atodaso
Active Member
If opening the PATH system on weekends constitutes 'neighbourhood amenities' then we're talking different languages.
Toronto 300 Front Street West | 156.05m | 49s | Tridel | Wallman Architects
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
If opening the PATH system on weekends constitutes 'neighbourhood amenities' then we're talking different languages.
atodaso
Active Member
The types of buildings and dominant uses preclude things like bakeries, butchers, book stores, neighbourhood cafe's. The rental rates wouldn't allow it, and the spaces don't exist because the area is comprised of 50 storey towers with banks and business lobbies at their bases.
Why would you even try to make the CBD residential?
You're more likely to get markets with in-store bakeries and butchers. There are as many bookstores remaining in this area as there are in the rest of the city. "Neighbourhood" cafes can open in any retail storefront, but like any business, they have to have a business plan that will allow them to cover the rent. It's doable.
Why would you want to make the CBD partly residential? To bring life to the streets at more hours, it cuts down on commute times for those who want to live and work downtown, and it uses existing servicing more efficiently. Win, win, win. Why wouldn't you want to do it?
42
Why would you want to make the CBD partly residential? To bring life to the streets at more hours, it cuts down on commute times for those who want to live and work downtown, and it uses existing servicing more efficiently. Win, win, win. Why wouldn't you want to do it?
42
atodaso
Active Member
It makes sense to concentrate commercial density in the CBD:
- Because the CBD has almost nowhere to grow and will eventually encroach into residential areas surrounding the core. As land scarcity in the CBD builds, areas like Corktown, west of Chinatown, and all of the historic warehouse districts that surround the core will be under pressure for redevelopment.
- Union Station, 2 blocks away, is of little benefit to people living in the CBD, yet they compete for space.
- The CBD is designed for commerce. It is by design severe and inhospitable. It was never intended to be a place for baby strollers or dog walking. Nor is there a serious interest in turning it into one.
- The CBD can not accommodate the needs of a residential neighbourhood - these functions are priced out of the market, both spacially and economically.
- Residential neighbourhoods need amenities like parks and open space, community spaces, low-rent spaces for independant businesses amd other functions. If you allow the CBD to be build up with intense residential density you will place intense demand on the adjacent neighbourhoods, which are already bursting at the seams.
300 Front St W. was a misstep, if it had been delayed by 3 years commercial demands would have made sure this residential building never saw the light of day.
- Because the CBD has almost nowhere to grow and will eventually encroach into residential areas surrounding the core. As land scarcity in the CBD builds, areas like Corktown, west of Chinatown, and all of the historic warehouse districts that surround the core will be under pressure for redevelopment.
- Union Station, 2 blocks away, is of little benefit to people living in the CBD, yet they compete for space.
- The CBD is designed for commerce. It is by design severe and inhospitable. It was never intended to be a place for baby strollers or dog walking. Nor is there a serious interest in turning it into one.
- The CBD can not accommodate the needs of a residential neighbourhood - these functions are priced out of the market, both spacially and economically.
- Residential neighbourhoods need amenities like parks and open space, community spaces, low-rent spaces for independant businesses amd other functions. If you allow the CBD to be build up with intense residential density you will place intense demand on the adjacent neighbourhoods, which are already bursting at the seams.
300 Front St W. was a misstep, if it had been delayed by 3 years commercial demands would have made sure this residential building never saw the light of day.
Last edited:
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
There's a pretty nice park (Clarence Square)- complete with off-leash dog park about 300m from this building.
Lots of people walk their dogs in the area.
atodaso
Active Member
I was going to mention Clarence Square - that park is going to be in very high demand.
There is years worth of space for redevelopment in the core, including a number of buildings that have been announced but aren't going anywhere leasing-wise. Should those be filled up, it's not like business will want contiguous land with no breaks for a massive, ever growing CBD. Other areas of town will take up the slack quite nicely. There is decades worth of land available for offices in the East Bayfront, Lower Don Lands, Port Lands, and a many subway and GO stations around the city. There is no reason to fear an all-consuming CBD as it won't happen.
The people moving into this area should know what they are getting. It's their choice to buy or not in an area of limited park space.
Think twice about moving down here if you have a dog, but as ChesterCopperpot points out, there is a dog park at Clarence Square.
It's about who is prepared to pay what for the space. There is enough space for office growth in Toronto essentially forever, as already mentioned.
No disagreement there. Anyone choosing to move here will find few of those establishments. Maybe they are further down those people's priority lists.
Uh-huh. Daily, of course.
There are already people who do the reverse commute. As all-day two-way service grows, Union Station will increasingly allow people to go in the reverse direction. Meanwhile, big deal if there is competition for space. There's enough land for both business and residential space, and the area benefits with more liveliness, while the city and the environment benefits from more efficiently used space.
