Toronto Bay Adelaide Centre | 217.92m | 51s | Brookfield | KPMB

It seems that they are removing the Holt Renfrew building, and then mirroring it to the North. If you look at the rendering, even though its a pretty bad reproduction, you can make out the 'spires' from the adelaide facade I think. and the Yonge facade stays on Yonge.
 
Why isn't this building being built taller if there really is a dire demand for Class A office space. Hard to believe if there really was all this demand out there that a smart company wouldn't take advantage of this opportunity. Makes it hard to believe that a shortage or impending shortage of office space really exists.
 
DaninToronto said:
They only have so much density on the site allowed by the city. I'm not sure if this tower any taller would be close enough to cause a shadow on NPS also.
Click to expand...

Regarding the shadow, I know this would be earth shattering and mind bending for the developer, but they could gradually taper off the top of the building.
 
I think Brookfield knows better than most here what is the most profitable for them. They would build 60, 80 100 etc. if there was a profitable reason to do so.
 
Miscreant said:
Whatever the height, the developing canyon on Adelaide should bring a tear to the eye of any urban density nerd.
Click to expand...

Should it? This building will cover a large portion of possibly the nicest skyscraper in the city (Scotia Plaza). If the architecture was spectacular, than I would be more welcome to this development, but it's banal. Anyone with a ruler could have designed this. Density without good attention to detail is worthless, in my opinion. It's hard to get excited over mere density, when the aesthetics are severely bland.
 
Ed007Toronto said:
I think Brookfield knows better than most here what is the most profitable for them. They would build 60, 80 100 etc. if there was a profitable reason to do so.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my point. It is not reality that Toronto has a shortage of class A office space at the moment or into the foreseeable future otherwise, they would be building taller to take advantage of it. Easypeesy.
 
Register123 said:
This is exactly my point. It is not reality that Toronto has a shortage of class A office space at the moment or into the foreseeable future otherwise, they would be building taller to take advantage of it. Easypeesy.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Brookfield will take whatever money they save on those hypothetical floors 41-60, and build floors 1-30 on another site. Simple as that. Every floor you add at the top increases the overall cost per floor.
 
Markster said:
I'm sure Brookfield will take whatever money they save on those hypothetical floors 41-60, and build floors 1-30 on another site. Simple as that. Every floor you add at the top increases the overall cost per floor.
Click to expand...

I believe once you get above 50 floors you need either: skylobby's or double decker elevators, which greatly increases the cost. Both FCP and Scotiabank use double decker elevators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_design_and_construction#The_elevator_conundrum

Also - I'd like anyone to find me an office skyscraper built in North America (excluding the World Trade Centre) that is above 800 feet. Those days for office only buildings in NA are over (IMO).

The reality Register123 is that its more profitable for Brookfield to design, lease and build multiple 40 storey towers than it is to build one super tall.
 
Last edited:
Comcast tower in Philadelphia. 297m, Completed 2008. Bank of America tower in new York, 287m, 2009. Trump International hotel and tower, 356M, Chicago.

Proposals:

Hudson's yards north tower, 405m. New York

One Manhattan West tower, 371m. New York

Transbay Terminal Tower, 326m. San Fransisco

One Bayfront Plaza, 307m. Miami

34th and 10th street, 305m.

Two Manhatten West, 285m. New York

Hudson's Yard Coach Tower, 265m. New York

Dual Oxford proposals, 326m x 2. Toronto
 
Last edited:
Joe R. said:
Should it? This building will cover a large portion of possibly the nicest skyscraper in the city (Scotia Plaza). If the architecture was spectacular, than I would be more welcome to this development, but it's banal. Anyone with a ruler could have designed this. Density without good attention to detail is worthless, in my opinion. It's hard to get excited over mere density, when the aesthetics are severely bland.
Click to expand...

I agree with you; yet I still get excited. *shrug*
 
Demolition progressing on South of Temperance restaurant:

BAC-East-2012-Nov2.jpg
 

Attachments

  • BAC-East-2012-Nov2.jpg
    BAC-East-2012-Nov2.jpg
    44 KB · Views: 707
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top