HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 3:22 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
I don't get the point submitting this. This may be the new number one crazy fantasy development in the GTA. This project would be ambitious at half the heights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 3:25 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 12,732
It's pure fantasy land. Don't take any serious amount of stock in it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 3:59 PM
905er's Avatar
905er 905er is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 1,367
i've lived in Brampton for a decade.. this would never get built LMAO...
Brampton is an absolute total dump... wasted potential... it's not even like you're in Canada. While towers will get built..i have no doubt of that... I can't forsee anything remotely in that scale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 4:17 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
It's still to be determined if the dominant South Asian population is that interested in living in skyscraper clusters. Heights have gone up but, after a record number of completion in 2023, 2024 and 2025 are back down to the average of 1 or 2 high rises completed a year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 4:20 PM
kool maudit's Avatar
kool maudit kool maudit is offline
video et taceo
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 14,355
This really is a miserable plan. I don't know about you guys, but I came here because I liked skyscrapers as in Lower Manhattan, spires, dramatic vertical outgrowths of complex ground-level patterns.

Not vertical Khruschevkas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 4:50 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 10,520
Some new marketing renders for sales.

Source: urbantoronto.ca

Address 240 Adelaide St W, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 1W7
Category Residential (Hotel, Condo), Commercial (Retail)
Status Pre-Construction
Number of Buildings 1
Height 719 ft / 219.00 m
Storeys 63
Number of Units 376, 117




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 5:00 PM
Maldive's Avatar
Maldive Maldive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,061
^

Freed is collaborating with sbe on the 5 star hotel/dining component. The tower is estimated to cost $800 million.

I'll stick the images (and a couple others) in the Skyscraper Proposals (150m+) thread.
__________________
circa 2008: home of the 3rd best skyline in N.A. +++ circa 2028: home of the 2nd best skyline in N.A. (T-Dot)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 6:37 PM
GeneralLea's Avatar
GeneralLea GeneralLea is offline
Midtowner since 2K
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Midtown Toronto
Posts: 5,926
I still fail to see any incentive about visiting Brampton/the destination fact of it that'd justify this density here. Well, that and the lack of transit options really hurt connectivity of the city to the wider region, unless you're taking Go transit or going south to Mississauga/east to Vaughan.

I can't even imagine the hyptothetical parking count of this development, even if it was proposed with half the density.
__________________
"Living life on the edge"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 6:51 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS View Post
I still fail to see any incentive about visiting Brampton/the destination fact of it that'd justify this density here. Well, that and the lack of transit options really hurt connectivity of the city to the wider region, unless you're taking Go transit or going south to Mississauga/east to Vaughan.

I can't even imagine the hyptothetical parking count of this development, even if it was proposed with half the density.

There seem to be a whole bunch of these types of proposals popping up around the GTA/Golden Horseshoe of late - large, suburban oriented tower communities on isolated industrial sites, like this one in Waterloo: https://urbantoronto.ca/database/pro...elopment.53798




I don't really see the appeal of this, or the logic from a city building perspective. Human warehousing comes to mind.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 6:56 PM
GeneralLea's Avatar
GeneralLea GeneralLea is offline
Midtowner since 2K
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Midtown Toronto
Posts: 5,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
There seem to be a whole bunch of these types of proposals popping up around the GTA/Golden Horseshoe of late - large, suburban oriented tower communities on isolated industrial sites, like this one in Waterloo: https://urbantoronto.ca/database/pro...elopment.53798




I don't really see the appeal of this, or the logic from a city building perspective. Human warehousing comes to mind.
I agree. I suppose this is just to get zoning to flip the land later for higher values, though I can only assume with provincial backing in one to two cases, (like the High Tech lands in Richmond Hill - next to a future Yonge North subway station), a few of these formidably sized developments are more likely to be built out in the coming decade(s).
__________________
"Living life on the edge"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 6:44 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
That's more what I expect from a residential skyscraper. The price tag is a little shocking. For that value, I would expect more breathing room from neighbouring properties and office slab to slab heights with ceilings free from mechanical bulkheads and options for like coffered ceilings.

