Toronto 1181 Sheppard Avenue East | 126.85m | 38s | Concord Adex | DIALOG

I am not sure there is anything wrong with office users locating in the 905.....doesn't that make those places more urban? does it not lead to more people working in the cities where they live? (ie less communiting?).

As for CT.....they really should look at Consillium Place at Scarbrorough TC......pretty sure Menkes have some large blocks of space at this excellent complex with access to, both, TTC and the highways that are required by their store visiting executves.
 
TOareaFan said:
I am not sure there is anything wrong with office users locating in the 905.....doesn't that make those places more urban? does it not lead to more people working in the cities where they live? (ie less communiting?).

As for CT.....they really should look at Consillium Place at Scarbrorough TC......pretty sure Menkes have some large blocks of space at this excellent complex with access to, both, TTC and the highways that are required by their store visiting executves.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's problem for 416 when we can't attract office use on our own .... in other words if they were to move out and the space would be filled, sure, but I think it'll be sitting vacant for quite some time ...
Also what urban 905 environment are they going to move to, MCC ... sure then, but they won't ... the airport area? That's got to be the worst collection of office space in the GTA ... in terms of truely living up to the suburban office park montage ... Hi-way 7 around the 407 is quite a bit better then this ... either way ...

And regarding Consillium Place - I don't think there's one block large enough for them, otherwise they'd be happy where the are, less rents ... for the most part this needs to be an empty building or a new build.
 
lol, that's funny : )

I'm just imaging Canadian Tire's logo on the building, it'd be the most predominant logo in the classic waterfront skyline shots.

Why not! ... expensive ...
 
taal said:
Honestly, I don't buy the space issue :) If they want it all in one building sure, but the other building in Canada square has a lot of space available ...
Click to expand...

CTC occupies the entire south tower at 2180 Yonge, 75% of the tower at the corner and all of the third building (built between the two some 12 years ago). 2180 is 18 floors as is 2200 and they are big floor plates. It’s not about space, it’s about cost (rent and taxes). Space was and is easy to find, what was difficult was justifying the cost. The existing location was good because they had a great lease in place that terminated soon (that was 12 years ago - probably terminating now - it takes a long time to plan a move like this) and because it is on a subway line (and that can only improve when the Eglinton line opens). When they were looking before, they were looking for 200,000 sq ft with room to expand.
 
Big Daddy said:
CTC occupies the entire south tower at 2180 Yonge, 75% of the tower at the corner and all of the third building (built between the two some 12 years ago). 2180 is 18 floors as is 2200 and they are big floor plates. It’s not about space, it’s about cost (rent and taxes). Space was and is easy to find, what was difficult was justifying the cost. The existing location was good because they had a great lease in place that terminated soon (that was 12 years ago - probably terminating now - it takes a long time to plan a move like this) and because it is on a subway line (and that can only improve when the Eglinton line opens). When they were looking before, they were looking for 200,000 sq ft with room to expand.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that post was slightly eligible, thanks for the info though! - to clarify, you're saying they occupy all of 2180, that's 401,000 sq. ft. of space (and is 100% occupied), and 75% of what? The 2200 tower is 270,000 sq. ft. is only about 70% occupied, the part in the middle is 155,000 sq. ft. and is just about 100% occupied.

Why would they only be looking for 200,000 square feet of space then? verse say 400,000? btw, 400,000 square feet of space is nearly impossible to find in an existing building on the subway line ... 200,000 would be impossible as well a few years ago but now there are some larger blocks in some of the older buildings downtown (as tenants move into newer buildings) ... but as you said those are very expensive.
 
taal said:
I'm sorry but that post was slightly eligible,
Click to expand...

Eligible for what?

to clarify
Click to expand...

Based on your numbers he is saying:
401,000 sq. ft. x 100% (2180 Yonge)
155,000 sq. ft. x 100% (the third building between the two)
270,000 sq. ft. x 75% (2200 Yonge)

If as he says they were only looking for 200,000 sq. ft. then they wouldn't have been looking to relocate everything... maybe just to handle the lease on the middle building ending.
 
EnviroTO said:
Eligible for what?



