Edmonton's 1st new office tower in many yrs - poll [Archive]

CMD UW

Aug 11, 2007, 4:46 PM

^i did it before EDC purposely to see what we have now and where we go with it...

Perhaps the results of this poll could be forwarded to the architects, members of the EDC and Council before its formal assessment?

If folks can keep their comments somewhat civilized, this may be a good way to have some changes made to the design?

I gave it a meh (i.e. what I was expecting anyways)

240glt

Aug 11, 2007, 4:47 PM

^I think that's a fantastic idea

Paradisio

Aug 11, 2007, 4:55 PM

Abort!!!

ctown.myth

Aug 11, 2007, 4:57 PM

I really feel sorry for you guys...

big W

Aug 11, 2007, 5:01 PM

I can't comment about the street interaction of this building but if there is a restaurant and main floor retail then it is fine. Now that third storey window thing I hate as well as the windows on the brick on the corners. They need to fix that by maybe breaking up the solid brick by having glass extended.

Paradisio

Aug 11, 2007, 5:15 PM

what part of etown is this destined for?

Deepstar

Aug 11, 2007, 5:15 PM

Terrible! It's only in the early stages, so there's a good chance it will be improved.

SHOFEAR

Aug 11, 2007, 5:16 PM

I really don't like how they brought the brick up the height of the tower in the corners.

CMD UW

Aug 11, 2007, 5:30 PM

what part of etown is this destined for?

Downtown, just west of the financial district. Its in a transition area from the central core to the warehouse / 104 Street district.

CanadianCentaur

Aug 11, 2007, 5:30 PM

Meh.

I like the curved tower and the metal/glass cladding, but not the cubed parts sticking out. I don't exactly like the third floor podium windows, either.

However, something tells me that this is not the only proposal out there - and the final approved design might come out differently, too.

CMD UW

Aug 11, 2007, 5:34 PM

One thing that we have to remember is that the zoning requires the podium to be designed to reflect the historical architecture of the area. We also know that acheiving this can be a difficult task. This would explain why the podium is very square and 'boxy'.

Arriviste

Aug 11, 2007, 5:45 PM

I don't want to further cannibalize your poll so I won't vote. I will however say that its a god damn shame that someone is even considering building this. Edmonton deserves better. Something complementary to the river valley on the slope around 45-50 stories would be amazing. Tall enough that its height would be impressive, but not overpowering.

CMD UW

Aug 11, 2007, 5:50 PM

Boris2k7

Aug 11, 2007, 5:56 PM

FYI - this tower was never contemplated to be thee premier AA-class office building in Edmonton. It is being marketed as condominiums as an alternative to paying higher rates. This tower is no different than Genco Place and numerous others that have sprouted up in downtown Calgary or the Beltline over the past two years.

Except that Genco looks better...

IMO, the scale and design of the podium is okay, though I dislike the windows on the third storey.

The red needs to go, it doesn't work with the tower above.

With those corner bits as they are, the massing just looks plain goofy.

ctown.myth

Aug 11, 2007, 6:12 PM

FYI - this tower was never contemplated to be thee premier AA-class office building in Edmonton. It is being marketed as condominiums as an alternative to paying higher rates. This tower is no different than Genco Place and numerous others that have sprouted up in downtown Calgary or the Beltline over the past two years.

That's just the thing - a city like Edmonton deserves to have a office tower that's five times better than that. It's that prospect that saddens me.

Wooster

Aug 11, 2007, 6:22 PM

Without all of the brick, it would be quite good. Just a simple cylindrical building.

Hardhatdan

Aug 11, 2007, 7:03 PM

Riise

Aug 11, 2007, 7:23 PM

I think this building has some real potential and all it needs is a couple of modifications. Mainly, getting rid of the red corner parts of the tower and going with the oval look, redoing the base in correspondence with the new oval outlook and sans-brick style, as well as, forgive me for saying this Edmonton folk, going with some additional height. It's a diamond in the rough...

Hootch

Aug 11, 2007, 7:27 PM

Yikes!

Lose the red shit!

Are they trying to help Edmonton get the award for "least aesthetically-pleasing architecture in North America"?

No use sugar-coating it; it's FUG. Not too mention 20 floors too short. I am really disappointed! And ashamed!

