Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals [Archive]

PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum. For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Ramako

Mar 13, 2010, 12:16 AM

Canada's Top 15 Proposals (archive) (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=126131)

--- QUICK LIST ---

(diagram (http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=50271987))

1. Oxford Place East (Toronto): 326.1m / 1,070ft
1. Oxford Place West (Toronto): 326.1m / 1,070ft
3. Pinnacle One Yonge 1 (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft
4. Theatre Block - Centre Tower (Toronto): 289.8m / 951ft
5. Theatre Block - West Tower (Toronto): 286m / 938ft
6. Pinnacle One Yonge 2 (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft
7. Theatre Block - East Tower (Toronto): 278.6m / 914ft
8. 50 Bloor Street West (Toronto): 277m / 909ft
9. Oxford Place Hotel West (Toronto): 254.8m / 836ft
10. Herald Square (Calgary): 247m / 810ft
11. 45 Bay Street (Toronto): 244m / 801ft
12. 37 Yorkville I (Toronto): 237.8m / 780ft
13. 43 Simcoe (Toronto): 234.3m / 769ft
14. Hotel at Michael's Inn (Niagara Falls): 229m / 751ft
15. Rainbow Tower Hotel (Niagara Falls): 228.9m / 751ft
16. Eau de Soleil I (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft
17. Ten York (Toronto): 224m / 735ft
18. 2 Queen West (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft
19. Hotel at Niagara Falls Aviary Site (Niagara Falls): 222m / 728ft
20. 156 Front (Toronto): 221.9m / 728ft
21. Pinnacle One Yonge 3 (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft
21. Pinnacle One Yonge 4 (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft
23. Kings on Fourth (Calgary): 210m / 689ft
24. Massey Tower (Toronto): 208.3m / 683ft
25. 460 Yonge (Toronto): 207m / 679ft

26. 88 Scott Street (Toronto): 204m / 669ft
27. E Condos South (Toronto): 202.1m / 660ft
28. The Icon (Toronto): 197m / 646ft
29. Hotel at Loretto Christian Life Centre (Niagara Falls): 197m / 646ft
30. 100 Adelaide West (Toronto): 188.2m / 617ft
31. Oxford Place Hotel East (Toronto): 184.4m / 605ft
32. 481 University (Toronto): 183.8m / 603ft
33. 37 Yorkville II (Toronto): 182.7m / 599ft
34. 22|21 Yonge (Toronto): 180.9m / 593ft
35. 592 Sherbourne (Toronto): 179.6m / 589ft
36. 225 Sixth Tower Two (Calgary): ~~~m / ~~~ft
37. L'Avenue (Montreal): 175m / 574ft
37. IQ Tower 5 (Toronto): 175m / 574ft
37. IQ Tower 6 (Toronto): 175m / 574ft
40. 501 Yonge South (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft
41. Solo District - Altus (Burnaby): 169.9m / 557ft
42. Lago at the Waterfront (Toronto): 167.5m / 550ft
43. Waterways I (Toronto): 164.5m / 540ft
44. 3 Civic Plaza (Surrey): ~~~m / ~~~ft
45. 599 Yonge (Toronto): 163.2m / 535ft
45. Cumberland Terrace (Toronto): 163.2m / 535ft
47. Station Square Tower 3 (Burnaby): 163.1m / 535ft
48. 403 Bloor East (Toronto): 163.1m / 535ft
49. Eau de Soleil II (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft
49. Yonge + Rich (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft
49. 11 Wellesley (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft
49. City Centre Hotel (Calgary): ~~~m / ~~~ft

- marketing/seeking tenants -
- site prep underway -

--- RENDERS ---

1. Oxford Place East (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=14472) (Toronto): 326.1m / 1,070ft

http://imageshack.us/a/img534/9131/35322632.png

1. Oxford Place West (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=31652) (Toronto): 326.1m / 1,070ft

http://imageshack.us/a/img39/4092/39899741.png

3. Pinnacle One Yonge 1 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=27466) (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/5182ddfbb3fc4bdec80000c1_one-yonge-hariri-pontarini-architects_1yonge_main_final-528x792.jpg
http://www.archdaily.com/367812/one-yonge-hariri-pontarini-architects/

4. Theatre Block - Centre Tower (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=15337) (Toronto): 289.8m / 951ft

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g371/Canadian__National/gm3.jpg
Note: In the middle.

