Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The city lopping of floors from buildings as some sort of unsubstantiated NIMBY response is the basis of most of you height obsessed posts.

This is King St. W. Downtown. It's not like there's any low-rise residential adjacent to the site, like in North York, where I concede the argument that a phalanx of 30-40-storey condo buildings is not a good fit next to suburban homes.
Where else would you propose putting these? The city's collection of skyscrapers has to grow away from the CBD, Southcore, and Yonge St. at some point if Toronto is to become a truly dense metropolis with a vibrant downtown (if that is the goal). The Entertainment District is already burgeoning with built, proposed, and u/c skyscrapers, just ones that aren't as high as Gehry.
I agree with Dr. Nest that these Gehry towers would not look good at a truncated height. I'm not completely sold on the messy, eccentric design as is, but lop them off midpoint, as the recommended revision has it, and they'd look ridiculous. Then I'd rather they weren't built at all.
I hate to bring NYC into the discussion, but imagine this kind of laborious small-town hand-wringing going on there. It doesn't. Stuff gets built there. I support city planners' careful deliberation, and this outré design is deserving of that, but why always reduce everything as a de facto solution?

[The_Architect]

There's a reason Toronto, once with the tallest building in the world outside of New York and Chicago, now has 36 cities with at least one taller building than its now 38 year old tallest.

It really seems like despite the volume of condos/buildings going up, the city's ambition when it comes to height and architecture has plummeted.

[Biff]

.....delete

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Community Council's recommendations were adopted by Council. The City solicitor will go to the OMB in support of the revised 63/49 storey plan.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.EY29.5

RE: Eau Du Soliel / 63 floors / 49 Floors - 215 meters

Awesome News!

[WhipperSnapper]

Height in a suburban context where low lot coverage is prevalent has less reprocussions than in an urban environment with high lot coverage in which height is more representative of density and any number of factors. It's about creating a balance of maximizing density and yet minimizing the effect on the larger community. Without special consideration included as part of this development, it opens the door to even larger, denser towers in the entertainment district that is already seeing extreme FARs are on the precipice of overwealming infrastructure and the pedestrian experience. One day I wish charter a flight to the Dubai Marina to see what build tall for the sake of building tall creates an unwelcoming area even worse than or wind swept commercial core.

Originally Posted by Gresto

This is King St. W. Downtown. It's not like there's any low-rise residential adjacent to the site, like in North York, where I concede the argument that a phalanx of 30-40-storey condo buildings is not a good fit next to suburban homes.
Where else would you propose putting these? The city's collection of skyscrapers has to grow away from the CBD, Southcore, and Yonge St. at some point if Toronto is to become a truly dense metropolis with a vibrant downtown (if that is the goal). The Entertainment District is already burgeoning with built, proposed, and u/c skyscrapers, just ones that aren't as high as Gehry.
I agree with Dr. Nest that these Gehry towers would not look good at a truncated height. I'm not completely sold on the messy, eccentric design as is, but lop them off midpoint, as the recommended revision has it, and they'd look ridiculous. Then I'd rather they weren't built at all.
I hate to bring NYC into the discussion, but imagine this kind of laborious small-town hand-wringing going on there. It doesn't. Stuff gets built there. I support city planners' careful deliberation, and this outré design is deserving of that, but why always reduce everything as a de facto solution?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

There's a reason Toronto, once with the tallest building in the world outside of New York and Chicago, now has 36 cities with at least one taller building than its now 38 year old tallest.

It really seems like despite the volume of condos/buildings going up, the city's ambition when it comes to height and architecture has plummeted.

Height has little relevance in architecture. Likewise, the highly specific stat relating to Toronto tallest losing ground to other city's tallest has little relevance in the grand scheme particularly when 3/4 of those cities' tallest were built as make work projects instead of for economic reasons.

We have shadowing guidlines. Other cities have far stricter policies. Most are highly progressive civic polices aimed at improving the urban environment Height is a poor gauge of a city's prowess.

[caltrane74]

The Richest cites build tall

Dubai
Shanghai
Hong Kong
New York
Etc, etc

[Chadillaccc]

Vancouver's Burrard Gateway was unanimously approved by City Council yesterday!

At 168 meters, this will be the third tallest building in the city of Vancouver when/if completed.



http://www.johnatkin.com/changingcity/updates.html

[DrNest]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The city lopping of floors from buildings as some sort of unsubstantiated NIMBY response is the basis of most of you height obsessed posts.

But that still does not answer what I specifically requested clarification on. I am debating the visual impact of tall towers. However, I shall not labour the matter. I believe you are missing the actual point of discussion.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

One day I wish charter a flight to the Dubai Marina to see what build tall for the sake of building tall creates an unwelcoming area even worse than or wind swept commercial core.

