HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 3:44 AM
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
Master of the Universe
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Secret
Posts: 8,891
Number of large leases are expiriing in Toronto in the next few years so anything is possible. There won`t be any space left anywhere around the core once the current crop of proposals gets realized . So much of the last 10 years has been concentrating on class I space to the amount of ten million square feet. This trend is dying not to mention that we are flat out of convertable class I space. The timing for new commercial towers has never been better.
__________________
Excavation/shoring of a multi-level pit is stage of construction. No one in their right mind would pay all this money if the plan wasn't to fill it immediately.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 5:02 AM
Tony's Avatar
Tony Tony is online now
Super Moderator / Sr. Committee
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
I brought up St. John's because it has by far the lowest vacancy rate of any city in Canada. Are there some SSP rules stating that I cannot mention this that I should no of? I never really understand why people dis Tornoto but you're making it pretty clear why.
Low vacancies does suggest room in the market for the creation of more space yes... but if your market it small to begin with, this demand can be fulfilled with 1 or 2 towers of medium to slightly higher than usual range for your city. There is no way a limited sized market is going to fill a supertall with tenants.

Just because St. Johns has a low vacancy rate, doesn't mean it's ripe for a supertall! I'm sure you realize this; therefore, to play Captain Obvious, your original post was obviously meant to be trollish remark.
__________________
Hunan, China 1 | Hunan, China 2 | Hong Kong | NYC 2 | NYC 1 | Florence | Venice | Rome | London | Paris


Flickr®
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 5:44 AM
hrisemiky hrisemiky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 230
a supertall would look ridiculous in all canadian citys EXCEPT TORONTO. CALGARY and maybe MONTREAL. even suncor in calgary would dwarf most all canadian skylines except .toronto.montreal
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 6:19 AM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Keep yo pimp hand strong
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Changchun , China
Posts: 2,111
There are only two Canadian cities with any realistic chance of building a supertall .
Toronto could support one rather easily I would think . Even if it was built on spec it would fill out pretty quickly I'm sure . Seems like Toronto's edging toward height restrictions though ... not sure what that's about .
Calgary has the nads to try for it , no doubt about that . There's also no great opposition to skyscrapers in downtown Calgary either so the field is open . Combine the positive attitude with an actual demand for such a building and I'd say Calgary's got a very good chance at building a supertall . Can't see it happening for a while but it's certainly possible . I'd even go so far as to say it's probable .

Edmonton , Montreal , Vancouver , and Ottawa are pretty much out . All have height restrictions for various reasons and the market demand simply isn't there anyway . Niagara Falls might line the whole riverbank with +200 meter buildings but a supertall cuts into the profits . Cities like Winnipeg , Hamilton , Quebec , and even Mississauga are highly unlikely to see a supertall at any point in time . The demand for office space just isn't there and even if they could build one , the economics of it just don't make sense in those cities .

A city like Regina or St. John's is just not going to get a supertall . Not even an observation tower for that matter . I'm not knocking those places of course , I'm just saying it's ridiculous to think anybody would consider building such a structure over 300 meters in a city that might absorb 100,000 square feet of office space in a very, very , very good year .
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.

I am the English teacher about whom your mother warned you .

They call me Captain Goodgitch . Nobody knows why .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 6:50 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,633
The skyscrapers over 300 m are mostly built for novelty or vanity, not because they are efficient or because there is sufficient demand.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 7:40 AM
yaletown_fella's Avatar
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,784
I think the most realistic manifestation of this coming of age for Canada would be a landmark in North York City Center. Somthing vaguely similar to a revival of the circa late 70's Weston proposal. It's the economic heart of the GTA.
I call 347 meters.
__________________
These pretzels are making me thirsty
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 9:05 AM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
.
Calgary has the nads to try for it , no doubt about that . There's also no great opposition to skyscrapers in downtown Calgary either so the field is open . Combine the positive attitude with an actual demand for such a building and I'd say Calgary's got a very good chance at building a supertall . Can't see it happening for a while but it's certainly possible . I'd even go so far as to say it's probable.
I'm actually surprised that Calgary HASN'T built a supertall yet. Especially given the amount of twins in Calgary. Seriously, Bow Valley Square could easily be 2 300m towers instead of 4 140m towers. Petro Canada...err Suncor could easily be 1 350m tower. Western Canada Place could be 1 300m tower. I'm not sure where the go go attitude was when those were built, but easily, they could've been Canada's tallest.
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 9:31 AM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Keep yo pimp hand strong
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Changchun , China
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The skyscrapers over 300 m are mostly built for novelty or vanity, not because they are efficient or because there is sufficient demand.
That's not really true .

Price per square foot/meter is a function of demand . When the price goes high enough , people start putting up buildings . It doesn't really matter how tall a building is from the developer's perspective if the market can supply the customers and the customers can afford the rent . It's pretty much that simple . There are also plenty of sufficiently large companies in need of hundreds of thousands of square feet of space all in one location . For them , getting into one building large enough to accommodate the entire head office is more important than a moderately inflated rent . Plenty of companies want it all in one place and don't really care that much the cost of the facility (rented or owned) For them that kind of cash is always going to be small potatoes (think Bow)
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.

I am the English teacher about whom your mother warned you .

They call me Captain Goodgitch . Nobody knows why .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 9:58 AM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
That's not really true .
It doesn't really matter how tall a building is from the developer's perspective if the market can supply the customers and the customers can afford the rent . It's pretty much that simple .
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 10:36 AM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is offline
Stuffum'n'Cuffum
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,450
The two best bets for a supertall in Canada as it stands now are Signature and 45 Bay.

