Toronto One Bloor West | 308.6m | 85s | Tridel | Foster + Partners

[thaivic]

306m is a huge height chop and isnt very impressive considering the quality downgrade that will result from Skygrid VE. It wont appear any higher than FCP and lacks the volume/robustness.

It'll just read like just another condo. Closer in height and quality to Aura than John Hancock in Chicago.

I'd rather have had a 240m-280m RAMSA like originally planned when Mizrahi first acquired the site

Out of principle , I think I'll bow out from following this closely.

Wouldnt suprise me if Skygrid also scraps the spot lighting on the beams. It sounds like their general contractor will be ruthless. Expect tacky bright LED strip lighting that dosent flatter the beams

The General Contractor (Skygrid) is not the one that makes the decisions, those decisions will be made by whomever lands up being the owner of the project. The GC is getting paid to manage the project not being paid to make decisions on what gets removed or added to the project, they will take direction from the owners.

 

[xy3]

The General Contractor (Skygrid) is not the one that makes the decisions, those decisions will be made by whomever lands up being the owner of the project. The GC is getting paid to manage the project not being paid to make decisions on what gets removed or added to the project, they will take direction from the owners.

I was under the impression the decision cap at the stubby height is ultimately up to the owner, while the Skygrid general contractor could VE bait and switch to "premium window wall" and other slap-dash finishes.

 

[thaivic]

I was under the impression the decision cap at the stubby height is ultimately up to the owner, while the Skygrid general contractor could VE bait and switch to "premium window wall" and other slap-dash finishes.

All of the cladding is already paid for and sitting in a warehouse, if the new owners ask for areas where savings can be had that would be on interior finishes not on the exterior. Skygrid for the moment is working on a 90 day management fee contract as the receiver has put the building up for sale. It will be up to the new owners if they want Skygrid to continue or if they will have someone new running the project. The new owners can also apply to the city to shrink the size of the units so that they create more units to sell.

 

[xy3]

All of the cladding is already paid for and sitting in a warehouse, if the new owners ask for areas where savings can be had that would be on interior finishes not on the exterior. Skygrid for the moment is working on a 90 day management fee contract as the receiver has put the building up for sale. It will be up to the new owners if they want Skygrid to continue or if they will have someone new running the project. The new owners can also apply to the city to shrink the size of the units so that they create more units to sell.

Id imagine it'd be a legal headache to downgrade the interiors of the actual condo units, especially the ones paid for in cash. It'd result in a lot of lawsuits.


However, I could definetly see the common areas, unsold units, hotel and commercial substantially downgraded to Aura at College Park type quality.

 

[BloorMan]

Update from today (Saturday). Looks like they put in the floor forms for level 56 (I think):

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I was under the impression the decision cap at the stubby height is ultimately up to the owner, while the Skygrid general contractor could VE bait and switch to "premium window wall" and other slap-dash finishes.

You make it sound like they cutting the tower all the way back to the first mechanical by saying that. So let's be clear, and say there is nothing stubby about 306 meters, lol. No, it's not 328 meters...but it's still a supertall that will dwarf anything that's being and been built around it.

 

[Rascacielo]

You make it sound like they cutting the tower all the way back to the first mechanical by saying that. So let's be clear, and say there is nothing stubby about 306 meters, lol. No, it's not 328 meters...but it's still a supertall that will dwarf anything that's being and been built around it.

Get one of the penthouse owners to construct a 6-storey treehouse on their rooftop terrace and we're back to 91

 

[xy3]

You make it sound like they cutting the tower all the way back to the first mechanical by saying that. So let's be clear, and say there is nothing stubby about 306 meters, lol. No, it's not 328 meters...but it's still a supertall that will dwarf anything that's being and been built around it.

the proportions are less elegant on the 306 meter version . it looks awkwardly truncated

 

[khaldoon]

You make it sound like they cutting the tower all the way back to the first mechanical by saying that. So let's be clear, and say there is nothing stubby about 306 meters, lol. No, it's not 328 meters...but it's still a supertall that will dwarf anything that's being and been built around it.

All this discussion assumes the Star article is factual. Secondly, reducing the height doesn’t actually make sense. The idea of adding more floors was to increase the return since it is an incremental cost to what is already been paid in startup costs. Unless of course they think they can’t sell the extra units.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

All this discussion assumes the Star article is factual. Secondly, reducing the height doesn’t actually make sense. The idea of adding more floors was to increase the return since it is an incremental cost to what is already been paid in startup costs. Unless of course they think they can’t sell the extra units.