I haven't actually been to Dubai, but I have several former work colleagues who now work out there. All, without fail, say the experience around the Marina is amazing, and stunning to see. None of them are particularly skyscraper aficionados. It is all a matter of taste. Yes, I have read some articles regarding the density of living in the Marina as being unfavourable, but for each of those such articles, I've seen ones with the polar opposite opinion, inasmuch as they find the whole complex of towers to be a vast improvement on what was previously there.

[DrNest]

Originally Posted by Gresto

This is King St. W. Downtown. It's not like there's any low-rise residential adjacent to the site, like in North York, where I concede the argument that a phalanx of 30-40-storey condo buildings is not a good fit next to suburban homes.
Where else would you propose putting these? The city's collection of skyscrapers has to grow away from the CBD, Southcore, and Yonge St. at some point if Toronto is to become a truly dense metropolis with a vibrant downtown (if that is the goal). The Entertainment District is already burgeoning with built, proposed, and u/c skyscrapers, just ones that aren't as high as Gehry.
I agree with Dr. Nest that these Gehry towers would not look good at a truncated height. I'm not completely sold on the messy, eccentric design as is, but lop them off midpoint, as the recommended revision has it, and they'd look ridiculous. Then I'd rather they weren't built at all.
I hate to bring NYC into the discussion, but imagine this kind of laborious small-town hand-wringing going on there. It doesn't. Stuff gets built there. I support city planners' careful deliberation, and this outré design is deserving of that, but why always reduce everything as a de facto solution?

A very well put point of view. I agree there is something about the messy design which isn't exactly wonderful, but I also think that is what gives these towers their eccentric character that will be so positive to the Toronto skyline that I wish for.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by DrNest

But that still does not answer what I specifically requested clarification on. I am debating the visual impact of tall towers. However, I shall not labour the matter. I believe you are missing the actual point of discussion.



I haven't actually been to Dubai, but I have several former work colleagues who now work out there. All, without fail, say the experience around the Marina is amazing, and stunning to see. None of them are particularly skyscraper aficionados. It is all a matter of taste. Yes, I have read some articles regarding the density of living in the Marina as being unfavourable, but for each of those such articles, I've seen ones with the polar opposite opinion, inasmuch as they find the whole complex of towers to be a vast improvement on what was previously there.

I was refering to the second half of your post. Sorry, if you took "everything" so literally. I appreciate visual impact however, there are far more pressing concerns than the superficiality of how something appears in the skyline. Same goes with the Marina. It's stunningly visual and awe inspiring but, at the same, grossly overbuilt, inward facing and completely devoid of any sense of community.

[WhipperSnapper]

P.S. Gresto, you couldn't be more wrong about NYC. Bloomberg may have made it a little easier for developers in very small parts of the island but, that place still doesn't remotely compare to the ease of rezoning in Toronto. 30% of the properties are protected from any sort of redevelopment. Most of Manhattan has very strict zoning in regards to height where even one millimeter above the limit will cause an immediate dismissal of the application. The numbers I'm refering to usually range between 30 and 60 metres which is rarely a concern Toronto.

Something comparable to the MG plan would have no chance in New York.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

The Richest cites build tall

Dubai
Shanghai
Hong Kong
New York
Etc, etc

From those, only New York is in the top 7 by GDP (Brooklings estimates).

The other 6 of the top 7; Tokyo, Los Angeles, Seoul, London, Paris, and Osaka/Kobe; all tend to build fairly short for residential and have a handful of tall commercial properties.

Paris (#4) only has 2 buildings over 200m and both are commercial and are not central.

#8 is Chicago
#9 is Moscow
#10 is Shanghai


Only Shanghai joined the top 10 while having tall residential buildings. That is to say, a large number of super-tall residential buildings is not going to push Toronto into the top 10 for GDP.

[Coldrsx]

The recent purplely tower for Edmonton should be on this list. I believe it is rumoured to be 50-60 floors or so... so call it 200-240m... maybe use 55 at 220?

[niwell]

It constantly shocks me that people seem to want a proposal that flies in the face of existing zoning and planning studies to be supported by city staff. Seemingly because it looks cool and was proposed by a famous architect. The point of staff is to give unbiased opinions based on the existing policy framework. I mean, try applying that logic to other aspects of city building and you can see things getting scary.

This has nothing to do with provincial thinking, or hating tall buildings or whatever. Toronto is a relatively easy city to get things built in, as should be patently obvious by just looking at downtown. There are areas where you could probably get away with 300m+ buildings but the economics just don't work right now. NYC may have supertalls, but try building a 60 storey (or even a 20 storey) building in Greenwich Village. And the city has far more power in rejecting applications than Toronto does.

