Future Canadian Skylines - Page 28

caltrane74 · #1 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 9:39 AM**

Here are some future shots of the skyline from a Yorkville Perspective.

by wyliepoon.

Now that Aura is under construction, forsure, City Council will be under the gun by developers to allow more tall buildings in the Yonge and Gerrard Area. Alot of stuff will go up there in the future, as it will be hard for the city to fight height there for a while. And it looks like alot of the stuff there that is already standing, can easily be demolished to make way for bigger and better buildings.

Aura will change Yonge and Gerrard, and Yonge and College forever.

Even Yonge and Dundas will feel different with Aura looming over the place.

The_Architect · #2 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 1:34 PM**

Aura looks so random in that first render.. I love it.
However to be honest if a supertall were to be proposed I'd want it in the main CBD, for that Toronto Island skyline shot..

#3 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 3:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Now that Aura is under construction, forsure, City Council will be under the gun by developers to allow more tall buildings in the Yonge and Gerrard Area. Alot of stuff will go up there in the future, as it will be hard for the city to fight height there for a while. And it looks like alot of the stuff there that is already standing, can easily be demolished to make way for bigger and better buildings.

Aura will change Yonge and Gerrard, and Yonge and College forever.

Even Yonge and Dundas will feel different with Aura looming over the place.

Yeah, I can definitely see that. It'd be nice to see a new wave of development hit that stretch of downtown. Right now the CBD and Yorkville look like entirely separate nodes, even if it's quite built up in between. A bunch of 200m + buildings in that area would do a lot to make the skyline look more continuous.

Ramako · #4 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 3:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cambridgite

Yeah, I can definitely see that. It'd be nice to see a new wave of development hit that stretch of downtown. Right now the CBD and Yorkville look like entirely separate nodes, even if it's quite built up in between. A bunch of 200m + buildings in that area would do a lot to make the skyline look more continuous.

That first shot is missing a bunch of stuff between Aura and Yorkville:

Built:
Murano (140.9 m & 111 m)

U/C:
Burano (163 m)

Proposed:
880 Bay (192 m)
9 Grenville (149.7 m)
FIVE Condos (147 m)
St. Nicholas (~120 m)

Once all that is built, there should be a fairly continuous skyline from Gerrard to Bloor. The problem is the gap between Aura and the CBD. A bunch of tall towers around Yonge-Dundas Square would fix that right up though.

Boreal · #5 Posted **Jan 14, 2011, 6:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

by wyliepoon.

Please, please, please tell me that is somebody's real name.

Traynor · #6 Posted **Jan 28, 2011, 12:32 AM**

Well, here's a rough first start at that Yorkville skyline I promised...

I got really tired of drawing buildings and I got lazy. I probably only added half of what everyone has been talking about but here goes, from left to right I added:

609 Sherbourne (rough guess), X2 (X is hidden behind 403 Bloor), 403 Bloor Street East, Couture, Chaz, As a place holder I put in CASA II for 42 Charles Street East at approx 220 Meters, U Condos II and I, One Bloor Street East, Cumberland Terrace I and II, Four Seasons Hotel & Residences, Milan Residences, The Florian (look close there is only a sliver of it.) and Yorkville Residences.

Sheeesh!!! That's a lot of buildings! ENJOY

(Original courtesy androiduk at Urban Toronto found here: http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.ph...P-S%29/page129 )

steveve · #7 Posted **Jan 28, 2011, 1:04 AM**

EPIC work traynor!

caltrane74 · #8 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 3:57 PM**

I'm sure there must be an updated rendering floating around with those buildings added into the mix to provide some perspective.

Traynor · #9 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 5:19 PM**

^On page 21 of this thread (back in July of last year) I posted a view that included all of the mentioned projects except the 9 Grenville proposal, and there is still a large high rise gap because of Dundas. Though, Gerrard to Bloor looks more filled in.

Link to post:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=408

isaidso · #10 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 5:51 PM**

It's the Eaton Centre/City Hall/Ryerson where the gap occurs. I can't see tall buildings going up between Queen and Dundas unless they build to the east of Yonge. To the west is OCAD, the AGO, etc. Between Dundas and Gerrard we might see some tall Ryerson residence buildings in the near future.

It might actually be nice to have a break from tall buildings between Queen and Gerrard. The contrast between highrise and low/midrise would be interesting. Manhattan has that same characteristic except the break is 20-30 blocks between downtown and midtown.

caltrane74 · #11 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 5:54 PM**

Don't forget the massive parking lot for the Delta.

That could potentially be the site of a very tall tower down the road.

isaidso · #12 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 5:59 PM**

I'm hoping they'll just tear the Delta down and build something really tall there.

Highinthesky · #13 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 6:10 PM**

Toronto is going to have that uptown and downtown Manhattan look very soon.

Traynor · #14 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 6:33 PM**

Manhattan's excuse for the split skyline is geological. The bedrock lies in folds under the island and is nearest the surface in lower Manhattan and in midtown. It is easy to build tall where the bedrock is close to the surface. The sandy shale between the two areas makes 200 meter towers impractical, hence the two peaks in New York's skyline.

Toronto only has stupid Nathan Phillips Square and it's precious, protected view-lines and shadowing to blame for Toronto's chance of a filled in skyline for the foreseeable future.

isaidso · #15 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

Manhattan's excuse for the split skyline is geological. The bedrock lies in folds under the island and is nearest the surface in lower Manhattan and in midtown. It is easy to build tall where the bedrock is close to the surface. The sandy shale between the two areas makes 200 meter towers impractical, hence the two peaks in New York's skyline.

Toronto only has stupid Nathan Phillips Square and it's precious, protected view-lines and shadowing to blame for Toronto's chance of a filled in skyline for the foreseeable future.

Very interesting! I didn't know that. I assumed it was merely to protect historical districts in Manhattan.

Highinthesky · #16 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 7:02 PM**

I'm familiar with the bedrock issue in New York.

I like the look of the two distinct areas of high-rises. However from even further east it would look like three with North York haha

caltrane74 · #17 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 6:34 PM**

Then we need to "build out" to create bulk.

Still this is good.

caltrane74 · #18 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 7:04 PM**

Don't forget Yonge and Eglinton.

Dwils01 · #19 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 9:04 PM**

Yonge and Eglinton isn't much right now. It looks big because there are no other big buildings around it. But I do think it has the potential to become a lot bigger within this decade.

caltrane74 · #20 Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 10:27 PM**

They are rebuilding Yonge Eglinton Centre adding 7 or 14 more stories on the existing buildings, pushing it over 500 feet. And of course there are lots of office and residential proposals there as well.

Minto is 163 Meters and is already sitting pretty as the second tallest tower outside of a Downtown Core in Canada.

And the Tallest Complete until Absolute World is finished.