Canadian City Skyscraper Proposals (150m+) - Page 16

WhipperSnapper · #**301** Posted **Aug 26, 2024, 9:37 PM**

Yeah, looks better. The "podium" would still look better without the awkward tower. The midblock U of T building is an ugly duckling and m'thinks this development and 488 will also cancel potential redevelopment.

TorontoDrew · #**302** Posted **Aug 28, 2024, 3:13 PM**

I actually really like this updated proposal. It looks like the Tower and retained office block could have been created by the same architect.

GeneralLeeTPHLS · #**303** Posted **Aug 29, 2024, 12:10 AM**

I usually can't stand these redevelopment projects, but the design team really thoughtfully considered how incorporating a new building would impact the existing design language of this building. I'm glad to see a further revised ground level treatment.

WhipperSnapper · #**304** Posted **Aug 29, 2024, 2:10 PM**

Sure it's better than The United across the street. That's a 0 to 2 out of ten. There are some vague similarities with white spandrel to tie the old with the new. Take a closer look. They somewhat clash with one another. That will be exacerbated if the addition employs aluminum over precast (which it shows as in the rendering) Also, the south facade is being destroyed for a express elevator core. In my opinion, "thoughtful" evokes vertical additions like 505 University across the street. Didn't know that building was vertically expanded? That's the point. Turning a modernist commercial building into a podium for a residential point tower is comparably brutish.

I'm indifferent to the proposal. This is more about accolades for being better than the garbage we're used to seeing in Toronto. Of course, the number one question is why does Toronto need this?

TorontoDrew · #**305** Posted **Aug 29, 2024, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

I usually can't stand these redevelopment projects, but the design team really thoughtfully considered how incorporating a new building would impact the existing design language of this building. I'm glad to see a further revised ground level treatment.

Agreed, they did a great job here incorporating the new with old. WZMH has a pretty solid reputation and a great portfolio so I'm confidant this will turn really good.

Maldive · #**306** Posted **Sep 11, 2024, 3:16 PM**

Rail Deck District | 227.23m | 72s | Craft Dev Corp | Sweeny &Co l resubmission

Everyone thought this whole thing was dead, but a a resubmission just 2 days ago has added more height and almost 1,800 more units for a total of just under 8,000. Still just a massing diagram… now with 10,000 (politically correct ;-) bicycle spots lol. They’ve also hinted an increase of the deck/parkland over the rail corridor to include “potential parkland” to the east and west of the centre block.

ChesterCopperpot

On the left.

UT

WhipperSnapper · #**307** Posted **Sep 11, 2024, 9:03 PM**

The city should encourage massing model over artistic impressions that have no business in rezoning processes. There's no confusing over the density here unlike the fancy Quayside

Should be 2 bike spaces per unit.

Nouvellecosse · #**308** Posted **Sep 11, 2024, 9:11 PM**

Still makes me mad that so much of the rail deck park would be taken up by development when the park wasn't that big to begin with. Especially since one of the best things about the area is the view of the skyline from the Bathurst St. bridge. That view would be so much better if it was overlooking a beautiful park instead of the somewhat messy rail corridor. But I guess that ship has sailed since the city said it can't afford the park without the development. So unless a wealthy philanthropist materializes...

WhipperSnapper · #**309** Posted **Sep 11, 2024, 9:34 PM**

It's just a proposal. There's always a chance the thousands of proposals encompassing millions of units in the GTA will lose enough value to allow the city to purchase the air rights to their own property for next to nothing. As for the park, if it takes decades it's still better than rushing it with condo skyscrapers on mid rise podium

Nouvellecosse · #**310** Posted **Sep 11, 2024, 10:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's just a proposal. There's always a chance the thousands of proposals encompassing millions of units in the GTA will lose enough value to allow the city to purchase the air rights to their own property for next to nothing. As for the park, if it takes decades it's still better than rushing it with condo skyscrapers on mid rise podium

Yes I'm hoping it doesn't happen as well. If you lose that kind of opportunity you don't get a second chance.

GeneralLeeTPHLS · #**311** Posted **Sep 11, 2024, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes I'm hoping it doesn't happen as well. If you lose that kind of opportunity you don't get a second chance.

Agreed. The park proposal is nothing short of incredible and arguably necessary for downtown residents in the future, if not as a place to make better use of the land then for train tracks. This sort of thing has been done time and time again so it really just comes down to $$$.

koops65 · #**312** Posted **Sep 11, 2024, 10:26 PM**

[IMG]

[/IMG]

koops65 · #**313** Posted **Sep 12, 2024, 8:02 AM**

Sugar Wharf - new tower heights and configurations - tallest is now 284 metres and 85 floors:

• Video Link

[IMG]

[/IMG]

WhipperSnapper · #**314** Posted **Sep 12, 2024, 4:36 PM**

Hmm. The difference between Sugar Wharf and all the others revising bigger and taller is that Menkes is looking to build and recoup the $200 million investment.

Maldive · #**315** Posted **Sep 12, 2024, 6:32 PM**

Another look at the revisions:

Sugar Wharf Condominiums (Phase 2) | 284m | 85s | Menkes | a—A l resubmission

Heights have been reduced for all 3 towers (tallest now is 85 storeys/tower heights are 239, 263, and 284 metres), but much more interesting tower floorplates have also been submitted (truncated triangles). No new renderings yet.

ChesterCopperpot

steveve

hipster duck · #**316** Posted **Sep 13, 2024, 1:53 PM**

^Yeesh, a 25 meter separation between two towers that are 250 m tall?

Imagine you're at Costco. The shelves are about 10 meters tall. But instead of the aisle being 3 meters wide, it's 1 meter wide. How would you feel walking down that?

WhipperSnapper · #**317** Posted **Sep 13, 2024, 2:44 PM**

10 metres is over 3 storeys. Those would be some tall shelves.

25 metres is less than the width of these towers. It is nothing. And the lower sections of the towers or balcony edges are even closer together.

Maldive · #**318** Posted **Sep 13, 2024, 4:15 PM**

576 Sherbourne | 235.2m | 69s | Alterra | Arcadis l Recommended for Approval

This grew 6 storeys and is now recommended for Approval.

Northern Light

They also brought some of the tower’s colour down to the podium levels in this version.

Northern Light

Previous 63 storey version:

UT

Nouvellecosse · #**319** Posted **Sep 13, 2024, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck

^Yeesh, a 25 meter separation between two towers that are 250 m tall?

Imagine you're at Costco. The shelves are about 10 meters tall. But instead of the aisle being 3 meters wide, it's 1 meter wide. How would you feel walking down that?

Yeah i don't like having really tall buildings that close together. Not only does it take away the view from an entire side of the buildings, but it also prevents people from seeing the individual buildings as well from a distance since they block each another or visually merge. ANd they don't look as tall either. What I like is when really tall building emerge from a foundation of large but much shorter buildings. Like how 1KW and Scotia rise from between shorter buildings on King. I don't mind the shorter buildings being that close together tho; in fact I kind of enjoy it.

WhipperSnapper · #**320** Posted **Sep 13, 2024, 7:19 PM**

How many towers is that now at 69 storeys? It's a fun number but, it's not a number that makes babies to fill the towers.

Anyways, another table top for koops.