Improve kpmb+big booklet

19,302 views
20,672 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
19,302
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Improve kpmb+big booklet

  1. 1. 1RECONNECTED. We’re tyingit all together; a city-like parkinspires a park-like city.THEGAR
  2. 2. 2We are not throwing it awayanymore. Every bit of our city isa vital piece of stored energypoised to be reused.Our Gardiner has the potentialto activate an enlightened citybuilding initiative. The Constraintbecomes an Opportunity.
  3. 3. 3
  4. 4. 4We will use our city differently. Wewill build on a paradigm shift that isalready underway. Transit, bicyclesand pedestrians are reorganizingthe flows of movement and thecirculation of city blocks. Publicspace will surround, integrate &incorporate the traffic.
  5. 5. 5
  6. 6. 6As the city becomes more park-like,the park becomes more city-like.Betsy Barlow Rogers, founder central Park ConservancyWe are converting THE GAR.Its a highway; a GO station;a new community & neighbourhood.New parts of the city are forming...inhabited landforms are rising.It is Park City.
  7. 7. 7
  8. 8. 8
  9. 9. 9Reconnected. THE GAR provides a New Sectional Relationship between city, motorway and waterfront.
  10. 10. 10Hybrid forms of cross-sections create hybrid structures with multiple programs (civic, commercial, retail, &
  11. 11. 11recreational) running between the new mezzanine level, the top of the infrastructure, and the waterfront.
  12. 12. 12
  13. 13. 13
  14. 14. 14the gar_project overviewThe greatest constraints often lead to themost interesting solutions. Think of theGardiner as a resource for building Toronto’sfuture urban space and reuse this copiousstructure. We are using design to make aradical revision of the Gardiner, using it togenerate a new kind of neighbourhood, anew kind of city, THE GAR.We are capturing the best qualities andopportunities of the Gardiner’s form,and reducing it’s ill effects. Rather thanentombing it, we are reconfiguring andreusing the existing landscape around it,to make it part of a dynamic connectorof clusters of public space augmented byexisting earth berms and strategic north-south arterials.It’s time we stoplooking at the Gardineras wasteland.Why not let thepublic space surroundthe traffic?
  15. 15. 15Site = keystone at the epicenter of amassive reinvestment in Toronto’s future.It will serve 42,000 new residents, 20,500employees and millions of annual visitorsand be anchored by a new transit hubs.Greatest barrier = not the Gardiner but theRail Corridor. The Rail Corridor is skirtedby Isolated Neighbourhoods. Creating theClustered Islands of Distillery District,Olympic Park, West Don Lands, and theLower Donlands. The eccentricity of the sitedemands a special response. The land issurrounded and traversed by major regionaltransportation corridors.Removing this section of the elevatedGardiner is extremely difficult and costly inthe short and medium term. But by movingLakeshore Boulevard out from under theGardiner and reshaping it, the elevatedGardiner has a potential to become amonumental pedestrian Colonnade to thelake and along 20 acres of new public spacelining both sides of the Keating Channel.480 Lakeshore property can be transformedinto a new public ground at thelevel of a man-made Mountain with anintense urban life at multi-levels. Departingfrom the conventional logic of streets andblocks this new ground is penetrated bycourtyards, passages, terraces, & bridges.
  16. 16. 16the gar_project overviewTHE GAR has the capacity to accommodatea whole new neighbourhood!Max Non-Residential + Residential GFA= 300,000 m2Max Residential GFA = 198,200 m2Max Parking Capacity = 3000 carsWe propose a landscape platform, a singleseamless topography tying all the elementstogether.Within and atop the mountain an intenseprogram of new uses will serve the need forretail, cultural and civic uses and create anew residential and employment communitywhich will animate the intricate multi-levelnetwork of interconnected public spaces.The coming shift in our use of the cityis reflected in a phased reduction ofthe Gardiner and its conversion into aSustainable Hybrid Link.The Pedestrian Infrastructure ties all thepieces together through a network ofpedestrian routes and ramps forming aseamless landscape topography.We are suggesting an inversion: why notlet the public space surround the traffic?Providing easy access for the pedestriansand bikers, it is possible to regain thewaterfront. We are moving the publicprogram towards the most attractive placeand integrating the heavy traffic under thecover of a public level.
  17. 17. 17Inhabited land forms:topographic manipulations, alternatingplateaus and terraces.Programmed landforms:apartments, plaza, skating.Atop the undulating high level publiclandscape of the mountain shaped by thesurrounding topography of embankmentsand the dynamic form of the elevatedstructures, strategically placed towerscontain a mix of uses including residentialunits with remarkable views.Provide the city with views never beforeexperienced.Buildings are treated as landscape concepts.There will be a transit plaza, greenroofscapes/landscapes. The gardinerbecomes an elevated park and theunderpass a public spaceThe site completes the Missing Link in theregional greenspace connecting DistilleryDistrict, Don Lands, Lower Don Lands, NewGO Station, District Energy Centre.It is an ecology unto itself, andcelebrates an exhilarating wayof entering Toronto.
  18. 18. 18
  19. 19. 19
  20. 20. 20
  21. 21. 21
  22. 22. 22Phasing THE GARis a process of evolutionand acceleration.We’re not untying aknot, we’re tying it alltogether.the gar_project phasingWe feel that the real creative opportunitylies in looking at THE GAR as a phenomenonof evolution. Incremental transformationof the space between the City and theLake from a barrier to a fertile ground forconnectivity.The transformation weans us away fromour reliance on a six-lane, controlled accesshighway that carries roughly 200,000 carsper day from the west and 120,000 cars perday from the east. We propose highly visible,affordable and useful transformations atearly stages that incorporate public transitand pedestrian routes that accelerate thisprocess decreasing the reliance on singleoccupancy vehicles.PHASE 1PHASE 2PHASE 3
  23. 23. 23The key idea for tying the 3km stretch ofstudy area together is the managementof flows through the  landscape and thetopographic manipulations that support thisnew enhanced circulation.The 480 site becomes the confluence pointof all the infrastructure systems. A path system ties the site  together. Bikepath infrastructure literally connects andmerges into the mountain’s path sinuouslyat the top level podium. The Gardiner grid system is multiplied andextended into the mountain site, both as thestructural grid for the new forms and as thelandscape planting grid for the linear parkunder the Gardiner.One organizing proportional system appliesto both the new and existing pieces.
  24. 24. 24existing district islandsClusters of disconnected neighbourhood islands.
  25. 25. 25!RECONNECTED.A new urban topography, a sinuouslandscape solving accessibility, but alsotying all the disjointed clusters backtogether. A new eco-infrastructure.
  26. 26. 26Biggest obstacle for accessibility =rail corridor+GardinerDisconnected neighbourhoods.
  27. 27. 27Proposed PanAm Games Olympic Park + District EnergyCentre + 480 Lakeshore SiteCan the existing topography of the rail corridor berms inform acongruent connection?
  28. 28. 28re-tying the knot.Strategic passages across minimal interventions.
  29. 29. 29
  30. 30. 30
  31. 31. 31
  32. 32. 32
  33. 33. 33
  34. 34. 34
  35. 35. 35Design ElementsAligned with it and forming its northernedge the 480 Lakeshore property offers anew development site calling for a unique(and phase-able) treatment. This departsfrom the conventional logic of streets andblocks and develops new public groundat the level of a man-made ‘bluff’ with anintense urban life at multi-levels penetratedby courtyards and passages at street level.This site is the keystone at the epicenterof a massive reinvestment in the creationof the East Bayfront, the Distillery District,the West Donlands, and the Lower Donlandswhich will serve 1000s of new residents andemployees and millions of annual visitors.
