Toronto is Booming, but how?

[Innsertnamehere]

Hard to believe that Mississauga has dropped it's sales of condos...

[in'sauga]

I LOVE MISSISSAUGA

the future here is a bright one...

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Hard to believe that Mississauga has dropped it's sales of condos...

Mississauga's population growth has leveled off considerably from an unsustainable level. They're still building tons of condos.

[KamT]

Originally Posted by in'sauga

I LOVE MISSISSAUGA

the future here is a bright one...

ME TOO






vv
v



Please don't ban me

[isaidso]

I should plan a trip to Mississauga one day. Does GO Train get you there? I'd be coming from Union Station.

[Epi]

Originally Posted by rbt

The current Toronto development bell curve puts 600' well above the peak of the curve however the curve shifts right with each cycle. The 80's had a ton of 22 to 30 floor residential buildings at the peak. This residential cycles peak seems to be finishing at 40 to 55 floors. Office development in Toronto is a small fraction of the overall skyscraper count.

Over 500 skyscrapers have been build (or are under construction) for this cycle (2000 through current). If you bump the average height by 20% and keep the curve; it puts ~15% of the next cycles construction activity at or above 600' compared to todays ~3%.

So, for Toronto's next development cycle I predict about 75 buildings in the 600'+ range and likely another 100 to 150 buildings in the 500' to 600' range. This will occur over the next 25 years in the event of a complete market collapse and sooner if there is no collapse.

A pair of new TTC subway lines or electrified and cheap GO to downtown Toronto would gut the above numbers; however halted transit investment (possible with a Conservative government) would cause them to increase. That is, downtown real-estate prices and resulting building heights are directly related to congestion/mobility. At this time only minimal investment into public transit is planned for the next 15 years, a fairly consistent pattern for Toronto.

Just to comment on your predictions for Toronto (ONLY! ), I wanted to add one thing.

Toronto's buildings have always had underground parking, something that is not necessarily true elsewhere. I think that the 'next stage' of development, we will see a lot more buildings with above ground parking like the new Cinema Towers and the Trump Tower. Allow me to explain:

Low level units are hard to sell, especially if they have no view. Sure investors who rent out currently buy these units, or people with less money, but they are seen as undesirable, and there's more and more rentals available already.

If the area's not that dense, you can have those townhouse things at the bottom which we see everywhere in the city. When it's denser, we have double height ground floor with a few floors of amenities as seen in a lot of buildings. We can also have large cheap, double height suites (my building has a ton of cheap faux 'loft' suites in the bottom 6 floors) which target a different demographic.

The next step is to artificially move up floor heights by having something not residential at the bottom. In some towers (i.e. Hullmark Centre in North York) we have office in the bottom floors. In others, we have hotels (i.e. Four Seasons). This ensures that the undesirable lower floors don't need to be sold because the lowest you can be is pretty high up.

The final step of course is to remove underground parking and have it above ground.

Once we start having enough average height and density in Toronto that you have to be very high up to ensure the highest floors get a view, and to lessen the amount of low floor units being sold with no view and lots of street noise, then above ground parking is the logical choice.

5-6 stories of above ground parking and ground level retail will instantly make our buildings 20-30 metres taller without much effort. We might even see buildings with ground level retail, first few floors of parking, then hotel/office and THEN residential.

Overall, we'll have significantly taller buildings without much more absolute sales in units and probably without much increased price as well as
the amount of money saved by not digging a deep hole will be plowed back into making the building taller so it makes the increased height more affordable.

All this will be commonplace downtown in the 'next cycle'.

[isaidso]

You're assuming that everyone wants to be high up. A lot of people don't like being higher than the 7th or 8th floors for the following reasons: safety, shorter elevator rides, less wind on the balcony, you're usually closer to amenities of the building/parking, and when you go higher than the 15th floor you lose contact with the ground psychologically.

The only positive with a high floor is the view, but skyline views aren't a priority for many people. People in row houses certainly don't complain about being low to the ground.

[Taller, Better]

I like living fairly high up to get a nice view, and it is usually quieter than at street level as well.

[InTheBeach]

4th floor is my desired height.

More than that and I feel disconnected.

7th floor is the highest I've lived. I don't miss it.


...and how did I miss all the squabbles on this thread? Oh well.

City vs. City is entertaining when people stick to facts. Too bad they decend to the lowest common denominator of intelligence.