5. Theatre Block - West Tower (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=31757) (Toronto): 286m / 938ft

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/article4577241.ece/BINARY/w620/View+from+the+Southwest+small%281%29.jpg
Note: On the left.

6. Pinnacle One Yonge 2 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5304) (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-default/images/articles/2013/01/6917/urbantoronto-6917-22995.jpg
Note: On the right.

7. Theatre Block - East Tower (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=15041) (Toronto): 278.6m / 914ft

http://projectcore.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/View-from-the-Southeast-sma.jpg
Note: On the right.

8. 50 Bloor Street West (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=57390) (Toronto): 277m / 909ft

http://p.twimg.com/Aw-9X_dCMAI6oKe.jpg

9. Oxford Place Hotel West (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=9533) (Toronto): 254.8m / 836ft

http://imageshack.us/a/img441/2637/85621414.png

10. Herald Square (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=78859) (Calgary): 247m / 810ft

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/7638998.bin?size=620x400s

11. 45 Bay Street (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=61082) (Toronto): 244m / 801ft

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a234/mark3333/45bay.jpg

12. 37 Yorkville I (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=7006) (Toronto): 237.8m / 780ft

http://i.imgur.com/LddGQ.jpg
Note: In the foreground.

13. 43 Simcoe (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=98068) (Toronto): 234.3m / 769ft

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/6500/22444155t.jpg
Note: On the left.

14. Hotel at Michael's Inn (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=27567) (Niagara Falls): 229m / 751ft

http://gingert.net/images/niagarafalls-twinhotels-03.jpg

15. Rainbow Tower Hotel (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=37368) (Niagara Falls): 228.9m / 751ft

http://www.accessniagara.com/blog/media/rainbowtower-2.jpg

16. Eau de Soleil I (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=85624) (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://cdn.talkcondo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/talkcondo-new-condos-in-toronto-eau-du-soleil-condos.jpg
Note: On the left.

17. Ten York (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=98543) (Toronto): 224m / 735ft

http://www.10york.info/wp-content/themes/Jaffna/images/10york_01.jpg
http://www.10york.info/

18. 2 Queen West (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=26516) (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://www.blogto.com/upload/2013/05/20130516-Queen-Tower.jpg
http://www.blogto.com/city/2013/05/massive_condo_tower_proposed_for_queen_and_yonge/

19. Hotel at Niagara Falls Aviary Site (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=48625) (Niagara Falls): 222m / 728ft

http://gingert.net/images/niagarafalls-twinhotels-03.jpg

20. 156 Front (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=98067) (Toronto): 221.9m / 728ft

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/6500/22444155t.jpg
Note: On the right.

21. Pinnacle One Yonge 3 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5331) (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-default/images/articles/2013/01/6917/urbantoronto-6917-22995.jpg
Note: Third from the left.

21. Pinnacle One Yonge 4 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=14946) (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-default/images/articles/2013/01/6917/urbantoronto-6917-22995.jpg
Note: Second from the right.

23. Kings on Fourth (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=64042) (Calgary): 210m / 689ft

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/5610/lacaille2.jpg

24. Massey Tower (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=15900) (Toronto): 208.3m / 683ft

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7204/6793483178_4c93a4ca13_b.jpg

25. 460 Yonge (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=98542) (Toronto): 207m / 679ft

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8520/8498794332_ea06cef246_o.png

26. 88 Scott Street (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=41763) (Toronto): 204m / 669ft

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/6894753191_9dd1298834_b.jpg

27. E Condos South (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5155) (Toronto): 202.1m / 660ft

http://www.blogto.com/upload/2013/03/20130318-Eglinton-Full.jpg

28. The Icon (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=6029) (Toronto): 197m / 646ft

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/articles/2012/12/6859/urbantoronto-6859-22631.jpg

29. Hotel at Loretto Christian Life Centre (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=15130) (Niagara Falls): 197m / 646ft

http://www.zappispizza.com/Loretto-Fallsview-Niagara-Hotel/niagara-falls-loretto-condos-hotels/Fallsview-hotels-niagara-condos-31.jpg

30. 100 Adelaide West (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=96511) (Toronto): 188.2m / 617ft

https://api.arcestra.com/api/files/669961642796343043

31. Oxford Place Hotel East (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=63053) (Toronto): 184.4m / 605ft

http://imageshack.us/a/img441/2637/85621414.png

32. 481 University (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=49855) (Toronto): 183.8m / 603ft

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8232/8569501462_8f4fda426a_c.jpg

33. 37 Yorkville II (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=46954) (Toronto): 182.7m / 599ft

http://i.imgur.com/LddGQ.jpg
Note: In the background.