  36. 36. 36NS Connectionsthe gar_project design elementsA powerful design driven program ofperpendicular moves directed towardthe water can alleviate the  barrierof the rail corridor and betterconnect neighbourhoods all alongthe waterfront.
  37. 37. 1
  38. 38. 2
  39. 39. 37CONCERT STAGESHOPFRONTS HANGING GARDENARBORETUMSECTION- BETWEEN JARVIS AND SHERBOURNESECTION- JARVIS INTERSECTIONDON’T USE THISCONCERT STAGESHOPFRONTS HANGING GARDENARBORETUMSECTION- BETWEEN JARVIS AND SHERBOURNESECTION- JARVIS INTERSECTION
  40. 40. 38ART PARK NOISE CATHEDRALCINEMASECTION- BETWEEN JARVIS AND SHERBOURNESECTION- BETWEEN SHERBOURNE AND PARLIAMENT
  41. 41. 39ART PARK NOISE CATHEDRALCINEMASECTION- BETWEEN JARVIS AND SHERBOURNESECTION- BETWEEN SHERBOURNE AND PARLIAMENTBIKE PATHSECTION- BETWEEN PARLIAMENT AND CHERRY
  42. 42. 40RAILYARD PARKURBAN BOULEVARDSECTION- BETWEEN BOOTH AND LESLIESECTION- BETWEEN DON RIVER AND BOOTHRAILYARD PARKURBAN BOULEVARDSECTION- BETWEEN BOOTH AND LESLIESECTION- BETWEEN DON RIVER AND BOOTH
  43. 43. 41RAILYARD PARKTOBOGGAN HILLSECTION- BETWEEN DON RIVER AND BOOTHSECTION- JUST EAST OF CHERRY
  44. 44. 42ART WALLWIDENED SIDEWALKNEW STREET PAVINGBERMED ART PARKSHERBOURNE PARKSTREET LOWERED UNDER BERMSHOPFRONTDENSE TREE PLANTINGNOISE CATHEDRALBIKE PATH
  45. 45. 43DISTILLERY DISTRICTCONTINUOUS BRICK PAVINGTO WATERFRONTBIKE PATHPEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS SHOPFRONT
  46. 46. 44Rail Bermsthe gar_project design elementsA new public space offersan interconnected networkof public park space at thegrade level.
  47. 47. 45
  48. 48. 46
  49. 49. 47
  50. 50. 48the gar_project design elementsBridges The scheme’s primary new spatial elementsbecome inhabited bridges. Four newstructures augment the existing system ofbridges and intensify the density of spatialrelationships and uses. Along the DonValley’s north-south axis, inhabited bridge-cities use the program to link two partsof the City that conflict in both scale andcharacter. The inhabited bridges are bothhorizontal and vertical connectors, withramps, escalators, and elevators that linkthe lower levels of the Valley to the upperlevels of the historical city. Each bridgeaccommodates two categories of use: inthe core element, public or commercial use,and at the deck level, pedestrian traffic andrelated uses.MUNITION STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER THE RAIL CORRIDOR
  51. 51. 49
  52. 52. 50
  53. 53. 51Go Station At the heart of this new district thetemporary GO Station for the Pan AmGames should become a permanent fixtureserving this major new pole of investmentwhich parallels and exceeds that which ishappening to the west in Liberty Village.This integrated whole has the potentialto achieve a new level of sustainabilityin forming a pattern of transit orienteddevelopment served by GO and Light Rail onQueens Quay and Cherry Street.
  54. 54. 52Mountain Podiumthe gar_project design elementsThe design proposes a continuous,constructed landscape forming anuninterrupted Z-shaped “green” platform/mountain, that rises over the existingGardiner and Lake Ontario. The mountaincapitalizes on views of the skyline and theLake reconnects the urban core to therevitalized waterfront.Within and atop the podium, an intenseprogram of new uses will serve the needfor retail, cultural and civic uses and newresidential and employment uses which willanimate the intricate multi-level network ofinterconnected public spaces.  
  55. 55. 53This man-made ‘bluff’ provides a remarkablenew vantage point overlooking the harbourand new public landscape similar in size toTrinity Bellwoods Park integrated with  newlinks to the West Donlands and Don RiverPark. On top of this undulating high levelpublic landscape (shaped by the surroundingtopography of embankments and thedynamic form of the elevated structures)strategically placed towers contain a mixof uses including residential units withremarkable views.
  56. 56. 54Circulation diagram for the 480 Lakeshore Site.
  57. 57. 55
  58. 58. 56the gar_project design elementsThe landscape design abstracts two ofToronto’s iconic geographic typologies,the bluff and the ravine. The landscapesubtypes- savannah (moist and dry),meadow, bluff, and ravine (moist slope andriparian slope) are all part of the largerCarolinian matrix.The two elevational extremes of bluffand ravine inspire an abutment of thetopographic experiences of the man-made podium to the familiar experienceof Toronto’s most iconic landscapes, theScarborough Bluffs and the Ravine System.Gathering spaces along the ‘bluff’ zoneconnect the buildings, and are made lushwith orchards, community gardens and playareas throughout.The ravine landscape strategy under theGardiner colonnade and along the KeatingChannel is activated with recreationalprogramming such as a swimming pool andrestaurant pavilions. In spirit, it creates acovered boardwalk feel.Park SystemTHE GAR asGathering Space.
  59. 59. 57
  60. 60. 58BLUFFSAVANNAH DRYSAVANNAH MOISTMEADOWRAVINE SLOPERAVINE RIPARIAN
  61. 61. 59PinusbanksiiJackPineBLUFF SAVANNAHDRY SAVANNAHMOISTMEADOW RAVINESLOPE RAVINERIPARIANPinusbanksiiJackPineRhustyphinaStaghornSumacRhusaromaticaFragrantSumacBetulaalleghaniensisYellowBirchAmelenchierarboreaServiceberryAcersaccharumSugarMapleAcersaccharumSugarMapleCalmagrostiscanadensisCanadabluejointScirpuscyperinusWool-grassAsclepiastuberosaAsterericoidesHeathasterWildbergamotHelianthusdivaricatusElymuscanadensisCanadianWildRyeQuercusvelutinaBlackOakQuercusalbaWhiteOakJuglanscinereaButternutSalixpetiolarisSlenderwillowQuercusPalustrisPinOakQuercusmacrocarpaBuroakQuercusbicolorSwmpWhiteOakCoylusamericanaAmericanHazelPrunusvirginianaChokeCherryCornusamomumssp.obliquaSilkyDogwoodAndropogongerardiiBigBluestemSorghastrumnutansIndianGrassRhustyphinaStasghornSumacSambucuscanadensisCommonElderberryPopulusgrandidentataLarge-toothAspenPopulustremuloidesTremblingAspenLandscape plantng strategy for 480 Lakeshore site.
