Future Canadian Skylines - Page 207

rbt · #**4121** Posted **Jul 5, 2016, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gresto

...there's still that blasted tentativeness to breach the mythical "supertall" barrier (other than CN, back when people around here had vision).

The vision at the time of the CN tower was that short buildings would continue to be the norm. Taller buildings, as we're building today, block a fair amount of the signal. If we relied heavily on wireless TV there might be a CN Tower 2 proposed with an extra couple hundred meters on it.

rbt · #**4122** Posted **Jul 5, 2016, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Everything in Toronto is economical...

Not sure if that is a good thing though.

The problem with building show-pieces is eventually those who care have one (or decide to show status in other ways), and those who don't care simply won't build one. We hit our show-piece limit once each of the banks had a new headquarters by the 80's.

An economics or profit based trend is far more likely to continue and grow in scale (both building size and number under construction); perhaps with a few hiccups along the way.

WhipperSnapper · #**4123** Posted **Jul 5, 2016, 5:16 PM**

We are so far removed from building showpieces in Toronto (and Canada) that, at some point, I can envision a complete reversal of current trends. The decision being made at the top of corporate Canada are disgusting in their self interests and I believe eventually the masses will come to that realization and scream ENOUGH!

koops65 · #**4124** Posted **Jul 5, 2016, 6:56 PM**

No major new office towers will get built while the CEO's (even ones that have been fired / quit) are taking home multi-million$ in profit$ each year...

Me&You · #**4125** Posted **Jul 5, 2016, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

No major new office towers will get built while the CEO's (even ones that have been fired / quit) are taking home multi-million$ in profit$ each year...

Are you saying that a CEO taking home $5, 10, 15 million is what's stopping a corporation from building a new tower for a billion dollars?

Beedok · #**4126** Posted **Jul 5, 2016, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

We are so far removed from building showpieces in Toronto (and Canada) that, at some point, I can envision a complete reversal of current trends. The decision being made at the top of corporate Canada are disgusting in their self interests and I believe eventually the masses will come to that realization and scream ENOUGH!

The proletariat shall rise up and overthrow the burgeoisie in the name of . . . more distinctive corporate head offices???

That's now how Marx thought it would go.

caltrane74 · #**4127** Posted **Jul 5, 2016, 10:20 PM**

We might get a few office towers I'm the 200-250 meter range. I'm not holding my breath.

koops65 · #**4128** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 12:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me&You

Are you saying that a CEO taking home $5, 10, 15 million is what's stopping a corporation from building a new tower for a billion dollars?

No... not 1 guy taking home his million dollar bonus...

But, the entire corporate way of thinking, directed towards self-interest, and a screw-the-little-guy attitude, leads away from building grand structures that the public marvels at, and towards utilitarian boxes that most people don't even notice...

Beedok · #**4129** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 1:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

No... not 1 guy taking home his million dollar bonus...

But, the entire corporate way of thinking, directed towards self-interest, and a screw-the-little-guy attitude, leads away from building grand structures that the public marvels at, and towards utilitarian boxes that most people don't even notice...

China and the Middle East's 'we have money and you don't, look how fancy our towers are' building boom seems to point the other way. It's not selfishness that leads to utilitarian designs, it's probably more corporatisation. No longer does one president or ceo rule as king over the corporation and use it as a tool for his (or her) ego, but rather the mass of shareholders demand their cut, and grand buildings do nothing to assist in that.

Spocket · #**4130** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 2:13 AM**

I am completely lost on why you guys think there's any connection between office construction and CEO salaries.

Companies pay these guys absurd amounts of money so that they can make even more absurd amounts of money. What they build and how it looks is a function of need. Full stop.

koops65 · #**4131** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 2:51 AM**

I accept that. Begs some questions though... why did art deco end? Why aren't corporations, or governments, or even individuals, building skyscrapers that are more fancy than necessary? What happened to sinking tons of extra money into a structure on purely ornamental functions?

milomilo · #**4132** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 4:03 AM**

So it's not OK to throw huge sums of money at CEOs, but it's fine to throw far larger sums of money at needless monuments to companies' egos? For no-ones benefit other than they look freaking awesome on the skyline?

