Canada's Tallest U/C #11 - #30

[dleung]

Originally Posted by flipv

Dude, those Vancouver office buildings you keep getting wet over are basically the same square footage as 5 floors of a typical Toronto office building.

Let's compare apples and apples instead of apples and a grape.

That being said, I wouldn't trade a single office building in Toronto for anything in Vancouver - there's no value to add.

Why so butt hurt? Not sure how Vancouver is relevant, or why square footage on SSP is always some kind of compensatory quantitative thing in certain regions when talking about architectural quality

[flipv]

Originally Posted by dleung

Why so butt hurt? Not sure how Vancouver is relevant, or why square footage on SSP is always some kind of compensatory quantitative thing in certain regions when talking about architectural quality

Because you brought it up? There isn't a single office building in Vancouver I would trade for an office building built or proposed in Toronto.

You keep bringing up blue glass boxes. You mean Bay Adelaide? The only two? Or haven't you been following the general direction office buildings have taken not just in North America but worldwide?

True AAA prestige towers come with the architecture and the non-boxiness you speak of, but those are few and far between. Bay Park Centre is one of those, but they need the right tenant mix to go up. Accounting firms won't pay for that type of square footage or architecture. Apples to apples please - maybe you're just really homesick.

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by flipv

Because you brought it up? There isn't a single office building in Vancouver I would trade for an office building built or proposed in Toronto.

You keep bringing up blue glass boxes. You mean Bay Adelaide? The only two? Or haven't you been following the general direction office buildings have taken not just in North America but worldwide?

True AAA prestige towers come with the architecture and the non-boxiness you speak of, but those are few and far between. Bay Park Centre is one of those, but they need the right tenant mix to go up. Accounting firms won't pay for that type of square footage or architecture. Apples to apples please - maybe you're just really homesick.

Bay-Adelaide East and West, Telus House, PwC Tower, Bremner Tower, RBC Centre, RBC Waterpark Place III, Sun Life Financial Tower... all glass box office towers built during this boom.

I don't mind a well-made glass box, but let's not pretend we haven't built way too many of them. Fortunately the newer designs like EY Tower, Bay Park Centre, 160 Front and Union Centre are all a departure from what we've been getting.

[dleung]

My favorite office building in town is Queen Richmond Centre - a glass box (stilted over a great public space).

EY tower being the only new tower to date that isn't a blue box doesn't make it Vancouverish. Stating this fact shouldn't elicit childish tantrums like "i won't trade my city's buildings for yours!"

[dreambrother808]

It's funny how Toronto members often think that dleung is a Vancouver booster.

He is highly critical of everything, including Vancouver.

Is he often correct? I think so. Are his standards a bit too high at times? Probably. But he is definitely not a homer.

Toronto builds too many boxes. Vancouver has too many incoherent designs. These are obvious truths and nothing by which one should feel personally wounded.

[flipv]

Originally Posted by Ramako

Bay-Adelaide East and West, Telus House, PwC Tower, Bremner Tower, RBC Centre, RBC Waterpark Place III, Sun Life Financial Tower... all glass box office towers built during this boom.

I don't mind a well-made glass box, but let's not pretend we haven't built way too many of them. Fortunately the newer designs like EY Tower, Bay Park Centre, 160 Front and Union Centre are all a departure from what we've been getting.

I always forget about the lower southcore towers but one York and Telus are not blue glass boxes. Rbc centre is not a glass box either or are we going to call anything vaguely rectilinear a box?


There's nothing about being wounded here - it's just that dleung is barking up the wrong tree. Maybe it's those hideously busy office towers from Sydney he seems into but you'll never see those here.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

It's funny how Toronto members often think that dleung is a Vancouver booster.

He is highly critical of everything, including Vancouver.

Is he often correct? I think so. Are his standards a bit too high at times? Probably. But he is definitely not a homer.

Toronto builds too many boxes. Vancouver has too many incoherent designs. These are obvious truths and nothing by which one should feel personally wounded.

I haven't noticed anyone calling him a homer. He is clearly jaded by skinny articulated towers which makes absolutely little sense in the Toronto office market. No one is in denial about the number of boxy office towers built in this boom however, I don't see the likeness of all these towers as bad(some quite good) particularly compared to the alternative. It also looks like the trend is changing. Of course, we aren't going to see a drastic change from the extruded, boxy form. It's what tenants want.

E&Y is by KPF and Oxford. It's a shitload larger and angular instead of curvy but, it is undeniably similar to MNP. Does that make it appear Vancouverish? Of course not. Just look at the author.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by flipv

I always forget about the lower southcore towers but one York and Telus are not blue glass boxes. Rbc centre is not a glass box either or are we going to call anything vaguely rectilinear a box?


There's nothing about being wounded here - it's just that dleung is barking up the wrong tree. Maybe it's those hideously busy office towers from Sydney he seems into but you'll never see those here.