  62. 62. 60PinusbanksiiJackPineRhustyphinaStaghornSumacRhusaromaticaFragrantSumacBetulaalleghaniensisYellowBirchAmelenchierarboreaServiceberryAcersaccharumSugarMapleAcersaccharumSugarMapleCalmagrostiscanadensisCanadabluejointClalmagrostiscanadensisCanadabluejointPanicumvirgatumSwitchgrassPanicumvirgatumSwitchgrassScirpuscyperinusWool-grassAsclepiastuberosaButterflymilkweedAsclepiastuberosaButterflymilkweedHairyasterAsterpilosusHairyasterAsterpilosusAsterericoidesHeathasterMenthaarvensisWildmintMenthaarvensisWildmintLiatriscylindraceaCylindricBlazingStarVerbenastrictaHoaryVervainMonardafistulosaWildbergamotMonardafistulosaWildbergamotHelianthusdivaricatusWildsunflowerCarexbebbiiBebb’sSedgeCarexstipataAwl-fruitedSedgeCarexlaevivaginataSmooth-sheatedSedgeSolidagoaltissimaTallgoldenrodSolidagoaltissimaTallgoldenrodFragariavirginianaWildstrawberryFragariavirginianaWildstrawberryRudbeckiahirtaBlack-eyedSusanElymuscanadensisCanadianWildRyeQuercusvelutinaBlackOakQuercusalbaWhiteOakQuercusrubraRedOakPrunusserotinaBlackCherryJuglanscinereaButternutBetulapapyriferaWhiteBirchOstryavirginianaIronwoodSalixpetiolarisSlenderwillowCaryaglabraPignuthickoryQuercusPalustrisPinOakQuercusmacrocarpaBuroakQuercusbicolorSwmpWhiteOakCoylusamericanaAmericanHazelPrunusvirginianaChokeCherryPrunusvirginianaChokeCherryCornusamomumssp.obliquaSilkyDogwoodAndropogongerardiiBigBluestemCarexeburneaBlack-fruitedSedgeMatteuciastruthiopterisAmericanOsterichFernAndropogongerardiiBigBluestemSchizachyriumscopariumLittleBluestemCarexpedunculataEarly-floweringSedgeDryopterisintermediaGlandularWoodFernCarexvulpinoideaFoxSedgeElymushystrixBottlebrushgrassAsarumcanadenseWildgingerSorghastrumnutansIndianGrassCarexblandaCommonWoodSedgeRhustyphinaStaghornSumacRibesnigroBlackcurrantRhustyphinaStasghornSumacCornusstoloniferaRed-osierDogwoodSambucuscanadensisCommonElderberryPolystichumarostichoidesChristmasFernDryopterismarginalisMarginalWoodFernAthyriumfelix-feminaNortheasternLadyFernElymusripariusRiverbankWildRyePopulusgrandidentataLarge-toothAspenPopulustremuloidesTremblingAspenDRYSAVANNAHMOISTSAVANNAHRAVINERIPARIANRAVINESLOPEBLUFFMEADOW
  63. 63. 61
  64. 64. 62
  65. 65. 63
  66. 66. 64
  67. 67. 65OVERALL CHANNEL EDGE IN CONTEXT
  68. 68. 66Towersthe gar_project design elementsCONCEPT DIAGRAMSPROGRAM DISTRIBUTED PROGRAM MASSING & SITE BARRIERSSITE ACCESS GREEN CONTINUITYCULTURAL /RECREATIONRETAILCOMMERCIALRESIDENTIALPARKING
  69. 69. 67BLOCKED VIEWS PULL UP TO HIGHWAY LEVEL PERFECT VIEWS!EAST-WEST CONNECTION FOR LAKESHORE BLVD E PEDESTRIAN PATH
  70. 70. 68TERRACESCOULDCLIMBUPTHISSIDE,CONTINUINGTHEGREENSTRIPSPUBLICACCESS AREASDRAMATIC VIEWS!RESIDENTIALPODIUMCOMMUNITY FUNCTIONSPACESSECTION A-A SECTION B-BAABBRESIDENTIAL TOWER PROGRAM AND CIRCULATION
  71. 71. 69EASTWEST SOUTH NORTHMEPRISERSRESIDENTIAL TOWER TYPICAL PLANS AND UNIT MIXEASTWEST SOUTH NORTHMEPRISERSSTUDIOSTUDIO W/DEN1 BEDROOM1 BEDROOM W/DEN2 BEDROOM2 BEDROOM W/DENCOMMUNITY AMENITIESPUBLIC AMENITIESTOTAL GFA = 30,000m2UNIT TYPE QTY AVG AREASTUDIO 31 <45m2STUDIO W/DEN 27 45m21 BEDROOM 87 50m21 BEDROOM W/DEN 112 62m22 BEDROOM 39 70m22 BEDROOM W/DEN 26 >100m2
  72. 72. 70F10F9F8F7F6F5F4F3F2GFF20F19F18F17F16F15F14F13F12F11F30F29F28F27F26F25F24F23F22F21F40F39F38F37F36F35F34F33F32F31RESIDENTIAL TOWER TYPICAL PLANS AND UNIT MIX
  73. 73. 71VOID BALCONY TRIANGLE BALCONY PIXEL BALCONY WAVE BALCONYFACADE STRATEGIES PROVIDE VARIATION IN VIEWS & PRIVACY
  74. 74. 72SITE SECTION A-AASITE SECTION B-BBSITE SECTION C-CCSITE SECTION D-DD
  75. 75. 73COMMERCIAL TOWER TYPICAL PLANS AND ELEVATIONSNORTHEASTSOUTHWEST
  76. 76. 74the gar_project sustainability strategySustainable designprovides solutions thatare more than green.The first priority is thehuman experience– social sustainability.
  77. 77. 75Sustainable Innovations for THE GARwill promote environmental and urbanstewardship through leveraging currentand proposed infrastructure with thesite’s inherent energies, ecologies andcommunities. The key to providing sustainable solutionsfor modern urban development is to takean integrated systems approach wherecomponents of the design complimenteach other and function more effectivelyas a whole.  Sustainability measurescan be integrated into each of the majorinfrastructures by considering the naturalelements, such as soil, water, and wind, andhow they can be incorporated in both thesummer and winter seasons.  A direct heat exchange system betweenthe Gardiner and the Keating channel couldreduce thermal stress and maintenance forthe pavement and provide a recreationalpublic water space. This would involve aclosed-loop, in-slab hydronic system whereembedded pipes beneath the surface helpregulate the temperature of the pavement.The pipes would be filled with a water-glycolsolution, and the improved heat capacityof the pavement would prevent freezing inthe wintertime. In the summer the Gardinerwould act as a solar collector to heat thewater of a public swimming area withinthe Keating channel. Selected zones of theKeating channel will be transformed into asolar heated public spa where minimizedmaintenance is provided by well balancedcleansing systems, developed for large scale
  78. 78. 76outdoor applications. The channel couldalso have areas designated for canoeing andkayaking. A passive lighting system using a highlyreflective ceiling, skylights, and reflectivefacades on adjacent buildings could brightenthe space beneath the Gardiner, creating amore welcoming atmosphere, and reducingenergy needs. Lining the Gardiner withsound barriers and green walls will helpabsorb noise and air pollution. The soundbarriers could be covered with Photovoltaicsto generate electricity which could be fedback to the grid. New structures, vegetationand trees will provide windbreaks, reducewind-chill, and create a more invitingenvironment for pedestrians and drivers.  A sloping, vegetated Mountain will cover twolevels of underground parking and provideroughly 74,000 square metres of greenspace for trees, meadows, and communitygardens. Large skylights will allow beamsof light to shine through the structure,illuminating the landscape beneath. Anintegrated irrigation system using rainwatercollection and cisterns would keep thespace green throughout the growing season.A community compost collection systemcould help build soil and fertilize communitygardens. The Mountain will also contributeto urban heat island reduction by providingshade trees, green space, reflective surfacesand limiting the areas of exposed asphalt. The UV treated stormwater from thestormwater management system outlined in
  79. 79. 77the West Don Lands Precinct Plan/KeatingNorth Lands Plan could be pumped up to theMountain surface for utilization as a watersource for a water feature such as a streamand waterfall.  The UV treatment system hasto be pumped in its current configuration upto the Mountain surface allowing the addedbenefit of creating a water feature. The UVtreated water would continue to dischargeto the Keating Channel to facilitate an inflowat the east end of the channel. The design offers improved aesthetics,air quality, and living environment forthe area under and around the Gardinerexpressway. Adjacent buildings will benefitfrom the improved visual quality, publictransportation and traffic circulation. Localfood production, reduced energy needs, andsmall scale renewable energy will contributeto Toronto’s plan to become a greener city, aPARK city. 
