Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals

[RyanPatrick]

Originally Posted by TallBob

Toronto is just a beast!! Fantastic proposals.... I wonder how many will actually come out of the ground in the next 10 years!

A healthy indication would be a higher number of office and retail proposals. Yes, we want people living in Downtown Toronto, but we want them working there too.

Is the condo boom creating any form of debt?
I've read that, perhaps, a majority of the new towers currently underconstruction in the core will need re-cladding in a decade or so. The costs of this repair work may be devastating to the home owners, potentially. What effect could this have on the market?

It would be prudent to address any issues so we may continue enjoying the downtown's growth, sustainably.

In 10 years the Toronto Islands and Lower Don Lands will be tiny lakeside garden strips compared to the mountain of towers of the downtown, stretching along the Gardiner and far beyond the span of these Islands, physically dominating them.

The view from the CN Tower is getting more interesting. I would recommend against building tall highrises too close to it.

[caltrane74]

Well the 10 year mark has come and gone for Pantages and Cityplace. I believe 1 King West has another year to go... So let's see when the cladding overhauls begin and then make a judgement about longevity.

Concord Gate / Concord Place in Don Mills are 15 years old and haven't yet undergone an overhaul.

Place Pier in Etobicoke is 36 years old and not only is it one of the tallest condos in the city ot is one of the costliest as well.

[coolcanadian]

Originally Posted by ue

I have to ask, why does Toronto seem to be too shy to build anything over 300m. Even FCP, at 298m; they couldn't have added just 2 more meters? Even the latest string of proposals all cap out in the 290s in height.

There is, of course, the CN Tower at a whopping 553.33 metres! We seem to forget it was the tallest building in the world for over 30 years! Yes, its a tower, but its still a building!

And FCP is actually 355 metres tall if you include its antenna. I don't understand why we include spires in the hight of a building, but not antennas! But then we don't include the CN Tower, which is kind of like a huge spire but also a building at the same time!

[urbandreamer]

Brad Lamb's upcoming aA tower in Calgary ought to crack the top 50 I believe.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by ue

I have to ask, why does Toronto seem to be too shy to build anything over 300m. Even FCP, at 298m; they couldn't have added just 2 more meters? Even the latest string of proposals all cap out in the 290s in height.

It's because 300m is a completely arbitrary number that holds no significance to anyone outside of these forums. If it ever became profitable to build this tall I'm sure we would see it, but it requires a very special set of conditions that haven't unfolded in Toronto.

[urbandreamer]

It's because no one wants a view of Buffalo anymore....

[Beedok]

Also proposing a new tallest might seem risky and 'pie in the sky'-ish, so people are only going for close to the height, not above the height.

[uzi]

a proposal of 300m tall building in Toronto face alot of the problems

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Brad Lamb's upcoming aA tower in Calgary ought to crack the top 50 I believe.

Say.... say WHAAAAT!?!

*rubs belly*

[caltrane74]

Awesome news for Calgary!!

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

It's because 300m is a completely arbitrary number that holds no significance to anyone outside of these forums.

If it's such an arbitrary number, then I wonder why the biggest new proposals seem to fall just shy of it. Mirvish/Gehry Towers and 1-7 Yonge, 10 towers, almost all of which are over 80 floors, but none that cracks 300 m or 1000 ft. This is just a city long conditioned to do everything on-the-cheap.

[Youranthony1]

The 156 Front model that Steveve added to his future Toronto model looks awesome - great addition to the skyline. The Edmontonian looks massive in relation to its surroundings.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Gresto

If it's such an arbitrary number, then I wonder why the biggest new proposals seem to fall just shy of it. Mirvish/Gehry Towers and 1-7 Yonge, 10 towers, almost all of which are over 80 floors, but none that cracks 300 m or 1000 ft. This is just a city long conditioned to do everything on-the-cheap.

I'm sure these proposals would top the mark by a few metres if it did matter. Relating height to cheapness definitely sides on obsession though.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by Gresto

If it's such an arbitrary number, then I wonder why the biggest new proposals seem to fall just shy of it. Mirvish/Gehry Towers and 1-7 Yonge, 10 towers, almost all of which are over 80 floors, but none that cracks 300 m or 1000 ft. This is just a city long conditioned to do everything on-the-cheap.