Based on your numbers he is saying:
401,000 sq. ft. x 100% (2180 Yonge)
155,000 sq. ft. x 100% (the third building between the two)
270,000 sq. ft. x 75% (2200 Yonge)

If as he says they were only looking for 200,000 sq. ft. then they wouldn't have been looking to relocate everything... maybe just to handle the lease on the middle building ending.
Click to expand...

:) illegible ... I can tell you that's wrong for sure, TVO is located in the 400,000 square foot building - there logo is on the building! But what you say sounds right ... and they'll slowly move everyone out after.
 
taal said:
Yes, it's problem for 416 when we can't attract office use on our own .... in other words if they were to move out and the space would be filled, sure, but I think it'll be sitting vacant for quite some time ...
Also what urban 905 environment are they going to move to, MCC ... sure then, but they won't ... the airport area? That's got to be the worst collection of office space in the GTA ... in terms of truely living up to the suburban office park montage ... Hi-way 7 around the 407 is quite a bit better then this ... either way ...
Click to expand...

I guess what I was suggesting is that a discussion/consideration of "urban toronto" need not be restricted by municipal boundaries or area codes. Yes, losing a major office tenant is a blow to the 416 is not good for that area, but the office building is not lost and, over time, the space gets filled. If some, suburban wasteland is improved with a new office building, changing their urban form! Creating employment, reducing commuting, etc.,.....is the region not improved? I think yes.

taal said:
And regarding Consillium Place - I don't think there's one block large enough for them, otherwise they'd be happy where the are, less rents ... for the most part this needs to be an empty building or a new build.
Click to expand...

How much space did State Farm occupy there before moving north to their new head office? I had heard that most (all?) of that was still vacant.
 
100 Consilium Place (339,687 sq. ft) ... only 40% occupied ... so about 200,000 feet ... so maybe you're right if that's all they're looking for.

200 Consilium Place (338,859 sq. ft.) ... just about 100% occupied.

300 Consilium Place 327,129 sq. ft. (327,129 sq. ft.) ... about 85% occupied.

btw ... when I refer to non occupied space I mean direct vacant and sublease i.e. the building it self may be leased further by the owner, but the tenants might be trying to lease there space (and I count this).


And this kinda of proves my point does it not? They moved in 2006, over 4 years ago ... and a lot of the building remains empty ... I confirmed they used to be at 100 Consilium btw.
 
Last edited:
taal said:
100 Consilium Place (339,687 sq. ft) ... only 40% occupied ... so about 200,000 feet ... so maybe you're right if that's all they're looking for.

200 Consilium Place (338,859 sq. ft.) ... just about 100% occupied.

300 Consilium Place 327,129 sq. ft. (327,129 sq. ft.) ... about 85% occupied.

btw ... when I refer to non occupied space I mean direct vacant and sublease i.e. the building it self may be leased further by the owner, but the tenants might be trying to lease there space (and I count this).


And this kinda of proves my point does it not? They moved in 2006, over 4 years ago ... and a lot of the building remains empty ... I confirmed they used to be at 100 Consilium btw.
Click to expand...

thx...I was under the impression that SF took more like 100% of one of the buildings....I know there was also an approval a long time ago for a 4th office building (along with the recently approved condos)....guess I figured the project would offer 350k (+/-) s.f. immediately with the possibility of more.....with only 200k of contigous space available it is not likely a solution for CTC.....not sure they will find a solution in existing buildings.
 
TOareaFan said:
As for CT.....they really should look at Consillium Place at Scarbrorough TC......pretty sure Menkes have some large blocks of space at this excellent complex with access to, both, TTC and the highways that are required by their store visiting executves.
Click to expand...

And if you look real close at Consilium, you'll find a vast ground-level parking area where an added podium/tower combo was meant to plug into...
 
TOareaFan said:
I am not sure there is anything wrong with office users locating in the 905.....doesn't that make those places more urban? does it not lead to more people working in the cities where they live? (ie less communiting?).
Click to expand...

That used to be my viewpoint as well, but as the GTA grows larger and larger, I think that this style of development will be the death of us. Based on direct personal experience as well as talking about the subject with friends, the consensus is that spreading employment throughout the GTA has done nothing to shorten commute times or distances, while the only communities that have benefitted are those well beyond that city such as Georgina, Barrie, Caledon, Clarington...and so on, because they no longer have to travel right downtown.