  80. 80. 78Noise absorbing wallscladded with Photovoltaicsreduce noise emissions andprovide maximum yield forgreen powerDaylight redirectionbelow GardinerPublic solar heated spaKeating ChannelDirect heat exchangeGardiner acts as solarcollector for heatingof the keating channelGreen noise absorberimprove air qualityFacade pattern enhanceoutdoor lighting /quality of public realmEmbeded piping in new Gardinerpavement reduces theremal stressand maintenancesummer
  81. 81. 79Daylight redirectionbelow GardinerDirect heat exchangewith water from KeatingChannel as heat source in winterEmbeded piping in newGardiner pavement preventsfrost and reduces maintenanceand thermal stress to enhance daylightconditionto brighten spaceWINTER
  82. 82. 80the gar_project transportation and circulationWe foresee a solutionthat produces highlyvisible, affordable anduseful change at earlystages anticipating andincorporating transitand pedestrian routesthat accelerate thisprocess and decreasethe reliance on singleoccupancy vehicles.There is an extraordinary opportunity toforge a new integrated urban landscapethat will tie these existing and emergingneighbourhoods together with big shapingmoves and a rich palette of textures,lighting, furnishings, vegetation andimproved connections through the railwayand Gardiner corridors, the water’s edgepromenades, and an expansive park and trailnetwork.
  83. 83. 81
  84. 84. 82NRegional Through RoutesMajor ArterialsKey Neighborhood StreetsNetworks
  85. 85. 83NNetworksGoTransitLRTBusBike/PedStationPlatform
  86. 86. 84the gar_project economicsWe do not see a singular solution butrather a set of affordable interventions. Notone gateway but multiple strategies thatfacilitate and encourage movement.Great density and mix is anticipated alongthis corridor and the new neighbourhoodsformed in this interstitial territory willnot exist in isolation but in a very realsense will be an extension of borderingneighbourhoods. We do not see a singularsolution but rather a set of affordableinterventions. Multiple strategies thatfacilitate and encourage movement.APPENDIX
  87. 87. 85Innovative Design CompetitionMaster Plan Summary Table TEAM: BSUMMARYA B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q RBlockNumberBlock Description Block Type Site Area(Hectares)MaximumBlock Height(m)AverageBlock Height(m)MaximumBuildingStoreysTotal(GFA m2)Office % Office(GFA m2)Retail % Retail(GFA m2)Residential % Residential(GFA m2)Other % Other(GFA m2)Phase # Notes1 Ds 10 10 2 7,796 0% 0 100% 7,796 0% 0 0% 0 3 Retail, Service2 Ds 127 127 40 143,974 30% 43,192 10% 14,397 40% 57,590 20% 25,000 1 Mix Use w integrated parking str3 Ds 5 5 1 4,176 0% 0 100% 4,176 0% 0 0% 0 3 Big Box Retail4 Ds 127 127 40 57,398 28% 16,071 20% 11,480 52% 29,847 0% 0 1 Mix Use5 Ds 127 127 40 65,165 32% 20,853 22% 14,336 46% 29,976 0% 0 1 Mix use6 Ds 5 5 1 6,704 0% 0 100% 6,704 0% 0 0% 0 2 Big Box Retail7 Ds 60 60 20 37,000 100% 37,000 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 1 Commercial0 0 0 08 Park Podium Level Pa 0 37,100 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 1,2,3 Public Amenity9 Park at Grade Level Pa 0 12,216 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 3 Public Amenity10 Arcade Park Pa 0 17,986 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 2 Public Amenity0 0 0 011 Jarvis to Sherbourne Pa 0 0 0 7,191 0% 0 15% 1,064 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity12 Sherbourne to Parliament Pa 0 0 0 12,554 0% 0 6% 753 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity13 Parliament to Cherry Pa 0 0 0 3,377 0% 0 32% 1,087 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity14 Don Valley to Booth Pa 0 0 0 32,557 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity15 Booth to Logan Pa 0 0 0 2,406 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity16 Logan to Morse Pa 0 0 0 2,062 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity17 Morse to Carlaw Pa 0 0 0 1,899 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity18 Carlaw to Winnifred Pa 0 0 0 7,992 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity19 Winnifred to Larchmount Pa 0 0 0 3,042 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity20 Larchmount to Rushbrooke Pa 0 0 0 3,651 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity21 Rushbrooke to Leslie Pa 0 0 0 3,687 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Public Amenity0 0 0 0Site Area: 15 Acres including roads 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00.00 469,932 117,116 61,794 117,412 25,000PHASESB Auto-CalculationPhaseNumberADescriptionWe are proposing a form of intensive development, highly beneficial tointensive transit-oriented development which has  great revenue potentialfor strategic city-owned lands.