Before I overreact I gotta tell myself this is just the first drawing in what will hopefully be many different concepts. Right?

Gross. We're still Discountville, just with higher prices. And this POS comes out right after Calgary released LaCaille; it really puts us to shame!

CMD UW

Aug 11, 2007, 7:51 PM

That's just the thing - a city like Edmonton deserves to have a office tower that's five times better than that. It's that prospect that saddens me.

Couldn't agree with you more, but that title is going to come from other office developers ~ I'm looking at Oxford, Dundee, Procura's towers.

FYI - brick has to be part of the podium due to the zoning regulations.

Jasper and one o nin

Aug 11, 2007, 7:51 PM

I dont mind it to be quite honest. From what I see in the picture, I really dont mind it. At this point we dont know what the relationship to the street will be, what kind of uses will be on the main floor, what kind of material (or at least very much) it will be. But as for the architectural form, I dont mind it for a 15 storey building.

CMD UW

Aug 11, 2007, 7:54 PM

Yea, it isn't great and its not even good.
Those red corners look ridiculous.
If they are doing office condos, why not do another 15-20 floors of residential condos on top?

15 Floors makes no sense to me at this location.

I'm really disappointed.
Why, because the site is small and going deeper to accommodate the u/g parking requirements doesn't make economic sense. Unless you want to start going with above-ground parking, then it could work.

christopherj

Aug 11, 2007, 7:55 PM

Without all of the brick, it would be quite good. Just a simple cylindrical building.

Agreed. I don't even mind the brick podium (given where it is, and its requirements) - but the brick in the corners is awful.

Hardhatdan

Aug 11, 2007, 8:09 PM

Why, because the site is small and going deeper to accommodate the u/g parking requirements doesn't make economic sense. Unless you want to start going with above-ground parking, then it could work.
Add 2 level u/g parking and fill the rest with +/- 700 sq ft bachelor condos with no parking.

No one else near 104 is going to offer that.

It can be done.

Kevin_foster

Aug 11, 2007, 8:18 PM

This has to be the worst proposal I've seen in Edmonton to date. I was shocked when I saw a building like Panache being built in our core; now I feel like I went on an all night bender last night as I'll be dry heaving all day today after seeing this..

What a letdown. There is nothing they could do to improve this design - except maybe light the paper it was drawn on, on fire, stomp on it, and give the idea to some other developer.

Hello 1980!!! Nice to see you again! What's that, you never left?? Must've been lingering in the shadows all this time!

We want to improve our core by making it a center for inspiration, sustainability and make landmarks to showcase our city in prosperous times.

One only needs to look south to see THIS
http://www.tonko.com/media/properties/popup/91_centrium-night-new.jpg

And realize how disappointing this tower is.

Please god don't let it be built.

EDIT: OMG someone actually had the balls to release this to the media!! Haha :(

Not only does the tower portion itself resemble a bad 1980's Cartoon; it appears to have been designed with total randomness in mind - the colors, the podium, the square corners, the punched windows, ... god only knows what materials will be used. God help us all if they dare to use stucco :|. It honestly looks like the @b0rtion we call ARLINGTON with the appearance of curves.

Don't take the candy, it's poison!! ~~~ NOOOOO

newfangled

Aug 11, 2007, 8:30 PM

Might as well throw these in this thread too:

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w69/newfangled2001/Ironwood1-1.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w69/newfangled2001/Ironwood2-1.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w69/newfangled2001/Ironwood3-1.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w69/newfangled2001/Ironwood4-1.jpg

CMD UW

Aug 11, 2007, 8:31 PM

Add 2 level u/g parking and fill the rest with +/- 700 sq ft bachelor condos with no parking.

No one else near 104 is going to offer that.

It can be done.
Put up the money and you can do what you want. Dollars to dimes the proforma and margins prove otherwise.

Arch26

Aug 11, 2007, 8:48 PM

god... the whole "circle-inside-a-square" thing never works. And it's such a kitschy pointless thing to do anyway. Not convinced. Edmonton can do soooooo much better than this garbage. It's pathetic. Who's the architect/developer on this anyway? Maybe it was already mentioned but I didn't see it on first skim.

Hardhatdan

Aug 11, 2007, 8:52 PM

Put up the money and you can do what you want. Dollars to dimes the proforma and margins prove otherwise.

I wish I could, you know that.

