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

[interchange42]

The story mentions "A mixed-use tower", implying that there will be a single tower rather than two or more towers on the site.

Agreed, only one tower, but despite that fact that neither condos nor a hotel were mentioned above, I believe that both may be on the table for the top of the tower. The teaser in the Montreal Gazette is just that, a teaser. It is not the official announcement with a full prospectus of what the competitors will asked to include, so it's a bit much of a leap to take the 2,000,000 square foot figure too literally. That said…

2.3 acres is almost exactly 100,000 square feet. Of course the building floorplate itself is unlikely to use more than half of that (to allow for a podium, road access, setbacks, etc.) or less than one-fifth of that -- so a floorplate of between 20,000 square feet and 50,000 square feet is likely.

… expect the Toronto Coach Terminal to move to the site, which will be incorporated into the podium.

For a two million square foot total, and assuming no taper of the building with height, that means between 40 and 100 storys. At 4m per story for an office building, that's a total height not counting roof elements, mechanical floors or extra-height podium floors of between 160m and 400m.

Expect office floors that average about 25,000 square feet, which is pretty typical for office towers. Expect an international design competition to come up with something that does including tapering or stepbacks, especially if the mixed uses include hotel and condos up top. 2,000,000 square feet at 25,000 per floor gives you an 80-storey floor count, but again, I don't think the 2,000,000 number is fixed in stone.

If Ivanhoe Cambridge is going to hold an international design competition, then the resulting design is likely to be dramatic and relatively slender (or at least not bulky) for its height, so a supertall is a distinct possibility, in my opinion. So if Oxford Place and the Toronto Star developments go ahead, we could be seeing no less than four supertalls south of the Gardiner. The Toronto Islands view would be dramatically transformed from what it is now, in that event.

Companies are not typically looking for small office floors: they aren't efficient. I would be surprised if what is proposed is slenderer than the average office tower in the core, at least for the first 60 storeys, or the bulk of whatever portion is office space. In regards to the number of supertalls, I'm not sure how one gets up to four south of the Gardiner, especially as this is north of it. (Maybe Mongo means south of the rail tracks.) In any case, this probably counts as one, while the 1 Yonge development may spur 1 as well as an approximately 100-floor condo.

42

 

[someMidTowner]

^that info makes my head spin. Exciting stuff, can't wait to hear who the architect/s will be

 

[skorji]

Maybe it'll be me. I just submitted my design on a napkin, which we all know is a pre-requisite to producing a high quality design.

 

[Mongo]

In regards to the number of supertalls, I'm not sure how one gets up to four south of the Gardiner, especially as this is north of it. (Maybe Mongo means south of the rail tracks.) In any case, this probably counts as one, while the 1 Yonge development may spur 1 as well as an approximately 100-floor condo.

Yes, I had a mental cramp when I was typing the previous post. Oxford Place is of course just north of the tracks, what I had intended to write was that there could be four supertalls at the southern edge of the Toronto main core (plus a bunch more in the 200m-299m range).

 

[Miscreant]

Also, if/when the Bay St. bus terminal moves down here--which is the perfect spot for it--we get three lots opened up on Bay: the one on the s/w side of Bay/Edward, the one on the n/w side, and then the lot on the s/w wide of Elizabeth and Edward, where most drop offs are happening right now.

 

[ShonTron]

This is a very exciting December Surprise!

 

[Big Daddy]

A design competition works well for this site as - if it is an exciting building - many tenants would be lining up to be in the biggest, most exciting office building in the new core. That would definitely help lease the space. I remember when Scotia tower was announced (more than a few years ago), it made international headlines and every major law firm in the city was vying to get into the building. There is a lot of prestige to be located in such space. For those that don’t care about prestige, there’s always The Bay/Adelaide box or any of the recent non-descript office boxes going up (Southcore, Ice etc).

 

[Mongo]

Not to mention that the location is as good as you can get. Proximity to Union Station is a big factor in attractiveness to employees working in a building, and this tower would be practically right next to it.

 

[Critique]

http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/12/11/ivanhoe-cambridge-to-make-a-splash-on-bay/

“We don’t need to pay more than the cost of building a building.”



That sentence worries me. Yet Im not 100% sure what they mean. Anyone care to elaborate?

 

[Mongo]

That sentence worries me. Yet Im not 100% sure what they mean. Anyone care to elaborate?

I thought that they were saying that for any given building design, it would cost less to build it themselves than have some other developer do so, adding a profit margin to the cost for themselves.

If they are going to hold an international design competition, I would not be too worried about them cheapening (tm) the design. There may well be design changes, but they would be for structural/engineering reasons, as was done with the Absolute towers in Mississauga.

 

[Torontovibe]

I find this very exciting. Can you imagine if we got a tower as unique and iconic as Absolute. Bring on the competition!

 

[pw20]

http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/12/11/ivanhoe-cambridge-to-make-a-splash-on-bay/

“We don’t need to pay more than the cost of building a building.â€



That sentence worries me. Yet Im not 100% sure what they mean. Anyone care to elaborate?

Critique - you have to read the quote in conjunction with the lines above it. The Caise has two options to enter the Toronto office market: acquire a portfolio of buildings or build. The quote is referring to the fact that it would cost ivanhoe more to acquire an existing building that is fully leased as the revenue multiples on those buildings are higher.


"With demand and prices for existing Canadian commercial real estate at an all time high, pension fund managers like Ivanhoe Cambridge and Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd. are in construction mode.
“Build it yourself and you’ll get it for the same money,†Tresham said.
“We don’t need to pay more than the cost of building a building"

 

[Peepers]

http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/12/11/ivanhoe-cambridge-to-make-a-splash-on-bay/

“We don’t need to pay more than the cost of building a building.â€



That sentence worries me. Yet Im not 100% sure what they mean. Anyone care to elaborate?

To understand what they mean you have to read the full context in which it was made:

With demand and prices for existing Canadian commercial real estate at an all time high, pension fund managers like Ivanhoe Cambridge and Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd. are in construction mode.

“Build it yourself and you’ll get it for the same money,†Tresham said.

What this means is with existing real estate at an all time high it makes sense to build new instead of buying an existing building.

 

[fedplanner]

So... by floor count...

1 Yonge I - 70
1 Yonge II - 70
Oxford Place I - 70
Oxford Place II - 70
1 Bloor - 75
Aura - 78
45 Bay Street - 80
Mirvish + Gehry I 82
50 Bloor - 83
Mirvish + Gehry II 84
Mirvish + Gehry III 86
1 Yonge III - 92
1 Yonge IV - 98

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

This is a great location for an office tower and a possible "super-tall" but what most excites me is a tall building that may have an international design competition. That is really exciting and something I'd like to see more of.