34. 22|21 Yonge (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=15420) (Toronto): 180.9m / 593ft

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303089_140474726139430_271576939_n.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/2221Yonge

35. 592 Sherbourne (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=40712) (Toronto): 179.6m / 589ft

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7140/7606173406_758fa8b556_c.jpg

36. 225 Sixth Tower Two (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=32000) (Calgary): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/7638998.bin?size=620x400s
Note: On the left.

37. L'Avenue (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=10398) (Montreal): 175m / 574ft

http://blogues.lapresse.ca/lapresseaffaires/immobilier/files/2012/07/tourlavenue-montreal.jpg

37. IQ Tower 5 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1299) (Toronto): 175m / 574ft

37. IQ Tower 6 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=52014) (Toronto): 175m / 574ft

40. 501 Yonge South (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=94824) (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-default/images/projects/799/urbantoronto-799-24579.jpg
Note: On the right.

41. Solo District - Altus (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=83897) (Burnaby): 169.9m / 557ft

http://solodistrict.com/social/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/solo_north_dayweb-sized.jpg

42. Lago at the Waterfront (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=93849) (Toronto): 167.5m / 550ft

http://media.point2.com/p2a/htmltext/17b8/4924/9fd0/ed37703a6fcb76044fad/original.jpg

43. Waterways I (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=85378) (Toronto): 164.5m / 540ft

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8159/7102818357_8b1ed6d11e_b.jpg

44. 3 Civic Plaza (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=14515) (Surrey): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://surrey604.com/wp-content/gallery/2012-06-3civicplaza/3-civic-plaza_daytime.jpg

45. 599 Yonge (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=45475) (Toronto): 163.2m / 535ft

http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac46/Fastwalking/C64D4A4E-7B3A-45D3-A714-0D8FE8A4D17F-2149-0000016B3F41619A.jpg

45. Cumberland Terrace Redevelopment (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=51340) (Toronto): 163.2m / 535ft

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2928667527_a38b8a9fd4_o.jpg

47. Station Square Tower 3 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=3038) (Burnaby): 163.1m / 535ft

http://ads2.westca.com/server/newhome/station/out.jpg

47. 403 Bloor East (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=88037) (Toronto): 163.1m / 535ft

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8244/8483787067_ff01d7a26e_c.jpg

49. Eau de Soleil II (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=85623) (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://cdn.talkcondo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/talkcondo-new-condos-in-toronto-eau-du-soleil-condos.jpg
Note: On the right.

49. Yonge + Rich (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=7844) (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://blog.buzzbuzzhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013_04_16_12_12_22_yongerich_exteriorrendering.jpg
http://blog.buzzbuzzhome.com/2013/04/yonge-rich-eateries-toronto.html

49. 11 Wellesley (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=11026) (Toronto): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/city_hall/2013/03/21/wellesley_lot_sold_to_developer_but_park_possible/11_wellesley_hi_res.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg

49. City Centre Hotel (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=89735) (Calgary): 161.5m / 530ft

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/1531/scr1326726130.jpg
Note: On the right.

54. 102nd Street Centre (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=97152) (Edmonton): 161m / 528ft

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6116/6319574551_407a69f5ef.jpg

50. 44 Eglinton West (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=52028) (Toronto): 160.8m / 528ft

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a234/mark3333/44Eglinton.jpg

51. Burrard Gateway Tower 1 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=89764) (Vancouver): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/oct2gon/Screenshot2011-03-20at75339AM.png

52. Station Square Tower 4 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5075) (Burnaby): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://ads2.westca.com/server/newhome/station/out.jpg

53. 3 Eau Claire (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=47995) (Calgary): 160m / 525ft

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/6617/3eauclaire.jpg

54. Tour Avenue des Canadiens (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=94022) (Montreal): 160m / 525ft

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1439/montrealn.jpg

55. Bloor & Parliament Tower 3 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=89830) (Toronto): 158.8m / 521ft

http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac46/Fastwalking/Elevations.jpg
Note: On the left.

56. 200 Dundas East I (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=98547) (Toronto): 157.9m / 518ft

http://gingert.net/images/toronto-200dundaseast.jpg
Note: On the left.