We have learned through an anoyomous source whom posts on this board, that there will be a bus terminal in the base of 45 Bay street, and likely a double decker style terminal with an additional for for the lobby and ticket sales, well thats my hunch anyway. 45 Bay street is supposed to be 250 meters without the bus terminal, and there is less than excepted availability of new office space downtown. This is your number One contender.

Then there is signature, ego and pride and beating Trump, Aura and One Bloor, will play a big role here.
__________________
Learn Here about the 187 Tallest Buildings U/C in Toronto The Toronto Skyscraper Blog
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 11:08 AM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,178
I highly doubt any of those proposals will produce a supertall. SITQ is too conservative, especially since getting their ass handed to them in 2008, and there is no way concord will go that tall.

With foundations already poored for Aura, a height increase of nearly 50m is almost impossible, outside of a spire, but since it wasnt included in the original approved drawings I doubt it.

1BE is a bit of a mystery, but GG is not the type of developer I could see pushing that envelope. Having discussed the project with some of the team over there last spring, I certainly did not get the impression that they were oging to try to push for anything taller than Aura.

Toronto's best bet for a supertall come from Manulife looking to consolidate. I can't imagine much else having enough push to do it, none of the institutional developers will do it on their own.

Calgary's economics dont really demand it now, or any time soon, but they have that cowboy, something to prove attitude, that makes them a real dark horse contender.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 12:00 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Low vacancies does suggest room in the market for the creation of more space yes... but if your market it small to begin with, this demand can be fulfilled with 1 or 2 towers of medium to slightly higher than usual range for your city. There is no way a limited sized market is going to fill a supertall with tenants.

Just because St. Johns has a low vacancy rate, doesn't mean it's ripe for a supertall! I'm sure you realize this; therefore, to play Captain Obvious, your original post was obviously meant to be trollish remark.
You people can get quite upset over this stuff. What does it matter if I mention St. John's, if it offends you so much then ignor it. Sorry if my city isn't good enough for you.

Toronto has one of the highest unemployment rates of any Canadian city yet you think the market is their for a 300m tower?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 12:55 PM
DrJoe's Avatar
DrJoe DrJoe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: TO/Cobourg, Ont
Posts: 2,290
^ I haven't followed this thread but have you seriously submitted St John's as a candidate for a supertall?

The unemployment rate doesn't have much to do with the need for a supertall. Hell Toronto is building/has proposals of some towers that, with a little bit of a push, could be supertalls.
__________________
*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 1:00 PM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is offline
Stuffum'n'Cuffum
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,450
the orginal plan for signature was 267 i believe. so concord may have balls in toronto...
__________________
Learn Here about the 187 Tallest Buildings U/C in Toronto The Toronto Skyscraper Blog
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 1:04 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,178
I doubt it. It is a Vancouver run company with little to prove to anyone, no need to take risks and a very conservative track record. I mean just look at their architecture...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 1:13 PM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is offline
Stuffum'n'Cuffum
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
You people can get quite upset over this stuff. What does it matter if I mention St. John's, if it offends you so much then ignor it. Sorry if my city isn't good enough for you.

Toronto has one of the highest unemployment rates of any Canadian city yet you think the market is their for a 300m tower?
Guy, know this:

Even if Toronto had an unemployment rate of 25%, more money flows down Bay Street in one day than the GDP of the NFLD will be in a lifetime. Even if you found a dozen more Oil Wells. TRUST.
__________________
Learn Here about the 187 Tallest Buildings U/C in Toronto The Toronto Skyscraper Blog
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 1:14 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJoe View Post
^ I haven't followed this thread but have you seriously submitted St John's as a candidate for a supertall?

The unemployment rate doesn't have much to do with the need for a supertall. Hell Toronto is building/has proposals of some towers that, with a little bit of a push, could be supertalls.
I mentioned St. John's yesterday what's the big deal that other cities were being mentioned?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 2:25 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is online now
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sunnyside, Calgary
Posts: 15,879
Quite frankly I'd be happy for Calgary to break the 800' and 900' foot mark first, even if that were to delay a supertall in the city by another 10-20 years.
__________________
Proud supporter of Naheed Nenshi as Mayor!
Bigtime Goes to Antarctica
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 2:39 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
I mentioned St. John's yesterday what's the big deal that other cities were being mentioned?
Becasue there was no point. Your comment was merely to state St John's low vacancy rate and unemployment for shameless boosterism. We all, including you, know there is no chance of St John's getting a supertall in anyone's lifetime, so what purpose did you have of bringing it up other than to brag?

I'm sure you've noticed in your short time on this board that people have no tolerance for such nonsense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 2:41 PM
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
Master of the Universe
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Secret
Posts: 8,891
Signature and 45 Bay couldn't be worse examples and Aura, One Bloor, etc. shuold be considered over and done with in regards to height changes. C'mon, have some creativity.

Manulife is not going to leave their campus on Bloor which still presents expansion opportunities when and if they ever need them.

There's a reason developers build twins over a singular tower. It cheaper to build, cheaper to finance construction, takes less time to build, and is easier to fill with tenants. Calgary has a lot of twins but, I'll be so bold as to say it pales in comparison to the GTA.

Unemployment and vacancies rates are factors but, hardly deciding factors. It comes down to the tenants of which the GTA has over three times (conservative estimate) the occupied space of Calgary.

Over the years, I've lost touch with my buddies in commercial real estate and building contracting. I've made new ones though among the biggest space whores on Bay Street. As I alluded to earlier, lots of movement happening. Lots of potential to build out a huge chunk of the dozen or so office proposals. These proposals also represent the last of the large, unbuilt sites in the downtown core.
__________________
Excavation/shoring of a multi-level pit is stage of construction. No one in their right mind would pay all this money if the plan wasn't to fill it immediately.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:26 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.