Office tower envy

[davidivivid]

Ivanhoé Cambridge, the real estate subsidiary of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, is building the following $750M towers... in Paris. It is designed by Jean Nouvel and it will be the first time since the infamous Tour Montparnasse (1976) that such a high constructions are allowed to be built "intra-muros". So the question is: would we want to see these towers in a canadian city?








http://www.urbanews.fr/2012/04/24/20.../#.T5oLHLOHh2A

[dleung]

I prefer Phare tower... this one is a bit too irrational. Though it's probably better than this:


Bay Adelaide, RBC, Telus, 10 York, Bremner, Waterpark III, 1 York (latest addition!)

[miketoronto]

Lets get some cool skyscrapers like the new ones in Milan's downtown.

I took this while visiting Milan. The difference there is these buildings are seen as signature buildings to a whole new district for the downtown. Not just separate buildings not connected with their surroundings.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by davidivivid

So the question is: would we want to see these towers in a canadian city?

No. We, aren't willing to pay the rent rates to support a building with small (they look quite thin) and non-uniform floorplates.

[vegeta_skyline]

So basically, when it comes to office buildings in Canada, we suck...
















Oh well!
Thank god there's more to life then skyscrapers.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by davidivivid

So the question is: would we want to see these towers in a canadian city?

Count me in as one who would very much like to see them here.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

So basically, when it comes to office buildings in Canada, we suck...

In Toronto at least. These buildings are occuppied by the same companies we were proud to say were conservative during the last recession. That management style slices two ways.

Big law, etc. in Toronto are basically there to support the banks.

It's going to require the rise of a different industry or a major land-crunch to build office space that isn't highly functional first.


I expect finance will start putting up 300m office towers in the next cycle (2025) due to land prices. They will still be boxes with large floorplates.

[Ramako]

Torontonians by nature tend to be cheap and pragmatic. That's why Rob Ford is mayor. It's not an atmosphere that's conducive to ostentation or flair, save every couple decades or so when we spit out a CN Tower or Sharp Centre for Design.

I recall reading somewhere that when they were planning Scotia Plaza, they seriously considered the option of tower taller than First Canadian Place. Ultimately they decided that the money would be better spent on superior design over superior height. So it's not unheard of for Toronto's financial institutions to choose style over numbers.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by dleung

I prefer Phare tower... this one is a bit too irrational. Though it's probably better than this:


Bay Adelaide, RBC, Telus, 10 York, Bremner, Waterpark III, 1 York (latest addition!)

A little variety wouldn't hurt, rational or not. It almost look like the same building from different angles.

[Ramako]

This one is still in the works, so let's see what comes of it:

[Martin Mtl]

That one is gorgeous. At least from that aerial angle. Is it from KPF ? It reminds me of their proposal for the Windsor tower near the Bell Center.

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

That one is gorgeous. At least from that aerial angle. Is it from KPF ? It reminds me of their proposal for the Windsor tower near the Bell Center.

It is indeed KPF. It's nice, but I think I prefer it before the recent revisions (and not just because it was taller):



http://urbantoronto.ca/database/proj...d-adelaide-iii

[Martin Mtl]

I like both design :-)

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by dleung

I was in Sydney a few weekends ago, and it struck me how much better Australian architecture seems to be. Their new condos don't all look the same like in Canada, and their office towers have a London-grade quality to it not seen in Canada, both in terms of architecture and luxurious use of space. Here are some of their more recent office towers:

1 Bligh: 30 storey atrium with curved glass...





In Canada, only the Bow comes close.

This makes me so sad for the loss of the Bow's skypods and the south Bow block's new neutered design that no longer has the amazing canyon of glass atrium facing the northern tower.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Ramako

Torontonians by nature tend to be cheap and pragmatic. That's why Rob Ford is mayor. It's not an atmosphere that's conducive to ostentation or flair, save every couple decades or so when we spit out a CN Tower or Sharp Centre for Design.

I recall reading somewhere that when they were planning Scotia Plaza, they seriously considered the option of tower taller than First Canadian Place. Ultimately they decided that the money would be better spent on superior design over superior height. So it's not unheard of for Toronto's financial institutions to choose style over numbers.

Torontonians didn't vote Rob Ford. They voted heavily for his competition who, by all means, was a weak candidate himself. All the headquarters on Bay Street were built with both design and sheer height in mind. Most were built during an era where adornment was frowned upon. The huge success of these buildings is a reason our institutions continue to sway in that direction.

[Andrewjm3D]

This tower is nice but look at all the crap around it. We have no reason to be envious of Australia.

[Nouvellecosse]

I like most of the office towers in Aus, especially how they tend to be so well integrated into the urban environment rather than stuck on huge podiums that half a block had to be razed in order to build. And I like that they have more texture and whimsy rather than just being straight-laced corporate looking.

People here tend to look down on pomo, but I think that's largely from context since pomo is pretty dire in NA, drawing from lots of weird retro/historical design cues which as a practice isn't common down there. There's tends to be more futuristic rather than retro.

[Welkin]

Regardless of their design styles (I find that both Canada and Australia have enough interesting buildings) I am disappointed that both countries lack a super tall. Most of Sydney's buildings range in the 200-230M range and Melbourne only has one building pushing the 250M range. Every developer in Toronto seems afraid to go past First Canadian's 298M and that was in 1975. I was so disappointed that Scotia Plaza did not push the 300-350M range. Everyone seems happy with just a new 235M building. Imagine downtown Toronto with something like the 500M Shanghai World Financial Center. It may have 101 floors, but downtown Toronto does have a 5% vacancy rate and has over 150 floors of proposed office space. Why put it in three mediocre buildings when the market would support at least one super tall.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Welkin

Regardless of their design styles (I find that both Canada and Australia have enough interesting buildings) I am disappointed that both countries lack a super tall. Most of Sydney's buildings range in the 200-230M range and Melbourne only has one building pushing the 250M range. Every developer in Toronto seems afraid to go past First Canadian's 298M and that was in 1975. I was so disappointed that Scotia Plaza did not push the 300-350M range. Everyone seems happy with just a new 235M building. Imagine downtown Toronto with something like the 500M Shanghai World Financial Center. It may have 101 floors, but downtown Toronto does have a 5% vacancy rate and has over 150 floors of proposed office space. Why put it in three mediocre buildings when the market would support at least one super tall.

I think you might be a bit confused. Melbourne's tallest is 297M and has a several more built, U/C or proposed around the 250 mark.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Welkin

Regardless of their design styles (I find that both Canada and Australia have enough interesting buildings) I am disappointed that both countries lack a super tall. Most of Sydney's buildings range in the 200-230M range and Melbourne only has one building pushing the 250M range. Every developer in Toronto seems afraid to go past First Canadian's 298M and that was in 1975. I was so disappointed that Scotia Plaza did not push the 300-350M range. Everyone seems happy with just a new 235M building. Imagine downtown Toronto with something like the 500M Shanghai World Financial Center. It may have 101 floors, but downtown Toronto does have a 5% vacancy rate and has over 150 floors of proposed office space. Why put it in three mediocre buildings when the market would support at least one super tall.

Just because the market can support that amount of space doesn't mean it can support it at the prices required to create a super tall. Remember, it is more expensive to build one very tall building than 2 or 3 much smaller buildings. So the building might have a competitive disadvantage relative to the shorter, less expensive alternatives when looking for tenants.