Park Central | 134m | 39s | Hines | S.C.B.

General rating of the project

  • Great

    Votes: 25 25.8%

  • Very Good

    Votes: 53 54.6%

  • Good

    Votes: 14 14.4%

  • So So

    Votes: 4 4.1%

  • Not Very Good

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Terrible

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Total voters
    97
Rull purdy.

D4CCAFD2-255F-41A3-88DA-737E057176CA.jpeg
 
CalgaryTiger said:
The slight tweaks that have been noticed from the first phase to this one likely go unnoticed by most but has made this tower more economically efficient. Don’t actually think it’s the worst trade off.
Click to expand...

Do you mean better layouts? That's a trade off. A developer saving money on smaller balconies and more spandrel isn't going to lower rents. Value engineering on UrbanToronto is universally panned for that reason.
 
maestro said:
Do you mean better layouts? That's a trade off. A developer saving money on smaller balconies and more spandrel isn't going to lower rents. Value engineering on UrbanToronto is universally panned for that reason.
Click to expand...
I mean the project costing less to build and thus increasing the likelihood of more projects being built. More projects in turn, granted down the line, lowers rents or at least causes them to plateau. VE is never great from a design perspective but if it is the difference between a gravel lot and a 30-story apartment, I'll take the latter.
 
Last edited:
It's not in investor's best interest to be the direct cause of rents to lower or plateau from overbuilding. Developer's will never be given the opportunity to build enough units to be the cause of rents to plateau. The rental boom will cease all activities the minute signs of a downturn in values are experienced. Riocan has recently publicized a halt to all new construction to address declining values and growing debt. They are a large national player in funding rental projects.

I gather your perspective is that by lower costs lower the threshold to build. I don't see that savings being passed on to tenants so I rather wait for high quality, pretty developments over every parking filled with spandrel boxes filled with inefficient overpriced homes. A downtown weed lot or parking lot is a failure between the owner and the city to come up with a more creative temporary plan.
 
maestro said:
It's not in investor's best interest to be the direct cause of rents to lower or plateau from overbuilding. Developer's will never be given the opportunity to build enough units to be the cause of rents to plateau. The rental boom will cease all activities the minute signs of a downturn in values are experienced. Riocan has recently publicized a halt to all new construction to address declining values and growing debt. They are a large national player in funding rental projects.

I gather your perspective is that by lower costs lower the threshold to build. I don't see that savings being passed on to tenants so I rather wait for high quality, pretty developments over every parking filled with spandrel boxes filled with inefficient overpriced homes. A downtown weed lot or parking lot is a failure between the owner and the city to come up with a more creative temporary plan.
Click to expand...
I agree with your point that as soon as new projects don't make developers whole plus a healthy profit margin, they'll stop investing in new projects. My hope, which is perhaps blind hope, is that slightly more spandrel that most people don't notice, tips the economic scales a bit to something getting built. I don't want to see a skyline of spandrel. I also don't think the economics are here to facilitate a condo or tower boom, so my goal is incremental progress. With the economy and interest rates being stuck in the mud and I assume there will be smaller migration numbers I suspect things won't be as hot for as long as some had hoped. But as I said...
CalgaryTiger said:
More projects in turn, granted down the line, lowers rents or at least causes them to plateau.
Click to expand...
It's a long term or "down the line" thing where I envision people in older buildings and middle-income migrants moving to new developments that charge more rent and thus older buildings lowering or plateauing rents to incentivize people into their building. I don't think about it like commercial buildings downtown where there were so many new developments that older lower-class buildings sat empty and needed a handout for a conversion. I'm not naïve to think it will be anything like that but maybe slowly there's enough new apartment developments that those older buildings can charge more realistic prices for what their property actually is. IMO people are drastically overpaying for apartments that get away with charging that price because san apartment worth that price isn't available.
 
Toronto has already filled all its parking lots with towers that should be so much better than they are.

Quality has declined from 20 years ago. Curtain wall was more prominent when Arriva, Nuera went up. I prefer to get back to that era. This is the worst time to boom anyways. Construction and land costs are through the roof and now interest rates. The effect is that developer will have to charge a mint for rent. A boom will raise overall rents for years and the owners of the older stock will raise rents in kind. The difference between condo quality and a purpose built 1970s rental will be a percentage.difference.

People are still coming to Canada in droves. I really don't know what will happen with developers that have been juggling large debt loads for years are now getting kneecapped by the higher interest rates. It's not going to be good for that national housing crisis. Alberta is really attractive compared to most places
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top