58. Holland Pointe Tower 1 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=99312) (Surrey): 157.6m / 517ft

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3588/3435955820_e0721dc473.jpg

59. Noir Condos (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=16380) (Toronto): 157m / 515ft

http://www.urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-default/images/articles/2012/05/5806/urbantoronto-5806-18419.jpg

59. 16 York Office (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=71598) (Toronto): 157m / 515ft

http://www.16york.ca/img/landmark-architecture/dramatic-offset.jpg

61. 308 Jarvis (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1711) (Toronto): 156.5m / 513ft

http://www.urbika.com/imgs/projects/large/6974_308-314-jarvis-amp-225-mutual.jpg

62. King Blue Hotel & Condo East (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=15159) (Toronto): 155.8m / 511ft

http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/KingBlue56.jpg

63. 43 Gerrard West (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=98534) (Toronto): 154.7m / 508ft

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7100/7343790538_6b9161f683_o.jpg

64. 15 Mercer (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=95005) (Toronto): 153.2m / 503ft

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7827/mercer.jpg

66. 1215 Square Phillips (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=72721) (Montreal): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://www.taylornoakes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Canderel0.jpg

67. Solo District Tower 1 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=83897) (Burnaby): ~~~m / ~~~ft

http://www.solodistrict.com/images/day_800.jpg
Note: On the left.

68. Bloor & Parliament Tower 4 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=89831) (Toronto): 146.9m / 482ft

http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/609SherbourneRend5.jpg

71. The Guardian (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=98136) (Calgary): 143m / 469ft

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7162/6793529587_8b4ca40c00_z.jpg

73. Bell Centre Residential 1 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=94022) (Montreal): 140m / 459ft

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/5962/96301400.png
Note: Rendering does not reflect reduction of 57.1 metres

74. Bloor & Parliament Tower 2 (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=89829) (Toronto): 139.9m / 459ft

http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac46/Fastwalking/Elevations.jpg
Note: In the middle.

75. 99 Blue Jays Way (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=51967) (Toronto): 138.3m / 454ft

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3474/3387446817_f4d4afe926.jpg

76. 13778 100 Avenue (http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=86045) (Surrey): 137m / 449ft

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/new_tower-1.jpg
Note: The tallest tower in this rendering.

77. Telus Residential (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=90197) (Vancouver): 135m / 443ft

http://www.henriquezpartners.com/archimemo/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/telus-res.jpg

78. 42 Park Lawn (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=97821) (Toronto): 133.9m / 439ft

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/filipv/386545849.png

79. Bell Centre Office (http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=86045) (Montreal): 133m / 436ft

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/5313/ps3l.png

80. 363 King West (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=92078) (Toronto): 132m / 433ft

http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/357KingWRender.jpg

steveve

Mar 13, 2010, 12:58 AM

Thanks for putting the list together/starting this new thread Ramako! :cheers:

Should we add 2 bloor/Cumberland Terrace Re-development to the list?

Here's the full article that was posted at UT:

CUMBERLAND TERRACE - Eyesore revamp approved
March 12, 2010

http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q438/Solaris_Metrogate/NRU_100312-2.jpg

The city has approved the large-scale redevelopment of a low-rise mall near one of the city’s highest profile intersections.

Oxford Properties’ plan to redevelop Cumberland Terrace northwest of Yonge and Bloor streets with two high-rise condo towers and new retail space got the nod from council at its February 22 and 23 meeting.

Several redevelopment plans have been put forward over the years. The latest one calls for two towers, 36- and 48-storeys respectively, above a three-storey retail podium and four floors of parking with a total of 556 condo units.

In addition, retail units will front onto Cumberland Street, creating a more appealing pedestrian environment. The current mall doesn’t have an engaging presence on Cumberland.

When Oxford submitted its rezoning application almost two years ago, the taller tower was proposed at 45 storeys and the residential component set for 391 units.

At the time, Oxford’s vice president of development John Filipetti told NRU that the developer wants to maximize the site’s potential and add a street presence along Cumberland. Filipetti characterized the current building as an eyesore, stating that Oxford is looking to enliven the south side of Cumberland. (See NRUToronto Edition, October 10, 2008)

The approval includes a $500,000 Section 37 contribution and an agreement to include an underground pedestrian connection between the new retail space and Bay Station, much like the one that now connects Cumberland Terrace to the subway.

In a report approved by council last month, city officials concluded that the project “represents an opportunity to intensify and revitalize an underutilized site at an important intersection and improve the pedestrian realm along Bay, Cumberland and Yonge streets.”

