Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals - Page 291

Andrewjm3D · #**5801** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 5:04 AM**

A company doesn't waste x amount of dollars on one of the worlds best architects if they are not serious.

TallBob · #**5802** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 5:51 AM**

Toronto's really going! I'd like to see some of TO's height spread west to Calgary, Edmonton.... Ya know you gotta share the wealth, so to speak!

isaidso · #**5803** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 6:06 AM**

Calgary will get there, and Edmonton eventually. They're both rapidly growing cities, but will need to get a lot bigger before we start seeing lots of 200m+ buildings go up there.

RyeJay · #**5804** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 10:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

Wow, just wow!
Toronto continues to kick 🞵🞵🞵. Hope the good times can stretch out long enough to see these proposals get built.

Toronto is most certainly Canada's Metropolis. This vibrant city, which is quickly becoming well-known internationally, represents the nation well.

Despite any regional bickering that may still linger across the nation, I think it's accurate to say that we're all proud of Toronto's incredible progress toward inward urbanism -- something on which the municipal and provincial governments have been focusing. I hope these proposals get built as well. The new park would beautify the area around the CN Tower: something desperately needed!

Now T-dot just needs to place more focus on public transit (in numerous forms) to make a serious effort toward reducing commute times and traffic congestion.

caltrane74 · #**5805** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 11:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The article mentions supertalls but also sheds light on Oxford not being all that committed to getting them built.

Ya, but I was talking about the hotels.

rbt · #**5806** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 1:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

A company doesn't waste x amount of dollars on one of the worlds best architects if they are not serious.

Planning law in Toronto defines maximums, not minimums.

They can cut back the size by themselves to fit market conditions but to go bigger they need to apply for adjustments and perform studies.

If your going to make an application then you apply for the biggest thing you can conceive doing; then chop it back to what the tenant is actually willing to pay for.

Andrewjm3D · #**5807** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbt

Planning law in Toronto defines maximums, not minimums.

They can cut back the size by themselves to fit market conditions but to go bigger they need to apply for adjustments and perform studies.

If your going to make an application then you apply for the biggest thing you can conceive doing; then chop it back to what the tenant is actually willing to pay for.

Yes but you don't hire one of the worlds most expensive architects to create a massing study. That would be just wasteful That was my point not about the heights..

Kibb · #**5808** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 4:12 PM**

Man we need a tallest proposals 51 to 100 just so Ottawa can make the list at 99 or so

rbt · #**5809** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

Yes but you don't hire one of the worlds most expensive architects to create a massing study. That would be just wasteful That was my point not about the heights..

Yeah, they're serious about building something that turns out decently and makes long-term profits.

I expect the architect choice has more to do with trying to wow people into the Casino option (potentially a multi-billion dollar business in Toronto); and that's relatively risk free.

Say there is a 1% chance of approval and it costs $1M to play.

So, after 100 attempts ($100M in architect investment) you would expect to be the owner of 1 casino.

Can 1 casino give profit on a $100M architect investment? If yes, then you spend that $1M per attempt and expect to eventually get back your investment. An actual ROI based on cash-flow analysis would give a better result because it takes into account that the investments are made over a period of time.

For Toronto there might currently be a 50% chance of a casino being approved (Mayor is mostly in favour, Province is mostly in favour, etc.). That allows for one heck of a budget to make a solid proposal that can wow everybody and still come out profitable after a few attempts.

Modern business is ultimately risk analysis and a bit of math. Actual execution doesn't even matter provided you account for lack of execution in your risk analysis.

Andrewjm3D · #**5810** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbt

Yeah, they're serious about building something that turns out decently and makes long-term profits.

I expect the architect choice has more to do with trying to wow people into the Casino option (potentially a multi-billion dollar business in Toronto); and that's relatively risk free.

Say there is a 1% chance of approval and it costs $1M to play.

So, after 100 attempts ($100M in architect investment) you would expect to be the owner of 1 casino.

Can 1 casino give profit on a $100M architect investment? If yes, then you spend that $1M per attempt and expect to eventually get back your investment. An actual ROI based on cash-flow analysis would give a better result because it takes into account that the investments are made over a period of time.