Wish Freed well. I just don't think this one will sell in that range at this location even with a name brand hotel attached to it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 7:02 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 68,772
Not enough moss.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2024, 7:30 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
Every large footprint shopping area has one these master plans or will have one. i see few redeeming qualities for the majority of these beyond housing a lot of people and getting new Metrolinx customers. Worst case scenario and, in my humbliest opinion, the likeliest outcome given the numbers is that one or two phases are built before stalling out leaving a small cluster of high rises next to weed lots.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2024, 8:42 PM
Maldive's Avatar
Maldive Maldive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,061
239 Dundas East | 163.6m | 52s | Metropia | Turner Fleischer l pre-construction

This affordable rental, condo and retail tower has returned with dramatically-smaller floor-plates and an increase in height to 52 storeys.


UT

UT

UT
__________________
circa 2008: home of the 3rd best skyline in N.A. +++ circa 2028: home of the 2nd best skyline in N.A. (T-Dot)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2024, 9:24 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
I don't mind the look of the tower. The look is a product of the development parcel. 35 times lot coverage at only 52 storey is an ugly lot coverage for a skyscraper and inhibits the architect to an I don't mind the look tower. And affordable just means tiny. 630 units in 35,000 square metres. Overall, another response to the bubbly market today and a terrible precedence for the long term future of Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2024, 9:30 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
I don't mind the look refers to the rendering. I don't have a lot of hope that it won't be back painted glass spandreled with the players involved
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2024, 9:40 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
Overall, another response to the bubbly market today and a terrible precedence for the long term future of Toronto.
Yeah, projects like this will just lower the desirability of...*checks notes*...Dundas and Sherbourne.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2024, 10:02 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
Yeah, projects like this will just lower the desirability of...*checks notes*...Dundas and Sherbourne.
It's not going to improve it. Please correct me that the 400ish square foot bowling alley hotel suite layout apartments within arms reach of another building with bowling alley hotel suite layout apartments are considered desirable to the tens of thousand occupying them.

Okay then. Dundas and Sherbourne is a shithole. The towers built and rising at Redpath and Broadway aren't ugly or cheap looking by Toronto standards. The environment created by the collective is oppressive to say the least. I'll speculate that the average unit layout will be narrow and cramped too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2024, 10:46 PM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
I don't mind the look of the tower. The look is a product of the development parcel. 35 times lot coverage at only 52 storey is an ugly lot coverage for a skyscraper and inhibits the architect to an I don't mind the look tower. And affordable just means tiny. 630 units in 35,000 square metres. Overall, another response to the bubbly market today and a terrible precedence for the long term future of Toronto.
Pure greed. Why would the skyline step up going east from Jarvis? To create the most jarring-as-possible transition to low-rise neighbourhoods apparently...

If it weren't for the St Mikes flight paths, the whole area southeast of Ryerson would be a sun-less maze of canyons a-la King/Peter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2024, 11:12 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
It's happening anyways regardless of reduced heights for the flight path

Intensification started off so well on King East around Sherbourne with MoZo and East Lofts and then the hulking Globe and Mail tower got built. Since, then it's block busting, retained facades on enormous podiums topped with 30 storey towers. It's a tragic end to a neighbourhood with lots of holes to fill but so much more potential to add to the existing fabric over the demolition and/or recreating it as facades attached to podiums under skyscrapers. How many individual properties were consolidated for ROC City and Grainger and Sanderson? Then there is Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario's intervention with as many housing units around the new Ontario Line station as possible irrespective of anything else.

Mozo and East Lofts have building heights reflective of their time. In no way should their example be interpreted as limiting height to those buildings. There's room for a slim Spire or Theatre Park both providing open space

Last edited by WhipperSnapper; Feb 13, 2024 at 11:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:24 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.