  88. 88. 86Lakeshore / Gardiner CompetitionJune 24, 2010Public Realm Infrastructure EstimateRemarksNorth / South ConnectionsCostCost1Jarvis Street Underpass (under rail corridor)26(3)41(1)26,300(4)28,035,80026(3)6(1)13,150(7)2,051,4002Sherbourne Street Underpass (under rail corridor)29(3)41(1)26,300(4)31,270,70029(3)6(1)13,150(7)2,288,1003Parliament Street Underpass (under rail corridor)40(3)41(1)26,300(4)43,132,00040(3)6(1)13,150(7)3,156,0004Cherry Street Underpass (under rail corridor)55(3)44(2)26,300(4)63,646,00055(3)6(2)13,150(7)4,339,5005Trinity Street Pedestrian Underpass (under rail corridor)60725,000(4)10,500,000Previously included in separate budget6Munition Street Pedestrian Bridge (over rail corridor)156,500(5)19,500,000Sub‐Total176,584,50031,335,000Realignment of Lakeshore Blvd.CostCostDemolition of Lakeshore Blvd ‐ existing road removed745m400m(4)298,000Roadwork, Sidewalks & PathsRealign Lakeshore Blvd (Road Infrastructure) Allowance and Costs745m10,000m(4)7,450,000Relocate Gardiner Columns (near Cherry Street)New columns, assume0No.810,000(4)0Beams0No.40,000(4)0Impacted columns10No.25,000(4)250,000Protect surrounding areas1Sum(4)1,600,000Relocate Gardiner Columns (west of Don River)New columns, assume4No.810,000(4)3,240,000Beams2No.40,000(4)80,000Impacted columns4No.25,000(4)100,000Protect surrounding areas1Sum(4)1,000,000Gardiner Columns Protection at widened Don River /Sediment BasinNorth Bound ‐ existing outside Don River5No.1,000,000North Bound ‐ existing inside Don River1No.200,000South Bound ‐ existing outside Don River8No.1,600,000South Bound ‐ existing inside Don River2No.400,000Intersection Improvements (Pedestrian Crossing) at Cherry St & Lakeshore Blvd.1Item(4)1,500,000MechanicalExisting 2m filtered water tunnel 30m below gradeServices included in Municipal Infrastructure Costs BelowElectrical58No.5,000290,000Traffic Signals4 way intersection, traffic signals1No.100,000100,000"T" intersection, traffic signals2No.100,000200,000Sub‐‐Total for Realignment Lakeshore Blvd. Bridge extension30m72m5,200(4)11,232,000Harbour Lead Bridge ‐ Average width of 7m7m72m5,7002,872,800Sub‐Total14,104,80019,308,000Municipal Infrastructure CostsUnit CostCostUnitUnit CostCostSite Servicing Costs (480 Site) (based on 2000m of ground level streets)Utility Tunnel900.0m7,5006,750,000Watermain Distribution System2,000.0m1,5003,000,000Sanitary Sewer Collection Pipework2,000.0m1,0002,000,000Sanitary Sewer SPS1LS3,000,0003,000,000Storm Sewer Collection System Pipework2,000.0m7501,500,000SWM ‐ Ground Level Quality Control System5No.200,0001,000,000SWM ‐ Storage1LS1,500,0001,500,000SWM ‐ UV Treatment System1LS1,000,0001,000,000SWM ‐ Treated Outlet Pipe to Mountain500.0m300150,000Lake Irrigation System1LS1,000,0001,000,000Pipework Crossings of Keating Channel200.0m20,0004,000,000Mountain Drainage System ‐ Conveyance4,500.0m5002,250,000Mountain Drainage System ‐ Control1LS1,000,0001,000,000Sub‐Total28,150,000Contingency Factor ‐ 50%50%14,075,000Complexity Factor ‐ 25%25%7,037,500Internal Road Network for "Mountain"1LS10,000,00010,000,000Allowance for Road work for MountainSub‐Total059,262,500Sustainability ElementsCostNoise Barriers along Gardiner1,800m21,000m21,800,000Assumed along entire length of Gardiner S of MountainHydronic In‐Slab System / Heat Exchange with PoolLS1,800,0001,800,000Assumed  $2 a sq. ft. for piping, for 150,000 sq. ft. so  $300,000 for piping & $1,500,000 for mech., shed etc.  Concrete Topping for above Hydronic In‐Slab System8,100m21501,215,000Assumed 450m x 18mGreen Walls along GardinerLS400,000400,000Assumed 1,480’ X 12’ tall = 17,700 sq. ft at $20 = $354,000 plus plant material, say another $50,000Reflective Panels2,250m100225,000Assumed 450m x 5mPublic Pool for Keating Channel4,000,000Very general estimate ‐ Assumed 1 poolSub‐Total09,440,000Incremental Structural Cost for Intensive Green RoofCostIncremental Cost for Concrete Roof Structure ‐ Assume for 74,000m2 less voids, paths, vertical shafts, tower foot prints etc.,Total green roof area 37,100 m2*400(6)14,840,000*Intensive plantings focused on columns will be 1m in depth therefore assume average depth of 600mmSub‐Total014,840,000Landscaping Costs for Green Roof (Mountain)Cost per m2CostCost per m2CostSurfacing Costs (Handball Courts, Ice Rink, Tennis, Basketball etc.,)853,800Hardworks (Circulation Paths, Wood Decking)2,216,765Earthworks 1,220,275Softworks (Sod, Shrubs, Trees, Engineered Slope Planting)5,881,750IrrigationLS275,000Site FurnishingsLS320,000LightingLS600,000Public ArtLS500,000Sub‐Total011,867,590Streetscape EnhancementsCostJarvis Street Enhancements  (to Front Street)433.016,0006,928,000Sherbourne Street Enhancements (to Front Street)460.016,0007,360,000Parliament Street Enhancements (to Front Street)434.016,0006,944,000Cherry Street Enhancements (to Front Street)410.016,0006,560,000Carlaw Avenue Enhancements (to Eastern Ave)287.016,0004,592,000Leslie Street Enhancements (to Eastern Ave)390.016,0006,240,000Sub‐Total038,624,000Additional Landscaping along Rail Berm and GardinerCostLandscaping south of rail berm East of Don River Don Valley Parkway to Leslie Streetm21508,594,294Landscaping south of rail berm West of Don RiverCherry Street to Lower Jarvism21503,099,170Landscaping North of Rail Berm across from "Mountain" ?m21501,800,000Landscaping Features South of Gardiner, North of Keatingm2250375,000landscaping SW corner of Moutain under Gardiner to Keatingm22503,375,000MSE Retaining Walls Between Lower Jarvis and Cherry Street (Sierra Slope)5.5700(8)4,427,500Sub‐Total021,670,963Total Cost for Public Realm InfrastructureCAD$190,689,300CAD$206,348,053Notes:(1) Based on 4 traffic lanes, 2 pedestrian S/Ws and 2‐3m wide public gallery areas(2) Based on LDL span plus 2‐3m wide public gallery areas(3) Based on info in Typologies for the Human Realm(4) Based on Unit Rates from Hanscomb Estimate for Lower Donlands dated June 2008(5) Based on Unit Rates from Hanscomb Estimate for Lower Donlands dated June 2008 + an allowance for structural loading for landscaping(6) Based on Rates from "Additional Structural Costs" Table in "Green Roofs in Metro Vancouver ‐ Regional Issues and Business Case forImplementation"  by Kerr Wood Leidal Associates.(7) Based on 50% of Unit Rate from Hanscomb Estimate for Lower Donlands dated June 2008(8) Estimated cost per m2 for Sierra Slope provided by PFS(9) From Centreline of Lakeshore to Centreline of Front or Easternm2m21,500.0m2m2m2m2Span (m)UnitCost per Unit4,000,000m2Area1,600,000LSCost per m2Span (m) (9)Cost per LMWidth (m)Width (m)3 m each side for gallery space is incremental cost.  Unit cost is reduced to 1/2 as the marginal increase in span wont affect sub‐structure fixed costs. Not part of incremental costs as bridge extensions are required for hydraulic capacity onlyAssume $200,000 cost for protection of each 6 x 6 colum with sheet piles (depth of 6m)Services included in Municipal Infrastructure Costs Below ‐ assumed design will avoid any protective works to existing tunnel1,000,0001,500,000Cost per m2UnitSpan (m)Unit Cost Width (m)Span (m)Unit Cost (m2)Unit Cost (m2)Previously Planned and Budgeted forDate:Incremental Cost for Gardiner/Lakeshore Competition200LMLMLM13,500.0Area1,150.037,100.0057,295.320,661.112,000.0LMLMLMArea200,000Lighting assumed 1 pole every 30m on both sides including bridge at sediment basinCost per m2AreaGardiner ‐ Public Realm Estimate (R6).xlsxPage 1