I think huge skyscrapers are fantastic, but let's get some perspective here. Canada's corporations are not under any obligation to waste gigantic sums of money on status symbols purely for the benefit of us skyscraper nerds.

koops65 · #**4133** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 4:36 AM**

It doesn't matter if they are obligated or not... the builders of the ESB and Chrysler Building, 2 prime examples of what I'm talking about, also weren't obligated to make their towers as ornamental, or as big, as they ended up being. But for some reason, back then, people actually did sink ridiculous sums of money into architecture, and I very much doubt they cared whether regular people on the street liked skyscrapers, or how they looked on the skyline. What they did care about was that their building looked really nice, especially from up close... nowadays that doesn't seem to be as important.

WhipperSnapper · #**4134** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

The proletariat shall rise up and overthrow the burgeoisie in the name of . . . more distinctive corporate head offices???

That's now how Marx thought it would go.

Hardly.

But something or someone could cause a reversal when it comes to those office building working environments, the removal of benefits, low wages and, the constant restructuring leading to demotions and layoffs.

WhipperSnapper · #**4135** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

So it's not OK to throw huge sums of money at CEOs, but it's fine to throw far larger sums of money at needless monuments to companies' egos? For no-ones benefit other than they look freaking awesome on the skyline?

I think huge skyscrapers are fantastic, but let's get some perspective here. Canada's corporations are not under any obligation to waste gigantic sums of money on status symbols purely for the benefit of us skyscraper nerds.

But, it just so much more palatable than the harsh reality of overloaded HVAC systems because decisions are made to cram more and more employees from the office floors into the basements of Toronto's bank towers.

The amount of waste is tremendous. Why not directed a small amount towards something identifiable to all.

Spocket · #**4136** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 6:09 AM**

I am completely lost on why you guys think there's any connection between office construction and CEO salaries.

Companies pay these guys absurd amounts of money so that they can make even more absurd amounts of money. What they build and how it looks is a function of need. Full stop.

niwell · #**4137** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 1:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

But, it just so much more palatable than the harsh reality of overloaded HVAC systems because decisions are made to cram more and more employees from the office floors into the basements of Toronto's bank towers.

And open concept "collaborative" workspaces! Or whatever they call them nowadays. AKA - cram as many people as possible on a floor without permanent workstations so things can be shuffled around on a whim. I like my archaic office - a lot.

Beedok · #**4138** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 1:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

It doesn't matter if they are obligated or not... the builders of the ESB and Chrysler Building, 2 prime examples of what I'm talking about, also weren't obligated to make their towers as ornamental, or as big, as they ended up being. But for some reason, back then, people actually did sink ridiculous sums of money into architecture, and I very much doubt they cared whether regular people on the street liked skyscrapers, or how they looked on the skyline. What they did care about was that their building looked really nice, especially from up close... nowadays that doesn't seem to be as important.

Because companies in the 1920s were owned primarely by one super wealthy mogul who wanted a monument to his ego. Companies today are owned by vast numbers of shareholders (often through pension funds and the like) who don't have egos that need satisfying, but rather middle class families that one money for their retirement.

milomilo · #**4139** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 2:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

Because companies in the 1920s were owned primarely by one super wealthy mogul who wanted a monument to his ego. Companies today are owned by vast numbers of shareholders (often through pension funds and the like) who don't have egos that need satisfying, but rather middle class families that one money for their retirement.

Exactly, we don't live in the same world anymore as they did in the 20s. There can no longer be waste in the form of excessive spending on vanity projects. It may not give us quite as many spectacular buildings but it also gives us businesses that are a little more stable. Similar reasoning to why we can't just plow rail or pipeline projects across Canada with no thought on whether the money is wisely spent. Those days are gone.

WhipperSnapper · #**4140** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket

I am completely lost on why you guys think there's any connection between office construction and CEO salaries.

Companies pay these guys absurd amounts of money so that they can make even more absurd amounts of money. What they build and how it looks is a function of need. Full stop.

You're missing the point. The connection is attractive working conditions for employees that may amount to better designed buildings. I'm not suggesting they get back into a non core business like real estate and build themselves a billion dollar signature tower either. Stop being so narrow minded

Sure they pay these guys absurd amounts of money to make more money but, anyone without morals can see laying off people and dumping their workload on the rest, slashing benefits and everything else will pad their bonuses by making more profit. There's no job security anymore. It's brutish, fear mongering tactics that will only last so long.

CEO and senior executives income gains over the past 20 years are just crazy. Getting in one of these position is becoming less about your experience and knowledge and more about who you know.

Just insane that a dollard trader that loses $5 plus billion dollars gets paid out $25 million to leave.