For good or bad, this article is not the first to be saying that regarding the height change. But the two things I gleaned off of said article that may be at play here: First that there was an indication of significant numbers of buyers who got spooked and bailed over this, so they don't have as much of the monied clientele in the pocket as they did before the insolvency shite hit the fan with Mizrahi. And secondly, the extra floors may have fell upon an extended contract that hasn't fully been sussed out or agreed upon yet. Meaning, it could be subject to cutting with little on no penalties on the road to recuperation and "let's get it done with!", or something like that...

This is not to say any this is true or factual here, rather how I am reading it and for what that's worth. As well as to say, I hope this all incorrect and they still going with the 91 in the end floors. But I guess we shall see.

the proportions are less elegant on the 306 meter version . it looks awkwardly truncated

Truncates is also a poor term here, as the crown will remain unaffected regardless of what height the building is decided upon in the end. You can safely go with a tad shorter, but stubby or truncated it will most certainly not be.

 

[skycandy]

 

[Johnny Au]

Part 1 of 2 taken on March 23, 2024:

Bay and Cumberland:

Balmuto Side:

Back Alley:

Bloor Side:

 

[EBT]

I read the Toronto Star article about the height being capped at 85 floors. Hopefully, this will be reversed since as we all know they have approvals to go to 91 floors. Why go to all that trouble (and expense) of getting approvals to go to 91 floors which will provide a higher return on investment only to cap the tower at 85 floors? It doesn't make any sense to me. I get that they are deep underwater with this project, but it seems to me building 6 more floors will only help to minimize the massive losses on this project. Heck, why not just say to the new developer "Build as many floors as you wish to recoup your investment"? Doesn't that make sense? I do note that it says Mizrahi made the decision to cap at 85 floors and he is out of the picture so it gives me hope that this decision will change.

It seems to me City Hall could intervene to make possible completion of this tower at 91 floors. No doubt major commitments were made by Mizrahi worth many millions of dollars as a concession for the increased height. The city could say to the new developer that they will rescind these requirements (extorsion payments) if they complete the tower at 91 floors. Of course, this won't happen because the politicians want to maintain the ability to extort millions from developers for their pet projects which only serve to drive up the price of housing in an already unaffordable environment. Don't condo owners already pay enough in property taxes on the inflated price of their homes?

In retrospect, the fatal decision made on this project was to have a column-free triple-height first-floor retail space to accommodate an Apple store. The complexities of building a super-tall tower over a column-free first floor probably doubled the cost of the tower and quadrupled the timeline and for what? In the end, Apple abandoned the project. Who is going to go into that first-floor retail space? A bank (TD?)? McDonalds? Shoppers Drug Mart? Winners? Dollarama? Who? Not only did this requirement add to the complexity and cost of the tower it also drastically reduced the attractiveness and convenience of the tower for potential condo owners who by necessity have to take an elevator up to a sky lobby to transfer to another bank of elevators up to their condo. No possibility of a private elevator for buyers of Penthouses costing over $20 million! If you could afford $20 million for a condo (or home), would you buy into a project like this?

 

[Northern Light]

I read the Toronto Star article about the height being capped at 85 floors. Hopefully, this will be reversed since as we all know they have approvals to go to 91 floors. Why go to all that trouble (and expense) of getting approvals to go to 91 floors which will provide a higher return on investment only to cap the tower at 85 floors? It doesn't make any sense to me.

If every single floor built is being sold at a loss, this is far from a given. We don't have that information, but the Reciever does.

Heck, why not just say to the new developer "Build as many floors as you wish to recoup your investment"? Doesn't that make sense?

No, this makes no sense at all, that's not how Planning is done, nor how it should ever be done. The City does not grant height permissions in order to mitigate the bad financial decisions of others.

It seems to me City Hall could intervene to make possible completion of this tower at 91 floors.

No it cannot.

No doubt major commitments were made by Mizrahi worth many millions of dollars as a concession for the increased height. The city could say to the new developer that they will rescind these requirements (extorsion payments)

There are 'community benefits' / S.37, these are not extortion payments, and characterization of them as such does not reflect well here. They are a legitimate, legal exercise in which a benefit is offered to a community in exchange for permission that a property owner previously lacked, and partially offsets the hassles of years of construction/disruption as well.

if they complete the tower at 91 floors. Of course, this won't happen because the politicians want to maintain the ability to extort millions from developers for their pet projects which only serve to drive up the price of housing in an already unaffordable environment. Don't condo owners already pay enough in property taxes on the inflated price of their homes?

This is again a complete misrepresentation of how things work in the real world and suggests a disconnection from same.

On many developments the City effectively loses money, which is to say, that assessment growth + development charges neither fully covers the capital or operating costs of serving the new development.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...that evil city government that shakedown poor developers so they can't build higher! /s