  89. 89. 87Lakeshore / Gardiner CompetitionJune 25, 2010Public Realm Infrastructure EstimateRemarksNorth / South ConnectionsCostCost1Jarvis Street Underpass (under rail corridor)26(3)41(1)26,300(4)28,035,80026(3)6(1)13,150(7)2,051,4002Sherbourne Street Underpass (under rail corridor)29(3)41(1)26,300(4)31,270,70029(3)6(1)13,150(7)2,288,1003Parliament Street Underpass (under rail corridor)40(3)41(1)26,300(4)43,132,00040(3)6(1)13,150(7)3,156,0004Cherry Street Underpass (under rail corridor)55(3)44(2)26,300(4)63,646,00055(3)6(2)13,150(7)4,339,5005Trinity Street Pedestrian Underpass (under rail corridor)60725,000(4)10,500,000Previously included in separate budget6Munition Street Pedestrian Bridge (over rail corridor)156,500(5)19,500,000Sub‐Total176,584,50031,335,000Realignment of Lakeshore Blvd.CostCost7Demolition of Lakeshore Blvd ‐ existing road removed745m400m(4)298,0008Roadwork, Sidewalks & Paths9Realign Lakeshore Blvd (Road Infrastructure) Allowance and Costs745m10,000m(4)7,450,00010Relocate Gardiner Columns (near Cherry Street)11New columns, assume0No.810,000(4)012Beams0No.40,000(4)013Impacted columns10No.25,000(4)250,00014Protect surrounding areas1Sum(4)1,600,00015Relocate Gardiner Columns (west of Don River)16New columns, assume4No.810,000(4)3,240,00017Beams2No.40,000(4)80,00018Impacted columns4No.25,000(4)100,00019Protect surrounding areas1Sum(4)1,000,00020Gardiner Columns Protection at widened Don River /Sediment Basin21North Bound ‐ existing outside Don River5No.1,000,00022North Bound ‐ existing inside Don River1No.200,00023South Bound ‐ existing outside Don River8No.1,600,00024South Bound ‐ existing inside Don River2No.400,00025Intersection Improvements (Pedestrian Crossing) at Cherry St & Lakeshore Blvd.1Item(4)1,500,00026Mechanical27Existing 2m filtered water tunnel 30m below grade28Services included in Municipal Infrastructure Costs Below29Electrical3058No.5,000290,0003132Traffic Signals334 way intersection, traffic signals1No.100,000100,00034"T" intersection, traffic signals2No.100,000200,00035Lakeshore Blvd. Bridge extension30m72m5,200(4)11,232,00036Harbour Lead Bridge ‐ Average width of 7m7m72m5,7002,872,800Sub‐Total14,104,80019,308,000Municipal Infrastructure CostsUnit CostCostUnitUnit CostCost37Site Servicing Costs (480 Site) (based on 2000m of ground level streets)38Utility Tunnel900.0m7,5006,750,00039Watermain Distribution System2,000.0m1,5003,000,00040Sanitary Sewer Collection Pipework2,000.0m1,0002,000,00041Sanitary Sewer SPS1LS3,000,0003,000,00042Storm Sewer Collection System Pipework2,000.0m7501,500,00043SWM ‐ Ground Level Quality Control System5No.200,0001,000,00044SWM ‐ Storage1LS1,500,0001,500,00045SWM ‐ UV Treatment System1LS1,000,0001,000,00046SWM ‐ Treated Outlet Pipe to Mountain500.0m300150,00047Lake Irrigation System1LS1,000,0001,000,00048Pipework Crossings of Keating Channel200.0m20,0004,000,00049Mountain Drainage System ‐ Conveyance4,500.0m5002,250,00050Mountain Drainage System ‐ Control1LS1,000,0001,000,00051Sub‐Total28,150,00052Contingency Factor ‐ 50%50%14,075,00053Complexity Factor ‐ 25%25%7,037,50054Internal Road Network for "Mountain"1LS10,000,00010,000,000Allowance for Road work for MountainSub‐Total059,262,500Sustainability ElementsCost55Noise Barriers along Gardiner1,800m21,000m21,800,000Assumed along entire length of Gardiner S of Mountain56Hydronic In‐Slab System / Heat Exchange with PoolLS1,800,0001,800,000Assume  $2/sq. ft. for piping‐150,000 sq. ft. so  $300,000 & $1,500,000 for mech., shed etc.  57Concrete Topping for above Hydronic In‐Slab System8,100m21501,215,000Assumed 450m x 18m58Green Walls along GardinerLS400,000400,000Assumed 1,480’ X 12’ tall = 17,700 sq. ft at $20 = $354,000 + plant material, assume $50,00059Reflective Panels2,250m100225,000Assumed 450m x 5m60Public Pool for Keating Channel4,000,000Very general estimate ‐ Assumed 1 poolSub‐Total09,440,000LSSpan (m)3 m each side for gallery space is incremental cost.  Unit cost is reduced to 1/2 as the marginal increase in span wont affect sub‐structure fixed costs. Not part of incremental costs as bridge extensions are required for hydraulic capacity onlyAssume $200,000 cost for protection of each 6 x 6 column with sheet piles (depth of 6m)Services included in Municipal Infrastructure Costs Below ‐ assumed design will avoid any protective works to existing tunnel1,000,0001,500,0001,600,000m2Unit Cost Width (m)Span (m)Unit Cost (m2)Unit Cost (m2)Previously Planned and Budgeted forDate:Incremental Cost for Gardiner/Lakeshore Competition2004,000,000Width (m)Width (m)Cost per m2UnitSpan (m)m2200,000Lighting assumed 1 pole every 30m on both sides including bridge at sediment basinUnitCost per Unit
  90. 90. 88Gardiner Competition Strategic ApproachThis scheme creates a proposal for the Toronto waterfront that keepsthe Gardiner Expressway up and operational. Through strategic publicinfrastructure projects, this proposal will improve the economic developmentof the waterfront and Toronto overall in an incremental and cost-effectivemanner. Toronto has been experiencing a rejuvenated central city whereproximity to the Financial District, cultural and retail amenities, and highregional accessibility have all provided a basis for new economic development.Just north of the waterfront, new neighborhoods have been established withhighly desirable residential, office, and retail spaces. However, the physicaland psychological barriers of the Gardiner and Lakeshore Boulevard inconjunction with deteriorated economic conditions have slowed the transitionof development towards the waterfront.Keeping the Gardiner Expressway up and operational allows for the continuousfunction of the region, while the relatively low-cost strategic improvementsrecommended by this scheme take hold. Development already slated for thewaterfront, such as Parkside Development in East Bayfront and the KeatingChannel Precinct in the Lower Don Lands, can take place without constructionor vehicular constraints that demolition or tunneling would create.The scheme calls for a series of improved north-south connections in additionto a signature economic development project, 480 Lakeshore. The firstphysical connections, streetscape and underpass renovations to key roadways,will provide significantly improved pedestrian and vehicular accessibility fromthe city core to the waterfront. Already in the planning stage, the proposalcalls for more vibrant connections with gallery and retail space on both sidesof the underpass corridors. These connections, beginning in the west towardsthe east, will provide more seamless connectivity from the central city to theCentral Waterfront and East Bayfront. As economic development takes hold inthose areas, simultaneous strategic construction projects to the east will setthe next phase of waterfront development into motion.As streetscape and underpass improvements take place towards the west,major public construction projects to the east can begin. It should be notedthat throughout this time, the Gardiner remains operational and will allowthe central city and waterfront to continue to operate without significanttraffic burden. Key public construction projects include the realignment ofLakeshore Boulevard through the 480 Lakeshore site, a pedestrian bridgethat traverses the rail yard from Munition Street onto the green roof of 480Lakeshore, and an array of landscaping elements along the Gardiner.With these improvements, 480 Lakeshore, with a new GO Station, can begininitial development. A green roof atop its podium structure will connectpedestrians between the new neighborhoods (River City, Athletes Village)in the West Don Lands and the waterfront, via 480 Lakeshore. The resultis a seamless, highly accessible waterfront neighborhood for pedestrians,transit, and vehicles. Over time, neighborhoods in the West Don Lands, 480Lakeshore, and the Lower Don Lands (Keating Channel Precinct) take shapeall the while, the Gardiner remains up and operational. Incrementally, thisstrategy provides catalytic public realm infrastructure to support developmentalready in the pipeline and stimulate new waterfront neighborhoods.Toronto Waterfront Economic Development ProjectsSeveral real estate developments are slated for the Toronto waterfront. Someprojects remain in the planning stage, while others are under constructionor occupied. The strategy presented by this scheme incrementally connectswaterfront neighborhoods from the west to the east. New connections fromthe central city to the waterfront, will support these existing developmentsand improve the prospects for future neighborhoods in the planning stage.East Bayfront•Parkside Development, north of Queens Quay and east of the SherbournePark, will be the first private sector development in East Bayfront. The $200million project includes 540,000 total square feet with a 240,000 square footpodium and 300,000 square foot tower. Uses include residential, retail, office,and institutional.•George Brown College is currently developing a new lakeside campus that willbe a central home to George Brown’s Centre for Health Sciences and a new500-student residence hall.•Corus Quay, recently completed directly on the water’s edge, will be thenew corporate headquarters for Corus entertainment. The eight-story, $160million project has 450,000 square feet of space for 1,200 employees. Theproject received public funding to be developed.Lower Don Lands•Keating Channel Precinct, in planning stages, will be a 25-block newneighborhood with the Keating Channel bisecting the area. The current draftplan envisions 4,000 residential units.West Don Lands•River City Development, a $250 to $350 million project that is currentlyin sales, will include five buildings with 900 for-sale residential unitscomplemented by retail. The project is sited in the northeastern section ofthe West Don Lands.