The box around the circle has to be there, no one wants to lose that much floor plate. (Manulife doesn't count its floor plates are already huge.)

Arch26

Aug 11, 2007, 8:56 PM

The box around the circle has to be there, no one wants to lose that much floor plate. (Manulife doesn't count its floor plates are already huge.)

Then maybe it should just be a well-designed box. Or maybe a taller circle. Anyway, to me it doesn't look like a box-around-a-circle anyway. It looks like a circle with four ugly red triangles tacked on to it.

Hardhatdan

Aug 11, 2007, 8:58 PM

Then maybe it should just be a well-designed box. Or maybe a taller circle. Anyway, to me it doesn't look like a box-around-a-circle anyway. It looks like a circle with four ugly red triangles tacked on to it.
I agree with you. I'm just stating the reason they are there, if they can lose that would be spectacular, but that would lower the plate size, in usable space, by probably 500 to 1000 sq ft and in a 9000 sq ft plate that is substantial.

whyteknight

Aug 11, 2007, 9:04 PM

Some renderings i just whipped up:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c385/whyteknight1/irowood1.png

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c385/whyteknight1/ironwood2.png

...and if i had my way with it:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c385/whyteknight1/ironwood3.png

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c385/whyteknight1/ironwood4.png

Atlguy33

Aug 11, 2007, 9:08 PM

Well... um, this proposal looks OK to me I guess. I have seen worse. Maybe we can look at this building as just the beginning of an office space construction boom that will give us much better-looking buildings in years to come. Sorta the way TNP was at the beginning of the current residential building boom that is now starting to see better and better stuff.

Nice renderings and ideas Whyteknight!

*TWO WEEKS UNTIL I AM IN E-TOWN*

whyteknight

Aug 11, 2007, 9:08 PM

just so everyone understands, the corners are red metal cladding i belive.

Xelebes

Aug 11, 2007, 9:45 PM

It's a 5. A meh.

HomeInMyShoes

Aug 11, 2007, 10:21 PM

It kind of looks like Manulife got really drunk and had an illegitimate child with Legacy, except that it's hard to believe that Manulife could spawn anything that ugly.

It's a warehouse district. Where's the obvious references to turn-of-the-century steel and brick skyscrapers? Is red brick the only reference? And in like three hours whyteknight has already drastically improved the massing. Good show. Although, it's probably FAR driven, but that's just...eeech, I feel all dirty.

Coldrsx

Aug 11, 2007, 10:43 PM

sad to think we could have had a 30 storey art deco ish condo instead...

ExcaliburKid

Aug 11, 2007, 11:00 PM

As far as materials go, I heard brick and black granite for the podium, with grey metal cladding for the tower portion.
Definite meh, exactly what I was expecting. This will be completely butchered by the EDC, imo.

CMD UW

Aug 11, 2007, 11:52 PM

This will be completely butchered by the EDC, imo.
Yes, you may be right. This is a good test for us to critique prior to hitting the EDC assessment.

ExcaliburKid

Aug 11, 2007, 11:54 PM

Im expecting something like "We do not wish to see this development again in its current form"

CMD UW

Aug 11, 2007, 11:58 PM

Im expecting something like "We do not wish to see this development again in its current form"
No, it wont be like that. But I anticipate that they'll provide some good critiques and revisions.

Jay in Cowtown

Aug 12, 2007, 12:01 AM

That's just the thing - a city like Edmonton deserves to have a office tower that's five times better than that. It's that prospect that saddens me.

Exactly... this building should be proposed for Regina or Saskatoon, not Edmonton.

0773|=\

Aug 12, 2007, 2:16 AM

If the building lost some symmetry that it currently has, it'd be alright, even with the brick (if that's required as some people have said). It actually kind of strikes me as a reserved imitation of 225 South Sixth in Minneapolis (feel free to disagree).

Definitely could be taller, and if the planners are bent on that "building-inside-a-building" template, they can do better than a simple can in a box.

I'm only skimming the surface though...

supai

Aug 12, 2007, 3:51 AM

First office tower in Edmonton in 17 years!!! woohoo!

It is a poor cartoon drawing, who knows if the actual building will really look like this. I am sure it will turn out fine!