FWIW I like the Mirvish proposal as well, and would be happy if it were approved in the end (with some hard-set provisos on what ends up being built). But staff have an obligation to give the advice they did.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

P.S. Gresto, you couldn't be more wrong about NYC. Bloomberg may have made it a little easier for developers in very small parts of the island but, that place still doesn't remotely compare to the ease of rezoning in Toronto. 30% of the properties are protected from any sort of redevelopment. Most of Manhattan has very strict zoning in regards to height where even one millimeter above the limit will cause an immediate dismissal of the application. The numbers I'm refering to usually range between 30 and 60 metres which is rarely a concern Toronto.

Something comparable to the MG plan would have no chance in New York.

I'm sure you're right, as you know more about these matters than I, someone with nothing more than a recreational interest; but then how is it that Manhattan, with ostensibly much more severe zoning restrictions than T.O., has probably the most crowded tableau of tall buildings on the planet? Several "supertalls" built, numerous in the offing. Doesn't sound very restrictive to me. 1000 ft (or 300 m.), as arbitrary a figure as it is, seems to be some sort of skyscraper glass ceiling here in Toronto. Any proposal approaching that has city apparatchiks sweating and breaking out in hives. The horror!
By the way, I'm not in favour of building tall simply for its own sake. One needs to take everything, including surrounding conditions and needs, into account. I would assume, perhaps naively, that Mirvish and Gehry did their due diligence on that front before drafting their proposal.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

The recent purplely tower for Edmonton should be on this list. I believe it is rumoured to be 50-60 floors or so... so call it 200-240m... maybe use 55 at 220?

Ramako will likely need a link to the the site development application to the city or developer elevations and drawings to slot it in.

Has it been placed in the Edmonton City Diagram?

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

There's a reason Toronto, once with the tallest building in the world outside of New York and Chicago, now has 36 cities with at least one taller building than its now 38 year old tallest.

It really seems like despite the volume of condos/buildings going up, the city's ambition when it comes to height and architecture has plummeted.

That or cities in the developping world are exploding in size and money and looking to show off their new found might, while cities in Europe have begun to see skyscrapers as a passing fad. Nope, a city of 5 million should totally be competing with cities of 10 or 20 million, and London was clearly failing as a city in 1900 when Chicago and New York and such were taller.

[caltrane74]

City Council Hi-jinks have pushed the decision on Mirvish-Gehry until at least tomorrow.

Toronto councillor crafting new deal for King Street condo project
ELIZABETH CHURCH - CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF
The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Dec. 18 2013, 4:12 PM EST
Last updated Wednesday, Dec. 18 2013, 4:21 PM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...ject/article16032315/#dashboard/follows/

A compromise is in the works for the controversial three-tower condo development on King Street West designed by world-renown architect Frank Gehry.

Toronto Councillor Adam Vaughan, who represents the ward that includes the site in the Entertainment District owned by David Mirvish, is recommending the creation of a 10-person panel that will seek a consensus on the plans and avoid a faceoff before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Vaughan plans to present a motion to create a panel of “prominent Torontonians” – selected jointly by city planning staff, the developer and the local community – at some point during this week’s meeting of city council, he told The Globe and Mail Wednesday.

“The two sides have dug in and it’s led to a stalemate. We are trying to reconcile the opportunity with the challenges,” Mr. Vaughan said.

Under the proposal, which requires council approval, the panel will report back to the city by March 20 of next year.

The condo proposal calls for three towers of 82, 84 and 86 storeys, with a total of 2,709 units. City planners and local residents have voiced opposition to the development. Planning staff take issue with the height and density of the project, as well as the potential demolition of four heritage properties that stand where the project would go.

Mr. Mirvish wants to see the project completed quickly in part because Mr. Gehry is now 84 and decided last month he would appeal to the OMB because of the difficulty he was having winning over city staff. The board has scheduled a pre-hearing conference for January.

At a committee meeting last month, Mr. Mirvish indicated that his group has spent $1-million on studies that say the project would not overtax the area when it comes to infrastructure such as sewers and transportation. He estimates that 60 per cent of the residents will walk to work in the neighbourhood.

At that same meeting, Mr. Gehry likened his distinctive design to “a candelabra with three candlesticks,” compared to the city’s other “lookalike” glass towers.

The proposal was forwarded to this month’s council meeting without recommendation by the Toronto East York community council.

If the plan is approved by city council, Mr. Vaughan said he expects members of the panel will be named early in the new year. If they cannot reach a solution, he said the proposal calls for the matter to go to mediation before it goes to the OMB.

With a report from Tara Perkins

[caltrane74]

Mirvish Gehry - Application Rejected!!

Surprise Surprise. OMB time.. yeah!