  91. 91. 89•Toronto Community Housing is developing a three-building project with 243affordable rental units geared for families and seniors. The project will includeground-floor retail and resident amenities.•Athletes Village for the 2015 Pan American Games will accommodate 8,500athletes and officials in a new neighborhood with sports facilities, retail space,and medical offices. The project is anticipated to turnover as a residentialneighborhood with 2,100 housing units.480 Lakeshore Residual Land Value Analysis ResultsKPMB Architects, supported by Greenberg Consultants and AECOM, hasdeveloped a scheme to respond to the strategy of keeping the GardinerExpressway up and operational. The vision includes a series of interventionsthat create rich, multimodal connections between the waterfront and theremainder of Toronto:•Underpass Rehabilitations and Streetscape Enhancements for Jarvis,Sherbourne, Parliament, Cherry, and Trinity•Munition Street Pedestrian Bridge•Realignment of Lakeshore BoulevardIn addition to the public realm interventions, a key catalyst project in theproposed scheme is the mixed-use development of 480 Lakeshore locatedbetween the Don & Wilson Rail Yards to the north, the Gardiner Expresswayto the south and west, and the Don River and Don Valley Parkway to theeast. 480 Lakeshore will have a retail and office podium base along with fiveresidential and office towers. Atop 480 Lakeshore is another key public realminfrastructure project, an expansive green roof public space that connects theMunition Street pedestrian bridge to 480 Lakeshore and points south on thewaterfront.AECOM Economics has prepared a preliminary residual land value analysisof the proposed 480 Lakeshore development. In the analysis, AECOMfirst estimates the residual land value of the 480 Lakeshore site and thencompares that to cost of the entirety of the public realm projects.480 Lakeshore Proposed DesignThe proposed design for 480 Lakeshore calls for a large podium basestructure (office, retail) punctuated by five towers (four residential, onecommercial) on the 15-acre wedge of land. A pedestrian bridge on MunitionStreet will provide the connection to the Don West Lands to the north tothe site. Atop the podium will be a public green roof open space that linkspedestrians throughout the site. Additionally, a proposed new GO Station at480 Lakeshore will provide transit accessibility to the region.ProgramThe program, outlined in Fig. 2, indicates a total gross floor area of 296,000square meters or 3.2 million square feet. Of the total floor area, office andresidential are the primary components, representing 40 percent each. Theremaining is planned for retail. In addition, underground parking will require103,000 square meters or 1.1 million square feet of space. When completed,the program will support approximately 4,500 office employees, 1,000 retailemployees, 1,400 residential units, and 2,100 parking spaces on site.In order to make the project successful, the project requires a mix ofresidential, office, and retail uses. However, as the project will not developedfor some time, the proportion remains flexible and can be rearranged toreflect market conditions at any given time period.Residual Land Value Analysis_MethodologyTo compute the residual land value of 480 Lakeshore, AECOM took thefollowing steps to evaluate the market value of the office, retail, residential,and parking uses:Figure 2: 480 Lakeshore Proposed ProgramUse Metric ImperialOffice 117,116 sq m 1,260,626 sfRetail 61,794 sq m 665,145 sfResidential 117,412 sq m 1,263,812 sfGrand Total SF 296,322 sq m 3,189,583 sfParking 103,000 sq m 1,108,683 sfTotal Acreage 6.1 hectares 15 acresSource: KPMB Architects; AECOMGross Floor AreaIn order to make the project successful, the project requires a mix of residential, office, and retailuses. However, as the project will not developed for some time, the proportion remains flexible andcan be rearranged to reflect market conditions at any given time period.Residual Land Value AnalysisMethodologyTo compute the residual land value of 480 Lakeshore, AECOM took the following steps to evaluatethe market value of the office, retail, residential, and parking uses: Determine Market Value:o Office and Retail – The analysis relies on theincome-capitalization approach. The approach estimates the stabilized-year netoperating income for each use and divides it by prevailing capitalization rates,yielding an estimate for total market value.o Residential and Parking – The analysisestimates sale values of residential units and parking spaces. Determine Construction Costs: AECOMdeveloped order-of-magnitude vertical construction costs and site infrastructure costestimates at 480 Lakeshore as well as the costs to develop the public realm infrastructureinterventions.
