Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick
To your point I have read some where that 20 stories is certainly better than two 10 stories but after 20 stories it becomes far more complicated.
You also have to consider when your project can start earning revenues and the risk of delaying any revenue earnings with a project delay. A delay on a single building pushes back all revenues, but a delay on one of two buildings only pushes back half of the revenues.
|
Actually yes, that latter point is critical. I think, in some provinces, you can accelerate occupancy prior to completion, but not in Winnipeg, so you're making money way sooner on a two tower approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Authentic_City
Haha! Thanks!
|
Here all night!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryfe
I'm no expert on this so I have a question. In the case of the two towers that are there now can they really be considered two entirely separate towers? It looked to me that they don't really have two separate foundations, they just share one big one. Also, wouldn't at least some of the systems/controls be shared as well?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet
They're separate towers founded on separate caissons.
below
Essentially the entire site has a grid of caissons below. They would be larger diameter below the towers to support the additional loads. Where it is just supporting the parkade, I would think they are smaller diameter. I'm pretty sure this was visible last year when the hole was till open.
Building systems will also be separate. The only thing shared would the parkade ventilation systems. But that's almost a separate building in itself.
|
This. They share a parkade but each item of the foundation is it's own little building block for one building.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6
It means much smaller floor plates, which no one wants. That's probably why the TD Centre or whatever it's called now is almost empty. I doubt that TDS would have been interested in spreading its staff across 8 floors in some skinny office tower. There is so much wasted space in a taller building, with multiple elevator banks taking a big chunk out of the floor space in the lower stages. Usually there needs to be some sort of mechanical floor part way up as well.
|
Yes and no. For residential, narrower floorplates are usually preferred, provided you can go high enough to achieve the amount of sf you need. A thinner, more square profile like 300 Main is better for residential than TNS as it allows more units to have more than one outside window, and minimizes unused floorspace. One hallway around the core is less than long hallways from end to end.
As you suggested, the ratio between gross (all space) and net (space that earns rent) measure a floorspace's efficiency... the higher the better, ergo you're not paying construction costs on non-revenue-generating space. TNS apt building might not be as efficient due to longer hallways and perhaps more storage and stairway requirements. Furthermore, you also have to run mechanical and electrical systems out wider/longer, which costs money.
The counter argument is that above 20 storeys, you may need two mechnical systems to provide pressure, so shorter/wider could be better from that perspective.
For office, you're correct, a bigger floorplate is usually preferred. You can cram cubicles in the middle of a giant floor, even offices. You can't cram an apartment unit in the middle of a floor without any windows.
But depending on the market and city, some don't care. Blue chip tenants might like the idea of a large floorplate but wouldn't turn down multiple floors at prestigious addresses in major markets.
As for 201 Portage being empty, that's a different matter because all other office towers at that intersection are performing better.
Prev
Linear Mode