Looking forward to more to come :)

Kevin_foster

Aug 12, 2007, 5:31 AM

This is a prime lot. If we loose it to this, I will start building office towers with my two hands, and my hammer and saw.

craner

Aug 12, 2007, 6:05 AM

Hardhatdan

Aug 12, 2007, 6:09 AM

I think it's a pretty early stage rendering to be trashing this one altogether - although it's fun to critique. I agree with Jay that it looks like it would be at home in Regina. I don't think it's thaaaat bad, I give it a meh at this point. BTW is this the site that "Hampton's House" was going on ?

Yes. I would have preferred Hampton House at this stage. I thought it was a good start, which with refinement could have been a neat addition, atypical style for Edmonton, to the core.

ibz

Aug 12, 2007, 6:53 AM

yikes...considering what proposals for new office towers are floating around these days, this one is a POS. If this were say on 112th or something (ie Canterra) i wouldnt mind, what a fugly corner that will be.

Strangelove

Aug 12, 2007, 7:11 AM

The renderings look pretty unrefined to say the least, so hopefully that means the designs are at a similar stage. If not, it's time for EDC to bring out the knives and shred that podium to pieces.
I realize that the 104st/warehouse area dictates that the base must "fit in" with the neighbourhood, but it appears at this point that the use of red brick is the only real attempt at doing this. Honestly, I'm not partifcularily a fan of faux-historic podiums, as I think there are much better ways to address the context (appropriate massing, fenestration, setbacks, etc. but still maintain a contemporary look), but at least those on the icon towers look good. This one is just pathetic.
Henderson, Inglis and the rest of the crew at HIP are capable of so much more. :whip:

giallo

Aug 12, 2007, 12:53 PM

Exactly... this building should be proposed for Regina or Saskatoon, not Edmonton.

Not like I'd wish this mini travesty on those cities, but yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I could see this going up in Kelowna as well.
Victoria and Halifax wouldn't touch this thing with rubber gloves on.

giallo

Aug 12, 2007, 1:11 PM

vid

Aug 12, 2007, 1:47 PM

It's the thought that counts. :)

Surrealplaces

Aug 12, 2007, 3:09 PM

If it was just the elliptical part of the building it would be a nice project. I'm sure this one will get revised before it goes up.

murman

Aug 12, 2007, 5:25 PM

Strangelove

Aug 12, 2007, 5:42 PM

Anybody, and I mean ANYBODY, that defends this project has zero credibility. Their supporting arguments just go to show how completely Edmonton has lost its way.

No kidding....It seems as if your signature is ringing true more and more every day.
With the help of dedicated people involved in the process like Citysource, hopefully this trend can be reversed. But as it stands now, I'm so bloody sick of all the excuses :(

babo

Aug 12, 2007, 6:04 PM

Exactly... this building should be proposed for Regina or Saskatoon, not Edmonton.
Give it to Saskatoon, thank you very much. Regina has enough ugly buildings.

Coldrsx

Aug 12, 2007, 6:19 PM

ironwood@ironwoodmanagement.com

again, if you send an email, make it something constructive...that is how you can facilitate change.

Kevin_foster

Aug 12, 2007, 6:48 PM

^ Ah, good call. Thanks Cold..

CMD UW

Aug 12, 2007, 7:05 PM

ironwood@ironwoodmanagement.com

again, if you send an email, make it something constructive...that is how you can facilitate change.
Yes, I encourage those to send a clean and constructive email to HIP, Ironwood and cc' Council and members of the EDC.

Sometimes this can institute change for the better.

CMD UW

Aug 12, 2007, 7:09 PM

I think it's a pretty early stage rendering to be trashing this one altogether - although it's fun to critique. I agree with Jay that it looks like it would be at home in Regina. I don't think it's thaaaat bad, I give it a meh at this point. BTW is this the site that "Hampton's House" was going on ?
Exactly my thoughts craner. I like the form, but there needs to be either a better rendering for me to truly judge the materials, the podium and other details.

It currently sits in my 'meh' category.

e909

Aug 12, 2007, 7:29 PM

hasn't there been like 5 "first tower in 20 years" proposals in the last year?

what ever happened with that tower were the current theater is on jasper?

feepa

Aug 12, 2007, 7:44 PM

hasn't there been like 5 "first tower in 20 years" proposals in the last year?

what ever happened with that tower were the current theater is on jasper?

Don't forget about stationlands!

