Toronto CIBC SQUARE | 241.39m | 50s | Hines | WilkinsonEyre

  • Thread starter Suicidal Gingerbread Man
  • Start date
I think that someMidTowner is correct about about not reviving old threads just to ask if there is any news. The mods have asked people to refrain from such behaviour in the past. Also, I think sMT's response was accurate and to-the-point. We need all members, not just mods, to work to keep the forum useful and informative.

Hanlanboy's response was clearly out of scale and needlessly aggressive. He has been been given a warning.
 
Here is some of my speculation on this site. I don't think that SITQ will likely end up being the developer of the site. So, what I would look for down the road, is a sale of the property to a Toronto-based, or Toronto-focused developer to take this lot off their hands and proceed with a full marketing of the project for a future build out.
 
GO Transit (Metrolinx) is still talking of moving the Bay Street bus station to near Union Station - most recently quoted in Star ( http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...5--ttc-contracts-out-intercity-coach-terminal ) in connection to the TTC bowing out of any operational role there - so if they are serious this would (still) seem to be the only viable site. No matter who is the end-developer I strongly suspect that any development will involve a bus station similar to the Terminus Centre-Ville in Montreal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminus_Centre-Ville_(AMT)
 
Last edited:
I really hate to bring information here without being 100% positive about it, but about a year ago I got to look through a series of drawings at my previous office for the 45 Bay project. This information is out of date and has most likely either been shelved or revised, but I'll share nonetheless.

The drawings showed a tower on the 45 Bay st. which looked strikingly similar to Simmons hall at MIT, except vertical. Google it if you've never seen it before, it's beautiful. The box cut outs had trees & gardens. The tower shown was shorter then the massing render found earlier in this thread. It was a year ago so I can't quite remember, but I think it was around 50 stories.

The first two floors would be the new bus terminal and would have a fair amount of retail. It also had connections to a future Union Station eastern expansion, which was a new concourse underneath the tracks at street level on the east side of Bay - north of the 45 Bay site. It showed new access to the platforms that would be expanded eastward well past the train shed. Furthermore, the plans showed a future tower on the current bus terminal to be taller then the 45 bay tower, but no design was shown - just a simple box.

Again, this information is out of date and should not be taken too seriously. I feel that if it was to go ahead as described above, we'd already know about it. But I know how much people love to speculate here, so go nuts :)
 
Ivanhoe mulling development of prime Toronto site: sources

A prime Toronto site, held quietly for years by owner Ivanhoe Cambridge Group as an empty parking lot, is now on the “front-burner†for development, multiple real-estate sources say.

In recent months, the real-estate arm of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec has been discreetly promoting the site at 45 Bay St. to industry, fueling speculation that a mixed commercial project with more than one million square feet of office space could be in the works for 2017.

“They’re more active on the site than they’ve been in years,†one real-estate source said.

.....

In the publication, Tresham said Ivanhoe Cambridge’s plan is to develop 45 Bay St. as a “one- to 2-million-square-foot office complex, perhaps with retail and multi-family components.â€

Still, Ivanhoe Cambridge has yet to sign an agreement with an anchor tenant for the office development.

Ivanhoe Cambridge called 45 Bay St. one of many opportunities in the development pipeline.
Click to expand...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/busi...lopment+prime+Toronto+site/7359059/story.html
 
Northern Magus said:
I sure hope not.

If so, combined with the Mirvish-Gehry project, it will probably herald the end of the current building/economic cycle.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not imply causation. In other words, whether or not this proposal is revealed as being a thousand footer has no causal effect on whether the economy is currently on the verge of a crash. As of now, either it is or it isn't. And if the curtain is indeed coming down, why shouldn't we be hopeful that we can squeeze a quality supertall out of it?
 
Ramako said:
Correlation does not imply causation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that astounding flash of insight, Captain Obvious. Pity you missed the words "probably" and, more importantly, "herald".

When Barclays are writing about the Skyscraper Index and describing it as an "unhealthy correlation", it should not be dismissed so blithely.

Would you like yourself and roughly 30% of your friends to be jobless for 3 years just to "squeeze a supertall" out of the current business cycle?

Y'know, I rather suspect that you would.
 
Northern Magus said:
Thanks for that astounding flash of insight, Captain Obvious. Pity you missed the words "probably" and, more importantly, "herald".

When Barclays are writing about the Skyscraper Index and describing it as an "unhealthy correlation", it should not be dismissed so blithely.

Would you like yourself and roughly 30% of your friends to be jobless for 3 years just to "squeeze a supertall" out of the current business cycle?

Y'know, I rather suspect that you would.
Click to expand...

no need to get personal.

look at Earlier in the boom, we had two supertall proposals that came along, and the boom just kept on moving, albeit with one cancelled and the other one with a height reduction.

this could be well over 320m if you use 80 floors of 25,000 square feet... (4m ceiling hieghts) but it could also be as little as 160m using the same stats, but with 40 floors. (thats 1 million square feet)
 
1-2 million square feet is big but not close to supertall big

first canada place 298m with huge floorplates is a whopping 2.7million sq ft, but scocia which is still 275m only has 1.6 due to slimmer

look at rbc dextra its 186ms and 1.2 million sq ft


so 1-2 million sq feet depending on how thin the building is will be 180m-280m
 
Northern Magus said:
Thanks for that astounding flash of insight, Captain Obvious. Pity you missed the words "probably" and, more importantly, "herald".

When Barclays are writing about the Skyscraper Index and describing it as an "unhealthy correlation", it should not be dismissed so blithely.

Would you like yourself and roughly 30% of your friends to be jobless for 3 years just to "squeeze a supertall" out of the current business cycle?
Click to expand...

I don't understand. You spent the first half of your post lambasting me for pointing out the obvious, that economic troubles are often correlated to, rather than caused by, skyscraper construction, but then you seem to imply (in the part I bolded) that building supertalls (i.e. overbuilding) would, in and of itself, cause an economic downtown (i.e. 30% of people becoming unemployed). Which is it?

Listen, I don't want an economic downturn anymore than anyone else, but if it's coming, it's coming because of low-interest rates, high debt loads and shaky international credit markets. Skyscraper construction is merely a symptom of that, not the cause. So, yes, if people are going to be foolishly taking out loans they can't afford anyway, I'd rather that money be spent on condos and office towers in Toronto than on more perishable or intangible goods like sports cars, wardrobes and lavish vacations. One way or another, the money is being spent, which is unfortunate, but at least in the case of land development, it's being spent on additional housing and office stock, which is indeed a good thing.

Northern Magus said:
Y'know, I rather suspect that you would.
Click to expand...

Geez, do you have some kind of beef with me or something?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top