It's all just a coincidence... those towers "just happen" to be a few metres shy of 300, that's all. You would be paranoid to think otherwise...

[dleung]

No, the developers are out to get you. This has nothing to do with the proforma figures; it's to prevent the city from having the prerequisite 1000-footer to achieve "greatness"

[Gresto]

^Piss off.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I'm sure these proposals would top the mark by a few metres if it did matter. Relating height to cheapness definitely sides on obsession though.

Originally Posted by koops65

It's all just a coincidence... those towers "just happen" to be a few metres shy of 300, that's all. You would be paranoid to think otherwise...

Oh, of course, and I'm the last person on earth to suffer from paranoia. I do, however, disagree with WhipperSnapper and think it relates to this city's propensity for cheaping out and cutting corners with everything. Show me one 80+ storey building in Manhattan (yeah, I know) that isn't well over 300 m. There's no question 300 m. (or roughly 1000 ft.) is an arbitrary figure, but it's a yardstick of some kind, and with every new mammoth proposal it just seems like one that Toronto's buildings can't surpass.

[suburbanite]

Well the only >80 floor buildings in New York are the World Trade Center and The Empire State Building So I don't really understand the comparison. A couple of the ongoing residential projects are 300+m but they're also at the very high-end of the market.

I don't get how you can say developers are cheapening out in relation to height when they're often building 2 200m+ buildings in one development. They've obviously found a sweet spot in their cash flow valuations, and it lies between 200-300m.

[WhipperSnapper]

Developers squeezing every penny out of developments has nothing to do with height. Nine foot ceilings are the standard for mid range units just about everywhere.

We went from 90 metres being tall to 220 metres in 12 years. During that time, we went from eleven, 150 metre towers to 30 with another 25 under construction and 10 more to break ground during the next year.

300 metres will be eclipsed in due time. When it happens, it won't be just one tower either. The same can be said with 156 Front. Its success will shift design towards angles and crowns overnight. Most Toronto developers have all gone though hardship during one bust or another. They are extremely cautious being trend setters but, are quick to recognize success and adapt to it.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Well the only >80 floor buildings in New York are the World Trade Center and The Empire State Building So I don't really understand the comparison.

N.Y.C. is always a controversial comparison, I know, but just look at a few of the proposed residentials and mixed-uses:
-225 West 57th, 88 storeys, 433 m. (compared to 1 Yonge #1 with 88 storeys at 293 m.; granted, it's residential-only)
-432 Park Ave., 85 storeys, 426m.
-111 W. 57th, 74 storeys, 411 m.
-Tower Verre, 82 storeys, 320 m. (this is a closer to Toronto's storey-height ratio)
-et al

I don't get how you can say developers are cheapening out in relation to height when they're often building 2 200m+ buildings in one development. They've obviously found a sweet spot in their cash flow valuations, and it lies between 200-300m.

I don't disagree with your last sentence, but it implies that there's a dearth of vision and ambition, in contrast to the demand. Why so many twins in T.O.? Why not, instead of two 220 m. buildings, one 400 m. building? Because the former is cheaper. Expediency and savings.
The same cost-cutting is prevalent in government. Why not, for instance, submerge the entirety of the raised Gardiner, which would incontrovertibly be the best option? 1) We can't afford it (but it was done in Boston). 2) Red tape (decades-long consultations, environmental assessments, and bureaucratic wrangling).

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

We went from 90 metres being tall to 220 metres in 12 years. During that time, we went from 11 150 metre towers to 30 with another 25 under construction and 10 more to break ground during the next year. Patience is required.
300 metres will be eclipsed in due time. When it happens, it won't be just one tower either.

I'm not sure your precedence/slippery-slope argument holds water, but we'll see.

Anyway, I digress... Carry on with top-20 proposals.

[Ramako]

Developers are businesses like any other. Their only incentive is to make money - not satisfy the arbitrary desires of internet skyscraper geeks (I'm including myself in this description). Of course there's some value in being able to market the tallest building in Canada, but that's going to be weighed against hard costs.

Regardless, as available land downtown becomes more scarce and the demand for new space increases, supertalls will eventually come. Right now I'm far more concerned with the downtown just filling out dozens more 150+ metre towers. That's where the real heavy lifting is anyway.