Xelebes

Aug 12, 2007, 8:21 PM

hasn't there been like 5 "first tower in 20 years" proposals in the last year?

what ever happened with that tower were the current theater is on jasper?

The architect is still working?

KrisYYC

Aug 12, 2007, 8:33 PM

Has it really been that long since Edmonton got a new office tower?

Kris

Xelebes

Aug 12, 2007, 8:35 PM

Last office tower was built in 1991.

Yes it has.

e909

Aug 12, 2007, 9:04 PM

The architect is still working?
but it's being built for sure?

Xelebes

Aug 12, 2007, 9:30 PM

but it's being built for sure?

Not sure. Procura has bought the land.

CMD UW

Aug 13, 2007, 2:16 AM

Has it really been that long since Edmonton got a new office tower?

Kris

Commerce Place (1990) was the last large office building built in downtown Edmonton.

Our office market has finally climbed out of the deep dark pit where it stayed for a decade.

Bokimon

Aug 13, 2007, 6:17 AM

I think Edmonton deserves much much better than that!
The red is not very pretty while the curvy oval shape is alright but a little bit plain. Could use more articulation and details to various parts of its design and massing. 15 storeys is modest I guess but it could be taller, especially if it happens to have large floor plates so to give more of its height rather than bulk.

Good to hear that things are starting to look up for office space up north.

RWin

Aug 13, 2007, 3:01 PM

Anybody, and I mean ANYBODY, that defends this project has zero credibility. Their supporting arguments just go to show how completely Edmonton has lost its way. I tried to warn you about hacks like !r0nw00d...

Ooops.

Sorry. I voted "Good" before I read the posts. I didn't know I was suppose to jump on the "it sucks" bandwagon.

Coldrsx

Aug 13, 2007, 3:02 PM

as for "procura"...the architect is still working on it, but we havent heard anything from procura's side since may.

Wooster

Aug 13, 2007, 3:18 PM

as for "procura"...the architect is still working on it, but we havent heard anything from procura's side since may.

Calgary's is about 6 weeks or so from Development Permit submission. I wonder if Edmonton's is on a similar timeframe.

Coldrsx

Aug 13, 2007, 3:34 PM

^depends a large part on EPCOR's RFP and the such, but i do recall them saying they wanted to have their DP before end of yr.

murman

Aug 13, 2007, 3:35 PM

Ooops.

Sorry. I voted "Good" before I read the posts. I didn't know I was suppose to jump on the "it sucks" bandwagon.

You're welcome to provide a DEFENSIBLE position, but good luck trying to beat the pack of "hey it was never meant to be AA, so what's your problem" arguments.

murman

Aug 13, 2007, 3:38 PM

I'm also going to go out on a limb and predict two possible outcomes for this project:

1) never happens
2) economic disaster

Why? One small point not debated yet here: CONDO office.

Coldrsx

Aug 13, 2007, 3:45 PM

^which has become very popular in the suburbs and i could see it becoming something of a niche downtown. I have spoken with many smaller office groups who were looking at another "office condo" coming...and they all loved the idea of buying there space. Now is there 150,000-180,000sqft of that demand, im not sure...but there is demand.

240glt

Aug 13, 2007, 3:49 PM

^there's been a couple of condo offices go up in Calgary in the last year.. have these projects been successful ? If so, I wonder why a similar project wouldn't also be successful in Edmonton

RWin

Aug 13, 2007, 3:58 PM

You're welcome to provide a DEFENSIBLE position

All I can say is its subjective. I like the way it looks.

For those who hate it, it doesn't look like it will effect the skyline any more than Centrium does in Calgary.

Love it or hate it, it probably won't get much attention by anyone except here on the forum. I think the average person will take about as much notice if it does get built as if it doesn't.

Around here it takes something like the Bow for the average person to take notice. And even then it's more about the road closure than the building.

Coldrsx

Aug 13, 2007, 4:00 PM

^true to some extent, but if another bell tower or CWB went up, people would take notice.

Kevin_foster

Aug 13, 2007, 4:28 PM

Boris2k7

Aug 13, 2007, 4:41 PM

^ You are right, it doesn't necessarily mean much. However, I think that once factors such as street interaction, shadowing onto and creation of attractive & vibrant public spaces, accommodation for mixed uses, economic and environmental sustainability, etc., have been taken into account... that is when we should go as tall as we can. Height can strongly influence the viability of a project, the human density of an area, and the vibrancy of the streetscape.