[Taller, Better]

Anyone who lived through the Great Wars of the City vs City days is well aware of how quickly people plummet to the lowest common denominator, and then claw their way down into the basement after that.

[Epi]

Originally Posted by isaidso

You're assuming that everyone wants to be high up. A lot of people don't like being higher than the 7th or 8th floors for the following reasons: safety, shorter elevator rides, less wind on the balcony, you're usually closer to amenities of the building/parking, and when you go higher than the 15th floor you lose contact with the ground psychologically.

The only positive with a high floor is the view, but skyline views aren't a priority for many people. People in row houses certainly don't complain about being low to the ground.

As much as the 'view' isn't a priority for many people, not having a window that just faces nothing all day is also desirable. If you're surrounded by tall buildings on all sides, it's nice to be a little bit higher up so you can get some natural light and be away from the sounds of the street. While not everyone is sound sensitive a lot of people are and that's important.

Also with canyon effects, you're going to have wind no matter how high or low you are. The elevator is a moot point too. It takes like 10 seconds longer to get to the 20th floor than the 5th, and almost no one walks up/down stairs to their amenities (I've seen crazy people wait 15 mins for an elevator to the 2nd floor from the ground when the power was out).

There's a reason why higher floors cost more. They are perceived to be worth more, and thus people are willing to pay more. So more upper floors means more money for the developer. Can't see why they wouldn't like that.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Epi

There's a reason why higher floors cost more. They are perceived to be worth more, and thus people are willing to pay more. So more upper floors means more money for the developer. Can't see why they wouldn't like that.

That, and higher floors do cost more to build. Extra elevator shafts take space on every floor below. Extra height means fatter concrete pillars all the way down (they taper to the top). Crane pickups, construction elevators, etc. all take significantly longer to get to the higher floors (worker time).

Wouldn't be surprised if servicing was more too. Stronger waterpumps for the extra height are one obvious expense (would appear in the electricity bill).


If land is free a 2 million sqft 5 storey building is much cheaper to build than a 2 million sqft 90 floor building.

[Epi]

Originally Posted by rbt

That, and higher floors do cost more to build. Extra elevator shafts take space on every floor below. Extra height means fatter concrete pillars all the way down (they taper to the top). Crane pickups, construction elevators, etc. all take significantly longer to get to the higher floors (worker time).

Wouldn't be surprised if servicing was more too. Stronger waterpumps for the extra height are one obvious expense (would appear in the electricity bill).


If land is free a 2 million sqft 5 storey building is much cheaper to build than a 2 million sqft 90 floor building.

I think we'd need someone more knowledgeable to really know the actual costs.

While I completely agree that generally a taller building costs more to build, a taller building that is taller because it has absolutely no underground parking (which I'm going to guess isn't free) but has all of the underground stuff above ground might not be that much more money. In that case the extra money from selling more higher floors may actually make economic sense, and perhaps that's why these types of buildings exist around the world.

Either way I'm not stating that one type of building is necessarily better than the other, but I just think that this may happen in Toronto as our buildings get taller and the economics and increasing density will justify this.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Epi

While I completely agree that generally a taller building costs more to build, a taller building that is taller because it has absolutely no underground parking (which I'm going to guess isn't free) but has all of the underground stuff above ground might not be that much more money.

Yes, if the building is the same structural height from bottom floor (possibly underground) to top-floor and you can shift it from being underground to above-ground, then you will usually (depends on soil conditions) have a significant savings.

I've been lead to believe that underground parking for a building like 1 Bloor in Toronto can be 1/3rd of the total construction price.

[QuantumX]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I didn't know where to put this so I hope it's alright here.


Built
01. First Canadian Place - 297m
02. Scotia Plaza - 275m
03. TD Canada Trust - 261m
04. Trump Tower - 252m
05. Commerce Court West - 239m
06. Toronto Dominion - 223m
07. Bay-Adelaide - 218m
08. Shangri-La - 214m
09. Ritz-Carlton - 208m
10. Bay-Wellington - 207m
11. Four Seasons - 204m

Under Construction
01. AURA - 272m
02. One Bloor - 238m
03. ICE Condos II - 234m
04. L Tower - 205m
05. ICE Condos I - 202m

