Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals - Page 275

WhipperSnapper · #**5481** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 1:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Ah, there's the catch. Get the 80-storey version of Exhibit Residences approved first on the promise of 2 "iconic" gehry ones to be phased in later... a slightly more transparent version of that old trick by Vancouver developers who promise schools and rental housing to come AFTER they secure the extra density for market condos

Nothing wrong with the 80 storey "Exhibit Residence". If there's a catch, it's much worse. Mirvish has gotten a nearby site upzoned and flipped it.

WhipperSnapper · #**5482** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 1:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest

For comparison, does the 298m of FCP include the mechanical penthouse?

FCP is 287 metres while standing on the corner and looking up.

DrNest · #**5483** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 1:19 PM**

Thought it was something like that. Thanks.

caltrane74 · #**5484** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 4:25 PM**

No supertall, and with condo sales down 70%, it may be a while before we see some more proposals.

Ramako · #**5485** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 4:33 PM**

A supertall in Toronto is a question of when, not if. Heights have been steadily marching upward. We'll probably see one or more in the next cycle, however far away that is.

WhipperSnapper · #**5486** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 4:53 PM**

Height is value based; more a requirement than a desire. Current heights will definitely be effected in a prolonged soft market.

Calgarian · #**5487** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 6:31 PM**

That Gehry project looks pretty damn strange!

mike474 · #**5488** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 6:46 PM**

1000 feet is an arbitrary brightline guys, don't lose any sleep over it

Innsertnamehere · #**5489** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 8:42 PM**

but you see, 298m is. we were sooo close to a new tallest, and this isn't it!

1ajs · #**5490** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 8:45 PM**

o wow what the

yaletown_fella · #**5491** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

the OCAD campus is in the first phase.

I hope it's mainly studio space. There's a much higher need for more studio space than lecture halls.

The phase 1 80 floor balcony wrapped tower looks awful. Truly a fail.

MonkeyRonin · #**5492** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 10:24 PM**

[QUOTE=yaletown_fella;5852855The phase 1 80 floor balcony wrapped tower looks awful. Truly a fail.[/QUOTE]

It also looks completely different depending on which render we are to believe.

vs.

Gresto · #**5493** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The phase 1 80 floor balcony wrapped tower looks awful. Truly a fail.

I actually like that one more than the other two, but I'm a traditionalist who is partial to clean, slender boxes. That tower on the right has the slight deviation in the middle and the conspicuous shift near the top, whereas the white/silver tower is fat in the middle, which is a poor design choice I think, and the tower on the left is just a sloppy conglomeration of wonky shapes and vectors.

Ramako · #**5494** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It also looks completely different depending on which render we are to believe.

vs.

I think the bottom one was just one of the many models they displayed showing how the concept evolved.

genjmpr · #**5495** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 11:37 PM**

On UT they are saying with the mechanical the tallest will be 295M. Is this some type of cruel joke? Can't they stick a flagpole on top of the damn thing and break the supertall mark?

dleung · #**5496** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 11:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gresto

I actually like that one more than the other two, but I'm a traditionalist who is partial to clean, slender boxes. That tower on the right has the slight deviation in the middle and the conspicuous shift near the top, whereas the white/silver tower is fat in the middle, which is a poor design choice I think, and the tower on the left is just a sloppy conglomeration of wonky shapes and vectors.

^^I suspect that's merely a case of cheerleading for our existing architectural stock of late. The haphazard left tower at least implies some semblance of intelligence in its orientation, whereas neutral wrap-around balconies guarantees zero consideration of its surroundings

Gresto · #**5497** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 11:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

^^I suspect that's merely a case of cheerleading for our existing architectural stock of late.

No cheerleading at all. Merely personal taste. I don't begrudge you your right to feel otherwise.

Quote:

The haphazard left tower at least implies some semblance of intelligence in its orientation, whereas neutral wrap-around balconies guarantees zero consideration of its surroundings

How so, to both contentions?

DrNest · #**5498** Posted **Oct 3, 2012, 12:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by genjmpr

On UT they are saying with the mechanical the tallest will be 295M. Is this some type of cruel joke? Can't they stick a flagpole on top of the damn thing and break the supertall mark?

If it is 295m, I'll head down to Rona, buy a garden shed and stick it on top.

Chadillaccc · #**5499** Posted **Oct 3, 2012, 1:11 AM**

Super surprised Koops hasn't made drawings of them yet! I'm sure he's workin away though hehe!

steveve · #**5500** Posted **Oct 3, 2012, 1:41 AM**

I don't care for any of these being supertall. having 3 towers above 80 stories side by side i think is enough

(not to mention in the entertainment ( future condo) district)

I wanna see a mixed-use supertall built closer to the spine of the city. I understand these towers are gonna change the "spine", but nonetheless, i don't think any of these designs are worthy of being Canada's tallest.