All bets are off? So the sky will fall?
As I have said, there is scads of space for future expansion. Scads. Decades and decades worth of it. Plan our redevelopment wisely, and there is no space apocalypse to worry about.
42
JasonParis
Moderator
Why is Midtown Manhattan nicer than Downtown? Why is the West End of London nicer than The City?
atodaso
Active Member
Because the CBD is where it belongs, and not in Midtown. Same goes for London.
atodaso
Active Member
People also know what they are getting into when they buy into sprawling suburbs. The fact is public will buy what's on offer, even if it's not the best option for their own lives, or the future growth of the city.
Clarence Sq. Is in huge demand from King West already. Start stacking people up by the thousands in the CBD and you will exceed the carrying capacity of neighbouring amenities very quickly. There is no space for new parks in the CBD.
Yes - market forces will do whatever pays at that moment without looking back. Cities must plan and good cities do plan. Cities like Houston or cities in the developing world have weak planning and can barely keep up. As a result they have some of the worst urban environments in the world.
That's poor planning. The result of this will be a transient community.
The point is these people often use these suites as secondary residences, like business hotels. They pay vast premiums for personal hotel suites and are leaving next week anyhow.
This is a viable argument but as you point out there are other transportation nodes. It doesn't justify residential concentrations in the CBD.
Presently, under MPAC property assessment's systems, as higher densities move into an area it disturbs the tax structure and begins to skew taxation rates, eventually pricing existing uses out of the market. It like a wedge that can dismantle a neighbourhood. I suppose you could say it's like the sky is falling.
By the end of this development cycle the CBD will be almost completely built out. Almost every parking lot is spoken for. Where are you getting the scads of Space from? We are seeing proposals to demolish heritage structures and cultural amenities.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Atodaso, this may surprise you, but Wall Street, the heart of the Manhattan CBD is undergoing a significant residential expansion right now. The trend of residential growth in CBDs is not simply a Toronto phenomenon, it is happening in some of the most affluent and business-centric cities around the world as people are making the "choice" to live in the heart of the city.
In Lower Manhattan, south of the WTC & Chambers Street there were only 833 residents in the 1970 census (the old concentric model of growth where only businesses located in the CBD... A nearly extinct model that has been discredited in planning circles, a model that Atodaso suggests should continue to be the case today), in the last decade the population has exploded with growth rates far exceeding the rest of the city and surprisingly families are moving in with the median household size reaching 2.2 as opposed to the average of 2.02 across Manhattan - a few new schools have even opened opened in lower Manhattan in the last five years. The population south of Chambers Street is now approaching 60,000.
Median income of that census tract around Wall Street in 2009 was $256,000 - meaning these people could afford to live anywhere, but they are "choosing" to live in the CBD along Wall Street. There have been a significant number of new high-rise residential buildings as well as office conversions all along Wall St in the last decade - in fact, by 2007, every building on the south side of Wall St with the exception of the Stock Exchange had become residential. At one point in the last decade there were over 60 residential buildings simultaneously either being built or converted from commercial uses in and around Wall Street...
So this idea that that the CBD is a place no one wants to live is absurd.
urbandreamer
recession proof
I would love to live in the CBD. Say an entire floor in one of those beautiful century old office buildings around Yonge and King.
There are so many mediocre office buildings under 30s that could be redeveloped--triple their height?!--and all those vacant plazas surrounding the office towers could be converted into parks, dog runs, future retail, you name it.
There are so many mediocre office buildings under 30s that could be redeveloped--triple their height?!--and all those vacant plazas surrounding the office towers could be converted into parks, dog runs, future retail, you name it.
taal
Senior Member
But those "plazas" are far from vacant : - ) ... but I can picture what your saying.
Its true its a big trend in NYC now ... the reason simply being economics, while the NYC office market is still great (though a little under-performing as of late, particularly the traditional downtown market) the residential market, particularly in Manhattan, moreover downtown is much much hotter !
There was an article recently about how Brookfield purchased an office tower in the downtown area (i.e. lower Manhattan) because they conversions will continue in the future and in the medium / long term it will make the remaining offices that much more attractive.
Its true its a big trend in NYC now ... the reason simply being economics, while the NYC office market is still great (though a little under-performing as of late, particularly the traditional downtown market) the residential market, particularly in Manhattan, moreover downtown is much much hotter !
There was an article recently about how Brookfield purchased an office tower in the downtown area (i.e. lower Manhattan) because they conversions will continue in the future and in the medium / long term it will make the remaining offices that much more attractive.
People prioritize their needs and then make choices. Most choices to purchase represent a compromise, as it's very rare that you can get absolutely everything you want in one location. That has happened for hundreds of years. So, weighing everything, people buy what is best for them… and there is enough on offer in Toronto that they can still make a choice, even if it's a choice that you would deny them.