Proposed
01. Theatre Block - 284m
02. Holt Renfrew Centre 277m
03. Theatre Block - 276m
04. Theatre Block - 272m
05. 10 York - 253m (7 floor height reduction expected)
06. 45 Bay - 244m
07. 37 Yorkville - 238m
08. 43 Simcoe - 234m
09. Harbour Plaza East - 233m
10. Harbour Plaza West - 224m
11. 156 Front - 222m
12. Eau de Soleil I - 216m
13. Massey Tower - 208m
14. 460 Yonge - 207m
15. 88 Scott - 204m
16. E Condos South - 202m


If all the proposals get built, Toronto could move into 5th spot globally when it comes to 200m+ buildings. As of January 1, 2012 the top 10 were:

01. Dubai (63)
02. Hong Kong (61)
03. New York (53)
04. Shanghai (46)
05. Chicago and Shenzhen (27)
07. Tokyo (21)
08. Singapore (18)
09. Guangzhou (16)
10. Houston (14)

Chicago and Shenzhen will get bounced unless they go on a major building spree. Keep growing Toronto!

I don't know what list places Houston at 10, but Miami has edged them out.

Anyway, having gone over the Toronto page of Emporis, I find what I've seen almost beyond belief. You have one of the biggest skyscraper booms in the history of this planet going on. What gets built in Toronto in this decade will easily outdo what Miami achieved in the last decade. And here I was hoping we could catch you. Silly me!

[QuantumX]

Toronto is moving up on this list. Let's see how many other cities it can eat in the next 5 years.

http://tudl0867.home.xs4all.nl/skylines.html

[isaidso]

I think it will move up to 10th or 11th on that list.

Originally Posted by QuantumX

I don't know what list places Houston at 10, but Miami has edged them out.

Anyway, having gone over the Toronto page of Emporis, I find what I've seen almost beyond belief. You have one of the biggest skyscraper booms in the history of this planet going on. What gets built in Toronto in this decade will easily outdo what Miami achieved in the last decade. And here I was hoping we could catch you. Silly me!

It was a thread I started a few years ago and had great contributors from all over. After awhile I just got bogged down due to the sheer volume of data I had to organize/validate. Btw, its a roof height list so that might explain why Houston is ahead of Miami. I wanted a list that didn't count antennas or spires to get a new perspective.

Regarding Miami. It still ranks as one of the biggest skyline transformations in the western world. Miami has nothing to hang its head over. In all fairness, Toronto is really just turning into the city it was destined to be all along. As Canada's corporate capital and biggest city there was going to be a boom of historical proportions sooner or later.

I think many Canadians are glad that its happening. We've always longed for a giant metropolis of our own and it looks like we're finally going to get one.

[QuantumX]

If most of what is planned actually gets built, I think Toronto most probably will be in the top 10 by the end of this decade, and Miami will have a lock on having the 3rd largest skyline in the U.S. After New York and Chicago.

Tell me, do you have any height restrictions that preclude a supertall in the Toronto skyline? Here in Miami, we had to fight just to get 1,010 feet because of the proximity to MIA. Miami is just turning into the city it was always destined to be as well.

[skyscraper03]

Why Toronto is booming?

Just imagine putting Montréal and Toronto together in a same spot. You think only God can do, but he generously granted us the knowledge and ability, too.
It sure looks like Toronto is uber booming when you move all the money and towers to Toronto from Montréal. Parti Quebecois, the true Quebec self-destroyer, got elected over and over since the 70s, and this time again. You know what I'm saying. Toronto is going to be the sum of the status of what Montréal and Toronto was in the 70s, + more(synergy effect).

Also, Canada cannot exist without immigrants coming in since this is a country of immigrants to begin with and the low birth rate is largely compensated by the immigration nowadays. So pretty much, immigrants are the future Canadians. And, more than 50% of them prefers to settle in Greater Toronto Area. Think about what would happen if about 40~50% of the national population is living in the Toronto area. Toronto can even become a majestically dynamic city like Tokyo population wise- other aspects largely depend on how well we prepare, plan and design.

I give full respect to Miami, and they must have good things down there too. (haven't been there yet, only many of my friends..) But I think Toronto is going to surpass a mere medium-big city like Chicago in no time, and become the 3rd largest city in North America after NYC, and LA. The problem is can we possibly surpass the abundance of architectural beauty and the almost perfect urban design of Chicago

[QuantumX]

Originally Posted by skyscraper03

The problem is can we possibly surpass the abundance of architectural beauty and the almost perfect urban design of Chicago

Chicago is the birthplace of the skyscraper and the mecca of skyscraper enthusiasts. There is a rich historical tradition of architectural beauty both past and present.

Why don't you have any supertalls though? What is up with that?