Canada's 10 Tallest U/C - Page 27

Gresto · #**521** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 1:42 AM**

^I agree that 1400 ft. wouldn't complement the skyline in that location, as much as I adore 432 Park Ave.

DrNest · #**522** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 1:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Ice is the perfect height for that location and would ruin the skyline at twice their height

Ruin? That's not a word I would use. I think that a 400m tower in that locale would totally compliment the skyline.

caltrane74 · #**523** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 2:51 AM**

From this evening by me

uzi · #**524** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 4:16 AM**

^that glare in the glass is like Aura is on fire.

WhipperSnapper · #**525** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 4:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest

Ruin? That's not a word I would use. I think that a 400m tower in that locale would totally compliment the skyline.

I don't see how. Ice is the tallest tower in Southcore and arguably the tallest tower in the skyline from the lake. Doubling the height would be like adding additional CN towers and the CN Tower only works because its on the periphery. Yeah, 280 or 290 metres but, 400 metres makes no sense at all here.

Take every single highrise in the GTA and dump that density into the core of Toronto's downtown skyline. Maybe then, you will have something that competes with Midtown Manhattan.

LeftCoaster · #**526** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gresto

FrankieF, you and LeftCoaster have been awfully quiet on the proposals front.

It's slowing down a bit for sure. Still a few big guys in the pipeline but nothing like a few years ago.

Chadillaccc · #**527** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 8:36 PM**

I don't mean to alarm anyone, but I think the ground must have caved in at Brookfield Place, because this thing went down another 7 - 10 feet since my update last week! Moving at warp speed!

I have a feeling they are at the bottom now, it is so freaking deep it's crazy!

BP by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Brookfield Deep by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Gresto · #**528** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

It's slowing down a bit for sure. Still a few big guys in the pipeline but nothing like a few years ago.

That's unfortunate, but while I'm not too upset about the paucity of brand new proposals, I wish we would hear more - and more frequently - about those multitudes of big boys tabled in the last few years.

Innsertnamehere · #**529** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 10:01 PM**

what we need is to start seeing tenants in the plethora of proposed office buildings and what not to get them built. plus some condo sales, which have been going well so far this year. Plenty of big projects have essentially been given the go in the last few months. YC, Wellesley on the Park, King Blue condos, etc.

Gresto · #**530** Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 2:04 AM**

Those are good, but I'm more interested in One Yonge, Mirvish, 50 Bloor W., 80 Bloor W., 37 Yorkville, et al.

uzi · #**531** Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 5:30 AM**

^ I agree we need to see some hot 250m+ towers.

isaidso · #**532** Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 6:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest

Ruin? That's not a word I would use. I think that a 400m tower in that locale would totally compliment the skyline.

Toronto certainly needs a few buildings in the 400-600m range if the CN Tower is ever to be woven into the skyline. Presently it dwarfs the city and we've been trying to grow up to that tower ever since it went up.

isaidso · #**533** Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 6:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I absolutely love Toronto's taxis.

I used to hate them and wished they'd all be a uniform dark red and become an iconic Toronto image like the TTC streetcars. Over time I've come to like those Beck taxis even though their colour scheme is gawdy.

DrNest · #**534** Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 9:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't see how. Ice is the tallest tower in Southcore and arguably the tallest tower in the skyline from the lake. Doubling the height would be like adding additional CN towers and the CN Tower only works because its on the periphery. Yeah, 280 or 290 metres but, 400 metres makes no sense at all here.

Take every single highrise in the GTA and dump that density into the core of Toronto's downtown skyline. Maybe then, you will have something that competes with Midtown Manhattan.

That's like telling Chicago they shouldn't have built Big John because they already had Sears. A tower in the 400m range in the Southcore area wouldn't compete with the CN Tower in a negative way. More, like Isaidso mentions, it will lift the skyline. It won't block sight lines of the CN Tower, and so that view won't be compromised.

suburbanite · #**535** Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 12:44 PM**

It would dwarf the entire cbd from the lake. Very few cities have their tallest building that close to the waterfront. I'd love to see 400 m someday, but preferably set back a bit farther from the water.

WhipperSnapper · #**536** Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 1:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest

That's like telling Chicago they shouldn't have built Big John because they already had Sears. A tower in the 400m range in the Southcore area wouldn't compete with the CN Tower in a negative way. More, like Isaidso mentions, it will lift the skyline. It won't block sight lines of the CN Tower, and so that view won't be compromised.

Isaidso is nuts when it comes to comprehending height. I also don't understand why anyone would want the CN tower to "blend in" with the rest of the skyline. Towers look odd when they do. It goes against the purposes for their existence.

My point had nothing to do with competing with CN. Ice is typical twin tower condo build on a tight budget. It makes no sense to me to want it to absolutely dominate everything in the downtown area. Aura is bad enough.

Gresto · #**537** Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 9:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbanite

It would dwarf the entire cbd from the lake. Very few cities have their tallest building that close to the waterfront. I'd love to see 400 m someday, but preferably set back a bit farther from the water.

Agreed. Away from the lake or possibly to the east of the CBD, to balance CN on the west. The problem is, there's presently nary a highrise to speak of east of the CBD.

WhipperSnapper · #**538** Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 10:19 PM**

Give it 25 years.

rbt · #**539** Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 3:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Isaidso is nuts when it comes to comprehending height. I also don't understand why anyone would want the CN tower to "blend in" with the rest of the skyline. Towers look odd when they do. It goes against the purposes for their existence.

Calgary is a great example of this. I keep hoping someone will demolish that red bucket so it doesn't look so ridiculous.

Chadillaccc · #**540** Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 4:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbt

Calgary is a great example of this. I keep hoping someone will demolish that red bucket so it doesn't look so ridiculous.

haha so do many of us!

Apparently the tower was built to withstand a major expansion. The pod section could be up to 4 storeys tall, with the potential for a 90 meter spire on top. It would increase the height significantly. So there is potential for redevelopment.