Thinner6

Aug 13, 2007, 4:55 PM

How tall a tower is doesn't necessarily mean anything (whatsoever) - it's the street level & vibrancy that it creates; it's sustainability as a landmark and it's ability to serve it's purpose and last a long, long time.

Taller buildings = more people working in them.

More people working in them = more activity in and around the building.

More activity in and around the building = larger need for shopping, restaurants, coffee shops, galleries, etc...

But that's just how I look at it. Taller buildings do have *some* influence on vibrancy.

Kevin_foster

Aug 13, 2007, 5:07 PM

^ Yeah I agree totally - but how tall is not the be all and end all...

I should add that a tower should stand as a testament to the time it was built. Think about that for a sec....no one wants their generation to be laughed at for leaving behind... undesirable landmarks that will be torn down :)

As for height, while I agree to some degree (we all love tall sexy towers) - take a walk downtown TO. Vibrant, yes - but then go visit the center of a few European cities (where the super-talls aren't as prevalent) - IE Rome/Paris/London/ - you'll find the streets are just as, or even more, vibrant feeling. It's because they are dense, dense areas.

Victoria is also a great example of this...

Anyways - onward...

Coldrsx

Aug 13, 2007, 5:15 PM

"More activity in and around the building = larger need for shopping, restaurants, coffee shops, galleries, etc..."

not if they dont use them...many many many people i know that work in downtown's in Calgary, Edm, etc. dont know anything outside the downtown mall and foodcourt. Literally things outside of their office and they dont know about them...it is far more than size, but who is going there and what type of people they are.

Calgarian

Aug 13, 2007, 5:54 PM

^there's been a couple of condo offices go up in Calgary in the last year.. have these projects been successful ? If so, I wonder why a similar project wouldn't also be successful in Edmonton

There have indeed been a handful of office condos here, and to the best of my knowledge, they have been hugely succesful. Mind you, with a 1% vacancy rate, this project would likely sell out in Calgary if it were in the beleline.

240glt

Aug 13, 2007, 6:33 PM

^Exactly. As our DT office vacancy rate continues its nosedive down past the the 4% mark I don't see why a project "like" this wouldn't work here.

Calgarian

Aug 13, 2007, 6:42 PM

There's no reason why the project wouldn't work, it just looks like crap, and will do nothing to improve the aesthetic of the area (which could desperately use improvement IMO).

The Chemist

Aug 13, 2007, 6:46 PM

As for height, while I agree to some degree (we all love tall sexy towers) - take a walk downtown TO. Vibrant, yes - but then go visit the center of a few European cities (where the super-talls aren't as prevalent) - IE Rome/Paris/London/ - you'll find the streets are just as, or even more, vibrant feeling. It's because they are dense, dense areas.

And if anything, the tall parts of London (The City, Canary Wharf) are the LEAST vibrant parts of London - there's far more streetlife in other parts of London than there is in these areas.

Coldrsx

Aug 13, 2007, 6:48 PM

And if anything, the tall parts of London (The City, Canary Wharf) are the LEAST vibrant parts of London - there's far more streetlife in other parts of London than there is in these areas.

and Edmonton, calgary, toronto.......vancouver.........

240glt

Aug 13, 2007, 6:52 PM

There's no reason why the project wouldn't work, it just looks like crap, and will do nothing to improve the aesthetic of the area (which could desperately use improvement IMO).

That's why I noted a project "like" an office condo, and I'd really like to believe that what showed up in section F of the satuday Journal is quite a lot different than what'll get built.... it is after all a concept drawing, and EDC & planners have yet to have their way with it

CMD UW

Aug 13, 2007, 7:36 PM

I'm also going to go out on a limb and predict two possible outcomes for this project:

1) never happens
2) economic disaster

Why? One small point not debated yet here: CONDO office.
Extends hand to make the bet. It will happen and it won't be an economic disaster.

newfangled

Aug 13, 2007, 8:20 PM

So how do high-rise business condos work?

Are all of the spaces demised at the beginning, or are the floors left vacant and they just build to suit?

And is there any reason that a big property management firm couldn't buy up a few floors and then lease them out in a traditional sense?

Just curious.