a prestige building with class A space , it will attract tenants who can easily afford the rent and consider it as much an advertising investment as a consolidation move .
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tal.424/pdf

Frankly , I just don't think we're on the same page here . I already know that supertalls are costlier to build but that's not the point . What you guys seem to be saying is that supertalls cost more and therefore nobody will build them except as a statement that they have a bigger d#ck than the next guy does . Well , MAYBE that's true but it hasn't stopped anybody from building supertalls and those buildings are still making a profit . It would appear that even in mature economies , supertalls are still being proposed by people not planning to occupy the buildings themselves or for any single tenant either . Obviously then , supertall construction isn't simply about vanity nor is it stopping anybody from turning a profit on them .

Like I said from the start , leasing costs aren't always the most important thing to any given company . They might find it more important to have their HQ all under one roof or perhaps they consider it an investment in another way .

[MolsonExport]

I'd be more interested in learning which Canadian City will next get the cool downtown urban vibe offered up by Mtl, QC, Toronto, etc.. Vancouver is getting there...Ottawa perhaps. Halifax has it, but it is still quite smallish...

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Encana's chosen site had to contend with shadow restrictions.

Unfortunately, I think we could have seen a building in the 800' range had the site been in another location. Remember how they had to reduce the number of sky lobby floors and fatten up the floorplates all the way out to the atrium glass for more square footage? That could have easily been done with a few more floors instead in a different location.

Found the picture:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It may be only coincidental but, notice how the CEO was replaced not too long after the architect and drawings of the Bow were released?

Are you talking about Gwyn Morgan? I'm pretty sure his retirement was planned in advance, but I believe he did speak to how The Bow would be a landmark for Calgary. I can't see him getting the boot for it, the guy pretty much built Encana into the giant it was back when they announced the project. He was your typical Calgary "Maverick".

[Gerrard]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I'd be more interested in learning which Canadian City will next get the cool downtown urban vibe offered up by Mtl, QC, Toronto, etc.. Vancouver is getting there...Ottawa perhaps. Halifax has it, but it is still quite smallish...

I think it'll be Buffalo.

[MolsonExport]

Cool. Welcome to Canada. Buffalo fits, with its snowfall.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I'd be more interested in learning which Canadian City will next get the cool downtown urban vibe offered up by Mtl, QC, Toronto, etc.. Vancouver is getting there...Ottawa perhaps. Halifax has it, but it is still quite smallish...

Woodstock. Definitely Woodstock.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by hrisemiky

lets be real theres only two maybe three citys that would look good with a supertall in canada

1.) Thunder Bay
2.) Winnipeg
3.) And ..err??

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I'd be more interested in learning which Canadian City will next get the cool downtown urban vibe offered up by Mtl, QC, Toronto, etc.. Vancouver is getting there...Ottawa perhaps. Halifax has it, but it is still quite smallish...

Not sure if you have been, but Victoria has a great downtown urban vibe and street presence considering its small size (similar to Halifax). Also I hear often that St. John's is really fun downtown.

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I'd be more interested in learning which Canadian City will next get the cool downtown urban vibe offered up by Mtl, QC, Toronto, etc.. Vancouver is getting there...Ottawa perhaps. Halifax has it, but it is still quite smallish...

For a small town, Waterloo (just Waterloo) has a very vibrant night life in "Uptown", probably entirely because of all the schools in the city.
If it were to get larger as predicted and actually develop some sort of urban downtown area, it could absolutely be a contender..

Originally Posted by The_Architect

For a small town, Waterloo (just Waterloo) has a very vibrant night life in "Uptown", probably entirely because of all the schools in the city.
If it were to get larger as predicted and actually develop some sort of urban downtown area, it could absolutely be a contender..

Small town? Not by Canadian standards (okay, Torontonians think everywhere that isn't Toronto is small).

Definitely it's the nearby universities that set it apart from the other downtowns in the region. Downtown Kitchener is also very busy during the day, but it becomes a ghost town at 6pm.

The urbanization is actually happening in a big way, but none of those buildings are supertalls (which would look rediculously out of place if they were put there anyways). First thing that needs to be done is that godforsaken mall in the middle of uptown needs to be demolished and replaced with something that is at least somewhat urban.

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by Cambridgite

Small town? Not by Canadian standards (okay, Torontonians think everywhere that isn't Toronto is small).

Haha I was referring to just the City of Waterloo (90,000), not KW (480,000).
But fair enough I guess it is bigger than I am giving it credit for..
After all, there are more undergrads at UW than people living in the capital city of PEI..

[whiteford]

i hope, no i wish and pray to the skyscraper god's, that it will be Calgary. that would just make my skyscraper loving life complete. i am thinking there might be a gnat on a fly's ass chance that imperial oil might be the ones to do it. my fingers are crossed. if so, it will happen in the next 3 to 4 yrs.

Originally Posted by The_Architect

Haha I was referring to just the City of Waterloo (90,000), not KW (480,000).
But fair enough I guess it is bigger than I am giving it credit for..
After all, there are more undergrads at UW than people living in the capital city of PEI..

Almost due credit.

The City of Waterloo's sign was recently updated to 120,000 and the Region of Waterloo at 545,000 (includes Cambridge and some close-in rural townships). But it's okay, it's hard to keep track of the growth.

I don't know about UW alone, but if you included WLU and Conestoga, I'd say you're looking at easily more students than Charlottetown has people.

[koops65]

Some people have mentioned that a company will consolidate all of its offices under one roof, instead of being spread out. Is it possible RIM might do that, with a large skyscraper in Uptown Waterloo? As of right now, there are 26 RIM buildings in Waterloo Region, each approximately 2 -3 floors high. Some are indutrial size with huge floorplates. Most are office buildings with average sized floorplates. I would imagine if they were to be consolidated someday the total could equal a supertall...

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Not sure if you have been, but Victoria has a great downtown urban vibe and street presence considering its small size (similar to Halifax). Also I hear often that St. John's is really fun downtown.

Hokay, add theose two (have been to both...although I still put them a notch down from the QC league)

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by koops65

Some people have mentioned that a company will consolidate all of its offices under one roof, instead of being spread out. Is it possible RIM might do that, with a large skyscraper in Uptown Waterloo? As of right now, there are 26 RIM buildings in Waterloo Region, each approximately 2 -3 floors high. Some are indutrial size with huge floorplates. Most are office buildings with average sized floorplates. I would imagine if they were to be consolidated someday the total could equal a supertall...

I hope they do this just so we can see some skyline shots without power pylons.