Agreed that park space is tight downtown. The Oxford Place redevelopment of the Convention Centre may still include a park deck over the railway tracks. It would essentially act as a green roof over expanded/relocated convention space. We need to demand that comes to be.
I'm not arguing for no planning when I say that "It's about who is prepared to pay what for the space." The City must still decide how much land to allow residential on, and clearly all remaining blocks in the CBD (and surrounding areas) are not residential.
How long with the average buyer stay downtown? You have no data on that. Whatever it turns out to be, will that be detrimental to the area? You have no data on that either. Let's say that the average condo downtown turns over every half a dozen years. What wrong with that?
I know that heritage buildings need to be protected from rising tax rates: 401 Richmond and the like should not have to pay enormous taxes which peg the value of the land as if there were a 40-storey building on the lot. The law has to be changed to reflect the actual value of space in heritage buildings, not the potential space.
When will the end of this development cycle occur? There are already signs that office space absorption is slowing somewhat. We may not see another office tower go under construction for a few years. Meanwhile Allied REIT has redevelopment plans across the core piling up, as does Cadillac Fairview, Oxford, Brookfield, and others. There are millions of square feet of office space waiting to go ahead when there is demand for them in the CBD. 45 Bay, 156 Front Street West, 171 Front West, Oxford Place, 320 King West, Bay Adelaide North, another phase at Richmond Adelaide Centre, Globe and Mail lands at King and Spadina, 284 King East, 388 King West, QRC West Phase 2, 620 King West, and more.
The CBD has been growing south into the Southcore. 16 York is stalled awaiting tenants. 60 Harbour would likely include one office tower. The area will expand east next. There are plans to add ten storeys to the Toronto Star building and a 40-storey tower immediately east of it. There will be more office development proposed between that and Jarvis. East of that Waterfront Toronto is trying to lease space across from Corus Quay as Hines is trying east of Sherbourne Common. 3C will have space as will the Port Lands. Great Gulf is offering lots of space at its Don Roadway property, a site that is being compared to Canary Wharf.
Not all new office space has to crowd into our current core south of Dundas. The Ontario Government has a huge tower planned for Bay and Grosvenor. 1 Bloor West is a one example of where we should see something significant someday, while we have subway and GO stations all over the city which will be able to handle new office towers when market forces dictate. Office blocks are proposed for Yonge and York Mills and Yonge and Sheppard. The Yonge Eglinton Centre should be getting taller.
The sky isn't falling. There is scads of space for future office builds.
As a reminder to people as to why this is pertinent to this thread, this argument began with the complaint that it should have been offices at 300 Front West, not condominiums.
42
Last edited:
taal
Senior Member
Well to be fair there is one argument to be had in terms of keeping it zoned for offices ... while you are correct that there is huge potential for redevelopment throughout the core (i.e. additional density to existing sites / re-builds / ...) from a development point of view it is much cheaper to deal with a vacant lot.
So from a city of Toronto point of view, and keeping mind we do indeed compete with other offices nodes throughout the region one can potentially make a valid argument. Now you may say its clear that office space in the core will be more expensive to develop but at the same time commands higher rental rates. This is true of course but the extension of the subway to other green fields (e.g. Vaghaun) will likely may that space much more desirable, given 1) its on a subway line, which in it self is what many businesses look for (regardless of the benefit, i.e. it is a marking feature to potential employees) coupled with the much lower commercial property tax rates (I'll ignore land prices as those will of course rise).
But realistically speaking I don't think VCC will ever compete with the core ... but on the other hand ... areas like Y&E / NYCC, very different story ... note we've seen 0 new office space (actually the loss of it) in Y&E over the last 10/15+ years. Anyway getting sidetracked.
I do agree on the whole letting existing plots of land develop in the core won't have adverse impact, my point above is unrelated to that .
So from a city of Toronto point of view, and keeping mind we do indeed compete with other offices nodes throughout the region one can potentially make a valid argument. Now you may say its clear that office space in the core will be more expensive to develop but at the same time commands higher rental rates. This is true of course but the extension of the subway to other green fields (e.g. Vaghaun) will likely may that space much more desirable, given 1) its on a subway line, which in it self is what many businesses look for (regardless of the benefit, i.e. it is a marking feature to potential employees) coupled with the much lower commercial property tax rates (I'll ignore land prices as those will of course rise).
But realistically speaking I don't think VCC will ever compete with the core ... but on the other hand ... areas like Y&E / NYCC, very different story ... note we've seen 0 new office space (actually the loss of it) in Y&E over the last 10/15+ years. Anyway getting sidetracked.
I do agree on the whole letting existing plots of land develop in the core won't have adverse impact, my point above is unrelated to that .