For Toronto there might currently be a 50% chance of a casino being approved (Mayor is mostly in favour, Province is mostly in favour, etc.). That allows for one heck of a budget to make a solid proposal that can wow everybody and still come out profitable after a few attempts.

Modern business is ultimately risk analysis and a bit of math. Actual execution doesn't even matter provided you account for lack of execution in your risk analysis.

I have a close family friend who has a senior position over at Oxford. He told me last year they were in the middle of completing a massive plan for the site and that it would completely change the face of front street and the convention centre. This plan has been on-going now behind closed doors for at least a couple of years. The casino portion is a new element. I doubt they would need an architect like Foster to woo a casino. Just look at Vegas. Oxford with or without a casino will still be using Foster, they build office space not casino space so they probably have been looking to create a new landmark tower in their home city. When I posted over a year ago I said Oxford was planning on doing something along the same scale as the Hudson Yards very few believed me.

A casino is an after thought and was probably added on half way through the design process.

The Hudson Yards

rbt · #**5811** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

I doubt they would need an architect like Foster to woo a casino.

They're not wooing a casino; they're attempting to get approval from Toronto City Council to build a casino which is a bit different.

What they presented is not the same as they would have presented if a casino was not involved; and not likely what is to be built if they get approval for everything without the Casino component.

RyeJay · #**5812** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kibb

Man we need a tallest proposals 51 to 100 just so Ottawa can make the list at 99 or so

Ottawa has its own charm.

koops65 · #**5813** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 5:36 PM**

Here are my new drawings of the twin supertalls...

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Andrewjm3D · #**5814** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbt

They're not wooing a casino; they're attempting to get approval from Toronto City Council to build a casino which is a bit different.

What they presented is not the same as they would have presented if a casino was not involved; and not likely what is to be built if they get approval for everything without the Casino component.

Only about 50% of council wants a casino, and of that the majority want it on city land. So trying to get a casino as part of the development and using that as the main selling point to the city is almost pointless even with an Oxford design it's a wasted effort. And yes Oxford will still be building something massive, and using Foster with or without a casino, it will on effect the base and possible Hotel sections. Like I've already stated this Oxford plan has been around longer then the notion of the OLG wanting to expand the casino into the GTA.

Andrewjm3D · #**5815** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

Here are my new drawings of the twin supertalls...

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Cool, when will these be added to the diagram?

rbt · #**5816** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

Only about 50% of council wants a casino, and of that the majority want it on city land. So trying to get a casino as part of the development and using that as the main selling point to the city is almost pointless even with an Oxford design it's a wasted effort. And yes Oxford will still be building something massive, and using Foster with or without a casino, it will on effect the base and possible Hotel sections. Like I've already stated this Oxford plan has been around longer then the notion of the OLG wanting to expand the casino into the GTA.

So you're saying that we can expect a park over the railway corridor, among other things, even after city council requires the removal of the casino component?

This is a genuine question since you have insider knowledge.

koops65 · #**5817** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

Cool, when will these be added to the diagram?

No idea... they are currently pending approval, and that can sometimes be right away or take several days.

WhipperSnapper · #**5818** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

A company doesn't waste x amount of dollars on one of the worlds best architects if they are not serious.

They appear serious about developing the site. They only appear committed to developing office space.

Foster & Partners is not some boutique operation. They have more than a dozen senior partners. They submit proposals for almost every international competition for just a chance at winning the contract for additional international stardom. Anyways, I'll be a lot more impressed by Oxford's commitment to Foster once we see some actual building concept and a lot more once the working drawings are started.

DrNest · #**5819** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 8:08 PM**

Good work Koops! The effort for all your diagrams is appreciated.

Andrewjm3D · #**5820** Posted **Oct 27, 2012, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbt

So you're saying that we can expect a park over the railway corridor, among other things, even after city council requires the removal of the casino component?

This is a genuine question since you have insider knowledge.

All I know is that |Oxford has been working on this for some time now. Before this whole casino discussion came about. I'm not sure about any of the details but I would be willing to speculate Foster has been involved the entire time and that covering the rail corridor was and is their plan still. I was told the development would be huge so removing a casino component should effect the scale of this development by to much other then the required massive parking lot it would need.

I can try to find out more at X-mas when I'll see him next.