Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102073

Can't believe I hadn't seen a rendering of this! What an awesome-looking tower this was going to be.

Why was it put on hold, and is there a possibility of construction, still? Is it residential? I've only seen that ****** ugly stump haha...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,465 Posts
^Oh boy, there is a huge storey behind that one and a million different ideas about what might come of it in the future.

Have you never seen the B-A stump?
 

·
Torontonian 4ever
Joined
·
9,891 Posts
LOL Everybody I showed the stump to couldn't believe such an important city had an abandonned construction site right in its centre.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,465 Posts
^Meh, I would not consider it abandoned. I believe that Brookfield is holding on to that site and stump for a future developement. Hell, they are so big they could hold that card forever but I doubt they would do so.

It has been speculated that the site may become a condo tower. Years ago it might have seemed ridiculous but look at Ritz, Trump, and Sapphire.
 

·
Torontonian 4ever
Joined
·
9,891 Posts
^That site really doesn't seem suitable for a condo. Maybe a humongously tall office tower?:D Well, we can dream...;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
so... what I'm hearing is no B-A Tower, be it residential or offices... even thought its design (especially the unique slanted roof) is sooooo great for TO, let alone, anywhere...
 

·
lolwut
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
any links to more in-depth info on this tower and about why it was put on hold and stuff??? cause this has my curiosity as well
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,465 Posts
^I dunno man, it just seems as if Brookfield is holding on to it. Couldn't tell you why other than to speculate that a building there might be profitable some day.

SP!RE said:
so... what I'm hearing is no B-A Tower, be it residential or offices... even thought its design (especially the unique slanted roof) is sooooo great for TO, let alone, anywhere...
That was just speculation, not fact. I have no source for that, just gossip I have heard on some sites.
 

·
The Greatest
Joined
·
4,515 Posts
"any links to more in-depth info on this tower and about why it was put on hold and stuff??? "

Only 10% was pre-leased when construction started sometime in the late 80s, early 90s on the two tower development (57 and 10 storeys). A year or two later the market crashed and the developer, Trizec, made the wise decision to halt construction until the market improved. Around 2001, The developer in the process of selling all non-core assets sold the property to a partnership between Brookfield and a pension fund. A few years later the partnership aquired several ajoining properties along Bay Street.

Speculation based on several releases has it that the former site of the 10 storey building may become a very tall hotel/condo tower using the density gained from the purchase of the Bay Street properties
 

·
lolwut
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
orangeman said:
What I always wondered is what is the maximum tower that the foundation is designed for?
thats a good question....well looking at the width of the tower and then the height (which is over 200 m), it is wider then say the saphire tower which is way over 1000 feet over 1100 to the tip of the spire (i dont have exact measurments) so this foundation could most likely support a building upwards of 1400 feet..i wouldnt go any taller then that though, this is just rough estimations on my part though..draw your own conclusions cause im no genius when it comes to this stuff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,767 Posts
They have 1.8 million sqft of density for their entire site (a bit of it is already used for the small buildings on Yonge already built). I'm not sure if the 4 buildings on Bay gain them any density, as they are already built out basically to the as-of-right densities ( 12 times coverage)....but who knows, they might be able to wrangle some more denity out of them.

That density is for office space...but residential has a 50% density increase over office space. So at least theoretically, any portion of that 1.8 million sqft could traded in for 50% more density for residential. The general idea has been, that the stump is for a 1 million sqft office tower, leaving 800,000 sqft for the other site. This 800,000 sqft of office density could be converted to 1.2 million sqft of residential space. Even at the already allowed 800,000 sqft, that would be a massive residential tower...a 1.2 million sqft residential tower can be as tall as you want. I can't think of a single residential tower with that much square footage.

There is no height limit in this area.

The city strongly wants to inject more residential into the financial district (and few spaces to build any remain). Look at what they have already allowed in the same area regarding this...Trump and Saphire have ridiculously high density tights.

The market is there to actually sell them.

The owners have the ability to make it work.

Whatever they end up building there will end up very tall...as a matter of fact based on usable density (and no developer would waste any) and the size of the site...and the nature of buildings in the area (very tall buildings).





KGB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
valantino said:
"any links to more in-depth info on this tower and about why it was put on hold and stuff??? "

Only 10% was pre-leased when construction started sometime in the late 80s, early 90s on the two tower development (57 and 10 storeys). A year or two later the market crashed and the developer, Trizec, made the wise decision to halt construction until the market improved. Around 2001, The developer in the process of selling all non-core assets sold the property to a partnership between Brookfield and a pension fund. A few years later the partnership aquired several ajoining properties along Bay Street.

Speculation based on several releases has it that the former site of the 10 storey building may become a very tall hotel/condo tower using the density gained from the purchase of the Bay Street properties
Close but not quite. Trizec signed a lead tenant (Gentra - Royal Trust) which gave them to the go-ahead to start construction in the late eighties. It was even in their brochures that Gentra was the major tenant. Then the recession of the early 90's hit, Gentra pulled out and the project has been on hold ever since.

In March 1998, Trizec redesigned the building and launched it again but was put on hold in the fall of 1998.

The North site will not contain residential at this time. Brookfield is currently pre-leasing the North Tower (a mere 18 storey building). The South tower remains on hold indefinitely until the market rebounds or a lead tenant is found.

See chart below. It's from Royal Lepage outlining pending development in Q4 2004. Notice Bay-Adelaide Centre under "Firmly Proposed"

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
I don't know why they don't do a 'combo' project, with condos, hotel, and office. Too reasonable, I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
Spire:

I dont think the project design is that ground-breaking or anything- its a decent tower, but honestly, it wouldn't bother me at all if they re-designed it!

Regarding the stump...I think it should be left the way it is- turn it into an urban-ruin: landscape the area a bit more, throw in an old crane base- with about 30-40 metres of the tower- add a little steel work and attach the two curtain wall panels to the steel work- then let mother nature do her work and presto- our first ruine-

Also, imagine the space in about 20 or 30 years time, when all around is completely built up and smack dab in the middle of it all, is this great space, which has been created by a failed tower project-

Sure this will never happen...but wishful thinking never hurts!

p5
 

·
The Greatest
Joined
·
4,515 Posts
Close but not quite. Trizec signed a lead tenant (Gentra - Royal Trust) which gave them to the go-ahead to start construction in the late eighties.
Yes, which pre-leased around 10% of the complex

See chart below. It's from Royal Lepage outlining pending development in Q4 2004. Notice Bay-Adelaide Centre under "Firmly Proposed"
Most interesting - Thanks. However, by no means does it confirm that the tower won't be mixed-use with residential above the office component
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Your right - it does not however adding residential to the top of an office building is rather unusual. Perhaps there's room on the site for the two to be side by side.

Gentra committed to leasing 400,000sq/ft in Bay/Adelaide Centre. Much more than 10%. It was nearly half the building which is why they began construction. 10% pre-lease wouldn't even get a shoven in the ground.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Residential on top of office isn't that unusual.
Don't Renaissence Plaza (Bloor & Avenue) and LuCliff Place in TO have office and condos?
Shaw Tower (Vancouver) has 12 floors of office topped by live-work condos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Aside from the two you just listed, I can't think of any other. I'd say that's pretty unusual wouldn't you?
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top