  92. 92. 90Determine Market Value:•Office and Retail – The analysis relies on the income-capitalization approach.The approach estimates the stabilized-year net operating income for each useand divides it by prevailing capitalization rates, yielding an estimate for totalmarket value.•Residential and Parking – The analysis estimates sale values of residentialunits and parking spaces.Determine Construction Costs: AECOM developed order-of-magnitudevertical construction costs and site infrastructure cost estimates at 480Lakeshore as well as the costs to develop the public realm infrastructureinterventions.•Estimate Residual Land Value: Subtracting construction costs from marketvalue provides a residual land value estimate for the site.This analysis, referred to as a stabilized-year pro forma, is simplistic and doesnot consider the intricacies of absorption and multiple phases. The analysisdoes not consider the period to fully lease the office and retail spaces andthe multiyear sales period for the residential and parking units. Additionally,tenant inducement packages for office and retail tenants in the first year ofthe lease and locked-in lease rates are not considered.AssumptionsThe analysis relies on assumptions regarding the real estate market inToronto. AECOM spoke to market research analysts at Avison & Young,Devencore Newmark Knight Frank, and a local real estate developer to provideinput on assumptions. AECOM provided order-of-magnitude constructioncosts for both 480 Lakeshore and the public realm projects.Office:•Average Lease Rate – $30 per square foot, triple-net•Vacancy Allowance – 5%•Capitalization Rate – 7.25%•Sales Cost – 4%Retail:•Average Lease Rate – $32 per square foot, triple-net. This assumes the retailwill consist of one-third big box retailers at $15 per square foot and remainingtwo-thirds will consist of traditional retailers at $35 per square foot.•Vacancy Allowance – 8%•Capitalization Rate – 7.5%•Sales Cost – 4%Residential / Parking•Residential Sale Price – $500 per square foot•Parking Space Sale Price – $22,000•Sales Cost – 4%Construction Costs•Retail and Office – $250 vertical hard costs per square foot, primarily locatedin the podium structure•Residential – $220 vertical hard costs per square foot located in towers•Garage Parking – $125 per square foot•Soft Costs – 20% of hard costs•Site Infrastructure Costs – $59 million•Public Realm Projects – Please see AECOM cost estimates.The analysis results, shown in Figure 3, indicate 480 Lakeshore has a totalmarket value of $1.2 billion with vertical construction costs (hard and soft) of$1.1 billion. After accounting for site infrastructure costs of $59 million, theremaining residual land value is $52 million, or $3.4 million per acre.ResultsThe analysis results, shown in Figure 3, indicate 480 Lakeshore has a total market value of $1.2billion with vertical construction costs (hard and soft) of $1.1 billion. After accounting for siteinfrastructure costs of $59 million, the remaining residual land value is $52 million, or $3.4 million peracre.Figure 3: 480 Lakeshore Residual Land Value AnalysisProgram DescriptionTotalMarket ValueVertical HardCostsVertical SoftCostsResidualDevelopmentValue480 Lakeshore ProgramResidential 515,635,000$ (278,039,000)$ (55,608,000)$ 181,989,000$Retail 199,712,000$ (166,286,000)$ (33,257,000)$ 168,000$Office 428,161,000$ (315,157,000)$ (63,031,000)$ 49,973,000$Garage 45,030,000$ (138,585,000)$ (27,717,000)$ (121,273,000)$Total 1,188,537,000$ (898,067,000)$ (179,613,000)$ 110,857,000$480 Lakeshore Site Work (59,263,000)$480 Lakeshore Residual Value 51,595,000$480 Lakeshore Acres 15480 Lakeshore Residual Value per Acre 3,440,000$Source: AECOM1Figures may not add due to rounding.
  93. 93. 91Appendix: Development Values by UseFigure 5: Residential Units, For-Sale Development ValueGross Square Footage 1,263,812Gross to Net Factor 85%Rentable Building Area (15% of Gross) 1,074,240Revenue from For-Sale UnitsAverage Price per Square Foot 500$Potential Cash Flow 537,120,205$Net Cash Flow 537,120,205$Less Sales Costs at 4.00% (21,484,808)$Market Value 515,635,397$Source: AECOMFigure 6: Stabilized-Year Retail Income Statement & Development ValueGross Square Feet 665,145Loss Factor 10%Rentable Building Area (90% of Gross) 598,631Retail Lease RevenueAverage Lease Rate (NNN PSF) 28.33$Potential Cash Flow 16,959,204$Less Vacancy Allowance (8% of Lease Revenue) (1,356,736)$Less Operating Costs Incl. Tax, Insurance, Etc. (0% of Lease Revenue) -$Net Cash Flow 15,602,468$Stabilized Year NOI 15,602,468$Capitalized Value at 7.50% 208,032,903$Less Sales Costs at 4.00% (8,321,316)$Market Value 199,711,587$Source: AECOMPublic Realm Funding StrategiesThe land sale proceeds of $52 million could be used to offset the necessarypublic realm infrastructure costs of $148 million, leaving a $97 million fundinggap. In addition to immediate land sale proceeds, the City and WaterfrontToronto can expect significant property tax revenues from 480 Lakeshore.Newer, Class A office and retail properties in Toronto, conservatively payapproximately $16 per square foot. Based on this, at full occupancy, thecommercial uses of 480 Lakeshore can yield $31 million in property taxrevenues each year. Residential taxes at roughly 1.25 percent of the purchaseprice can yield $6.7 million in property taxes each year. The annual propertytax revenues of $37 million, at full occupancy, can be considered a futurerevenue stream to offset the initial funding gap.Figure 7: Stabilized-Year Office Income Statement & Development ValueGross Square Feet 1,260,626Loss Factor 10%Rentable Building Area (90% of Gross) 1,134,564Office Lease RevenueAverage Lease Rate (NNN PSF) $30Potential Cash Flow 34,036,906$Less Vacancy Allowance (5% of Lease Revenue) (1,701,845)$Less Operating Costs Incl. Tax, Insurance, Etc. (0% of Lease Revenue) -$Net Cash Flow 32,335,060$Stabilized Year NOI 32,335,060$Capitalized Value at 7.25% 446,000,831$Less Sales Costs at 4.00% (17,840,033)$Market Value 428,160,798$Source: AECOMFigure 8: Parking Spaces, For-Sale Development ValueGross Square Footage 1,108,683Square Feet per Space 520Total Spaces 2,132Revenue from Parking Space SalesRevenue per Space 22,000$Potential Cash Flow 46,905,810$Net Cash Flow 46,905,810$Less Sales Costs at 4.00% (1,876,232)$Market Value 45,029,577$Source: AECOMinfrastructure costs of $148 million, leaving a $97 million funding gap. Figure 4 presents a summaryof the public realm costs and the funding gap.Figure 4: Public Realm FundingPublic Realm CostsUnderpasses (Jarvis, Sherbourne, Parliament, Cherry, Trinity) (11,835,000)$Munition Street Pedestrian Bridge over Rail (19,500,000)$Realignment of Lakeshore (19,308,000)$Sustainability Elements (10,640,000)$Podium Green Roof / Public Space (26,708,000)$Streetscape Enhancements (38,624,000)$Additional Landscaping along Rail Berm & Gardiner (21,671,000)$Total (148,286,000)$480 LakeshoreResidual Land Value 51,595,000$Funding Gap (480 Lakeshore Residual Value - Public Realm Costs) (96,691,000)$Source: AECOM1Figures may not add due to rounding.In addition to immediate land sale proceeds, the City and Waterfront Toronto can expect significantproperty tax revenues from 480 Lakeshore. Newer, Class A office and retail properties in Toronto,conservatively pay approximately $16 per square foot. Based on this, at full occupancy, thecommercial uses of 480 Lakeshore can yield $31 million in property tax revenues each year.Residential taxes at roughly 1.25 percent of the purchase price can yield $6.7 million in property taxeseach year. The annual property tax revenues of $37 million, at full occupancy, can be considered afuture revenue stream to offset the initial funding gap.
  94. 94. 92
  95. 95. 93siteplan1:750
  96. 96. 94siteplan1:5000
  97. 97. 95Gardiner Expressway + Lakeshore RedevelopmentCompetition Consultant List2010KPMB, ArchitectureBruce KuwabaraMarianne McKennaBo YoonJoseph KanDanielle WhitleyAli YarbakhtiSharaneh FarahaniLindsay KeirAmanda SebrisBIG, ArchitectureBjarke IngelsJakob LangeCat HuangStanley LungBrian YangBrian MuthaliffARUP, TransportationJonathan WrightTrent LethcoAECOM, Civil and Municipal EngineeringMarko PrginMike ShallhornAnita KarvonenKate CoburnKumar KintalaPHILLIPS FAREVAAG SMALLENBERG, LandscapeKelty McKinnonGreg SmallenbergDAOUST LESTAGE, Urban DesignRenee DaoustRachel SteckerGREENBERG CONSULTING, Urban DesignKen GreenbergTRANSSOLAR, SustainabilityThomas AuerMatthias RudolphWONDER Incorporated, Graphic CommunicationAnita Matusevics
  98. 98. 96

×