Most of the people who work in the offices in Markham live outside of Markham, same for offices in Mississauga, Brampton, Scarborough, you name it. Once someone has settled down in a particular area and enrolled their kids in school, they will not move to shorten their commute. And given the relatively new trend of working in 5-10 jobs per career, there is even greater potential to not work close to home no matter how well distributed office parks are throughout the city.

By decentralizing employment, it has become all but impossible to serve employment areas by decent transit, and even decent roads. The plan has backfired. Consistently, people who can take the GO train to an office job downtown arel the envy of their suburban neighbours, at least in my suburban experience growing up. Chances are that less than 10% of the people living in MCC, SCC, NYCC, or downtown Markham will work there. Most will work in another suburban office park 30 km away, while the lucky few who work downtown - which might even be farther away - will have the shortest, least stressful commutes thanks to GO.
 
Last edited:
I'm very much in agreement on many of the issues you raised ... the one thing I'd add, on top of all that, there is a larger problem at hand in Toronto - and while many can't seem to admit it, it's taxes, and they are a big issue - just google it and you'll see many many papers / articles / ... regarding the issue. Does it effect downtown directly? No ... but the rest of the 416, of course - taxes are almost 100% higher in Toronto - think of someone at 404 and 401 vs 404 and 407 - why wouldn't you relocate to the 905 ...

Check this out:
http://www.toronto.ca/business_publications/pdf/2010-july.pdf

Taxes and Operating Costs: (Q1 2010, Q4 2009 ...)
Central Area $22.10 $21.75 $21.65 $21.58 $21.58
Suburbs $14.16 $14.09 $13.87 $13.88 $14.01

For all the talk of decreasing tax you can see we're actually increasing it in effect ... this is a per square foot charge ... it adds up fast. On top of this is the market driven net rental rates ... those are pretty close actually (market driven) and they're pretty close i.e. not a lot higher in Toronto as you may expect because the taxes are so high.

Anyway, back to your point - I do think we should set up several employment areas i.e. NYCC, downtown, VCC, MCC, Hi-way 7 / 404 ... so on ... that's okay ... but here's the problem, many of these nodes in the 905 turn out to be sprawling waste land of big campus developments. The wost is Mississauga around the airport, where many large companies have moved their call centers / IT centers / even headquarters from across Canada (that tells you how attractive the GTA is overall) and from Toronto (tax issue) ... if you drive in this area, it's terrible how spread out things are and there will never be a fix, they're built in such a way that prevents it from being fixed.

I have more hope for VCC and MCC in the future - VCC, basically has 0 (very little) non industrial employment right now, they're starting from scratch - the other area is Markham - where it's a least somewhat concentrated around hi-way 7 and eventually the new downtown Markham ...

And how about the outer 416? Basically looks like it's done for good, no more construction ... no more employment growth, and likely a very slow decrease in employment over time.
 
Last edited:
taal said:
I'm very much in agreement on many of the issues you raised ... the one thing I'd add, on top of all that, there is a larger problem at hand in Toronto - and while many can't seem to admit it, it's taxes, and they are a big issue - just google it and you'll see many many papers / articles / ... regarding the issue. Does it effect downtown directly? No ... but the rest of the 416, of course - taxes are almost 100% higher in Toronto - think of someone at 404 and 401 vs 404 and 407 - why wouldn't you relocate to the 905 ...

Check this out:
http://www.toronto.ca/business_publications/pdf/2010-july.pdf

Taxes and Operating Costs: (Q1 2010, Q4 2009 ...)
Central Area $22.10 $21.75 $21.65 $21.58 $21.58
Suburbs $14.16 $14.09 $13.87 $13.88 $14.01

For all the talk of decreasing tax you can see we're actually increasing it in effect ... this is a per square foot charge ... it adds up fast. On top of this is the market driven net rental rates ... those are pretty close actually (market driven) and they're pretty close i.e. not a lot higher in Toronto as you may expect because the taxes are so high.
Click to expand...

If Toronto wants to lower their commercial tax rates they, of course, can.....but they would have to raise their residential taxes at the same time (money does not grow on trees).....not sure how much support for that there would be.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top