They are glass boxes. Colour is ambiguous. I agree. I wouldn't trade with any Australian city despite some top notch international designs. These are usually spearheaded by multinationals that may only have a small marketing office in Canada. The rest of the offerings are that bad.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by dleung

Why so butt hurt? Not sure how Vancouver is relevant, or why square footage on SSP is always some kind of compensatory quantitative thing in certain regions when talking about architectural quality

Huh? Of course size matters in terms of architectural quality. Not only is a smaller building easier to pull off, the potential tenants are far more likely to be looking for creative space as their only location than a corporation looking for a better lease or replace tired workspace.

[caltrane74]

Toronto is getting some creative boxes, with some interesting design cues.

Bay Park Center will be as good as anything built in Canada this cycle.

Union Plaza/160 Front/EY Tower very good runner ups.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Huh? Of course size matters in terms of architectural quality. Not only is a smaller building easier to pull off, the potential tenants are far more likely to be looking for creative space as their only location than a corporation looking for a better lease or replace tired workspace.

Economy of scale. The more leasable square feet per square feet of land, the more money is left for architecture. You're trying to rationalize the Vancouver situation, but it's not the norm. Look at the quality of 400' office towers in any other city.

Not sure where I ever said office towers should be skinny.

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm jeebus. I know you like skinny buildings which has translated to commercial buildings. I'm not holding that against you by bringing it up.

You clearly have no clue. The market in Toronto is built around large buildings with large floor plate. An MNP, 30 storeys, 8000 sq ft plates, would be cost prohibitive and a small LLP like MNP a risky lead to take on. Economies of scale doesn't translate at all. I repeat what was said earlier. It's like comparing apples to oranges.,

What I did say and you seemingly overlooked is a desire for small firms to have a distinct address and look to their one (head) office This doesn't translate to the typical large corporation in Toronto made up of numerous companies with head offices spread accross multiple leases in a half dozen or so downtown locations What they want is CHEAP, efficient, floor plans consistent across all floors of the lease and a logo atop the building. Smaller firms can settle on the leftovers, class I or, a podium in an ED condo tower. There's barely anything being built for them. (Even the Globe Mail Tower is 500,000 square feer in an area of the city suited for two 250,000 square foot towers.

I'm not going hold the market to impossible standards. Neither do I find the banality of the towers built over the past decade that bad once compared to other developments in Canada.

[dleung]

Once again you're talking about a city-specific situation "those damn pension fund developers!" But as we can tell from projects everywhere else from Chicago to Sydney to Madrid to Vienna to Singapore etc, large firms can and do invest in architecture.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

It's funny how Toronto members often think that dleung is a Vancouver booster.

He is highly critical of everything, including Vancouver.

I'd say he's more of a Vancouver booster but is doing a better job these days of spreading his love or hate towards both cities new builds.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Toronto builds too many boxes. Vancouver has too many incoherent designs. These are obvious truths and nothing by which one should feel personally wounded.

Both cities are doing a better job with their current u/c and future designs, but your right both have for too many years been building the same safe stick with what works towers.

[caltrane74]

Taken by me today

179 meters INDX / EY Tower - 189 meters

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by dleung

Once again you're talking about a city-specific situation "those damn pension fund developers!" But as we can tell from projects everywhere else from Chicago to Sydney to Madrid to Vienna to Singapore etc, large firms can and do invest in architecture.

God damn annoying. Don't waste my time. I have giving numerous insite on the situation in Canada and why things may be different elsewhere.


I REPEAT

There's alot more competition in the US from developers and municipalities in luring tenants. There's also a greater desire by tenants to stand out in a crowd. They have access to more and better architects. Europe has always put additional effort into planning and design. It helps they don't have anywhere close to the development pressure as the average Canadian city. Most of what gets built in Sydney is inspired garbage by crappy local frms. The good stuff is usually spearheaded by international tenants that have an ingrain sense for a landmark address.

There is no crowd in Toronto to stand out from. Our few Bay Street corporations are largely protected from international operations. They don't need a primary address.

There have been few developers capable of building large scaled office towers. They have been very good at eliminating competition. Starting to see some REIT emerge as builders of large towers Cities offer little incentives here. In fact, they fleece developers for all sorts of community improvements.

[dleung]

Excuses excuses

[caltrane74]

Who cares..

The next generation of Office Towers starting with EY are not the traditional boxy designs. The proposed towers in Southcore will be the best to go up in Toronto since the heydays of the 1960's/70's. At least one of them should start construction this year.

[Ramako]

First page of this thread updated with (relatively) new photo updates.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by dleung

Excuses excuses

Reality sucks. Too bad we can't all live in a padded room rolling our eyes over and over. You exude arrogance with your signature smillie but, I'm losing confidence that you are actually aware of anything. Just another one of those insular complainers occupying UT. Waste of time.