Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

the two towers proposed right now on Dundas on opposite sides of University are around 200 meters and will create a real "Lord of the Rings" effect when on University.

Hardly. University Avenue is 8 lanes wide with a huge centre meridian. You'd need 500m towers opposite each other to get a 'Lord of the Rings' effect. Not like that would be a bad thing. This is one avenue screaming out for significantly taller buildings. It's always felt under whelming due to the width of the street.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by koops65

WS needs to stop and take a few deep breaths... these 2 towers (The Icon http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=6029 and 481 University http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=49855) are NOT 240 meters... they are 207 and 184 meters. Taller than the surrounding towers? Yes. But not dwarfing them...

Agree. I have to chuckle at some Torontonians arguing that 240m would dwarf its surroundings. Like you said, Icon is 207m while Shangri-La is 213m.

AURA is double the height of anything around it and its made that area far better than it was before. You'd need to go to 400m on University Avenue to achieve a similar result. The CN Tower is the only structure in our city that dwarfs its surroundings and even there I'd argue that its been a huge asset to our built from not a detraction. Perhaps people looking for more of an old Europe scale can gravitate to the St. Lawrence area instead of fighting the city's growth tooth and nail.

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by isaidso

University is only now starting to see tall buildings erected on it. Shangri-La was the first and we'll likely see lots more. I was thinking more on the lines of 340m not 240m though. It's been 38 years since the 298m FCP went up. Surely, this city has grown enough to see a new tallest and University Avenue is the perfect street for it. It's our widest street after all.

Depends on your definition of "tall buildings" I guess, since the Hilton and Zurich buildings are 100m+ tall and were built in the 70's and the buildings at King and University have been there a while as well.

500+ feet is newer though, yeah.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

Depends on your definition of "tall buildings" I guess, since the Hilton and Zurich buildings are 100m+ tall and were built in the 70's and the buildings at King and University have been there a while as well.

500+ feet is newer though, yeah.

Tall largely depends on what one is used to and/or comfortable with. A building needs to be over 200m for me to take note of its height. Below that and its only its architecture that would register.

[WhipperSnapper]

Koops, I'm the editor of the database. I'm also the guy that found out one of the towers exceeds 200 metres. I know what is proposed. I was responding to fantasies of even taller towers at these sites.

To some 50, 100 and even 200 metres is negligible. To me, even 30 metres is of significance. I also take into account the existing built environment as I don't see a mass redevelopmen with Dubai numbers of supertalls as likely. Even during the biggest boom in history, the result on established 'hoods is best referred to as infill.

Shangri-la may as well be in a different time zone even if it's a five minute walk down the street. I wholeheartedly disagree on Aura. It hasn't enhanced it's immediate surroundings (eliminating a parking lot notwithstanding) or the skyline from say Riverdale Park. About the only thing it may have enhanced are distant skyline shots where only a general silhouette is seen.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Koops, I'm the editor of the database. I'm also the guy that found out one of the towers exceeds 200 metres. I know what is proposed. I was responding to fantasies of even taller towers at these sites.

Yes of course... and I must say that its a good thing we have a wide cross-section of people who post regularly about Toronto as it continues to grow. People such as yourself, who appear to be anti-growth, and against most proposals. (whether you really are or not is a different matter) People like Caltrane who are totally into just about everything that gets proposed, regardless of its merits. And everybody in-between. It's all good, and keeps the chatter here moving forward. Could you imagine how boring things would be if we all loved every building, or we all hated every building?

[caltrane74]

I never thought about it before, but its been a long time since I've seen a Toronto proposal that I truly hated.

I can only think of the first rendering of the Edmontonian, which was gross

[WhipperSnapper]

The two toned 460 Yonge is as ugly as anything.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by koops65

Yes of course... and I must say that its a good thing we have a wide cross-section of people who post regularly about Toronto as it continues to grow. People such as yourself, who appear to be anti-growth, and against most proposals. (whether you really are or not is a different matter) People like Caltrane who are totally into just about everything that gets proposed, regardless of its merits. And everybody in-between. It's all good, and keeps the chatter here moving forward. Could you imagine how boring things would be if we all loved every building, or we all hated every building?

I made my money on Toronto's growth. That doesn't mean I don't have a difference of opinion when it comes to growth based on my own studies and the close connection I have with those that put it in practice. So, yeah, I may flare up every now and then when their abilities are rudely "questioned" by those with fantasies that would make even a Chinese master planner say "too much" but, it should be considered anything but a release.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Not sure of the context in which he said it - but at the meeting today Frank Gehry said the only 2 buildings worth preserving in Toronto are Osgoode Hall and Old City Hall

[franktko]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

Not sure of the context in which he said it - but at the meeting today Frank Gehry said the only 2 buildings worth preserving in Toronto are Osgoode Hall and Old City Hall

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/19/...-hall-and-osgoode-hall-frank-gehry-says/

[The_Architect]

Good to know Queen's Park, Union Station, the Dominion Public Building, Royal York Hotel, King Edward Hotel, Casa Loma, University of Toronto, St. Lawrence Market, R.C. Harris Water Treatment Plant, Commerce Court North, TD Centre and Fort York are all not worth saving.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

Good to know Queen's Park, Union Station, the Dominion Public Building, Royal York Hotel, King Edward Hotel, Casa Loma, University of Toronto, St. Lawrence Market, R.C. Harris Water Treatment Plant, Commerce Court North, TD Centre and Fort York are all not worth saving.

Indeed. That statement says more about Frank and his knowledge of the area than it does about Toronto.

[Martin Mtl]

Gehry: “I think you should preserve [Old] City Hall because I used to go there when I was a kid.” and “the old General Hospital building I was born in should have been sacred. It was torn down.”

It's all about him, then.

His comments sound like a provocative stunt. He seems angry that he can't build his towers without any opposition.

[caltrane74]

Yes, seems like his comments were said in moment of fustration.

[uzi]

Gehry is going to lose the battle and this project will be cancelled.

[caltrane74]

Gehry is not the only one behind the project.

The Mirvish's have put a personal stake in this one as well, and they just closed $100 million dollars on the sale of the Annex Property. So they have some cash to throw around now, all they need is the green light to demolish the warehouse buildings. If they can't get city approval to do that, they can work around this by intergrating the warehouses into the design, something Gehry might not be willing to do, but maybe another starchitect might be willing to sacrifice it for the payday and the landmark development bragging rights.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

$100million might just build the podium on this thing as it's currently designed.

I'd conservatively estimate this at $600+ million hard construction cost

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

$100million might just build the podium on this thing as it's currently designed.

I'd conservatively estimate this at $600+ million hard construction cost

Well, as the podium is the only part of the project the developer will likely have to self finance from a philanthropic point of view, for their museum and what not. The towers themselves will have to be financed by condo and retail sales. That is certainly one less hurdle if the Mirvish's decide to move ahead with this project without the help of another one of the major developers onside.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Gehry is not the only one behind the project.

The Mirvish's have put a personal stake in this one as well, and they just closed $100 million dollars on the sale of the Annex Property. So they have some cash to throw around now, all they need is the green light to demolish the warehouse buildings. If they can't get city approval to do that, they can work around this by intergrating the warehouses into the design, something Gehry might not be willing to do, but maybe another starchitect might be willing to sacrifice it for the payday and the landmark development bragging rights.

Planners are also recommending 150 metres be chopped off the top of each tower.