The Bloor-Yorkville BIA also supports Oxford’s plans, but plans to address streetscape improvements on Cumberland during the site plan approval process. The BIA wants to ensure the same treatment and features on the north and south sides of the street.

In a letter to the city outlining the BIA’s concerns, board director Ron Palmer raised questions about the above ground parking levels, Palmer, chair of the BIA’s planning, preservation and urban design committee and a planner with The Planning Partnership, cited potential traffic issues and possible negative visual impacts of the parking facility.

The mass of the taller structure also raises some concerns for the BIA.

“While the Bloor-Yorkville BIA is not necessarily opposed to taller building elements,” Palmer states in the letter, “we certainly remain concerned about the impacts tall buildings, and buildings with large floor-plates may have on adjacent buildings, properties and businesses.”

To avoid future conflicts between residents and businesses, Palmer said the BIA wants assurance that new residents are aware of potential noise from the area’s outdoor bars and restaurants.

Bregman + Hamann Architects designed the building.

Local councillor Kyle Rae is out of the country and was unable to comment. Calls to Oxford Properties were not returned.

Ramako

Mar 13, 2010, 1:06 AM

Thanks for putting the list together/starting this new thread Ramako! :cheers:

Should we add 2 bloor/Cumberland Terrace Re-development to the list?

It's not tall enough to crack the top 15. It may get on the list in a few weeks after some on the current list start construction. Perhaps I'll expand the list to make it top 25 later.

caltrane74

Mar 13, 2010, 1:09 AM

good work.

MTLskyline

Mar 13, 2010, 4:11 AM

I don't think that the "Tour Centre-Ville" in Montreal is a real project (more like a vision), unfortunately... :(

Wooster

Mar 13, 2010, 4:16 AM

Wrong image for Eau Claire tower.

Ramako

Mar 13, 2010, 4:21 AM

Wrong image for Eau Claire tower.

Is there an image at all? I can't find one.

Nicko999

Mar 13, 2010, 4:26 AM

I don't think that the "Tour Centre-Ville" in Montreal is a real project (more like a vision), unfortunately... :(

The height limit in this part of the city is 232.5m...

Wooster

Mar 13, 2010, 4:35 AM

Is there an image at all? I can't find one.

Found it:

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/7090/eauclaire.png

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/8558/eauclaire2.png

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/5980/eauclaire4.png

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/2088/eauclaire6.png

Wooster

Mar 13, 2010, 4:38 AM

Anyone know the proposed height for the Lacaille on 4th project in Calgary? it must be in the same range - I think a bit taller.

WhipperSnapper

Mar 13, 2010, 6:41 AM

^don't know but, I conservatively estimate it at 190m to the tippy tip using the low res elevation in the brochure

trueviking

Mar 13, 2010, 6:45 AM

quite a few nice tower designs....not loving the dubaish eau claire thing though.

Ramako

Mar 13, 2010, 7:29 AM

Can one of you folks from Calgary tell me what this is and what its status is?

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/1063/fcc2renqn2.jpg

mersar

Mar 13, 2010, 8:59 AM

Can one of you folks from Calgary tell me what this is and what its status is?

That would be the most recent proposal for FCC2, and it should be considered just that, a proposal with likely no future chance of happening.

Ramako

Mar 13, 2010, 9:54 AM

That would be the most recent proposal for FCC2, and it should be considered just that, a proposal with likely no future chance of happening.

If it's got no chance of happening I won't include it. Right now I'm going off of the diagrams which missed LeCaille for some reason. If I'm missing anything let me know.

Bigtime

Mar 13, 2010, 3:25 PM

Isn't that also the wrong image for the LaCaille on 4th tower?

Here are the newer renderings:

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1969/lacaille3.png

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4145/lacaille2.png

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/5351/lacaille.png

Ramako

Mar 13, 2010, 4:24 PM

:previous:

Wow, that is one schizophrenic tower. Calgary's very own 1250 Boulevard René-Lévesque.

Traynor

Mar 13, 2010, 5:52 PM

I'm not sure what developments this render depicts, but I don't believe 44 Eglinton Ave West is one of them.

There are several proposed buildings in this render, such as the ones on the TTC lands on the south side of Eglinton West and all the buildings behind the Canadian Tire Building on Yonge. Also some rather tall future building on the Northeast corner of Yonge and Eglinton here listed as the 44 Eglinton proposal but that cannot be the case.

44 Eglinton Avenue West is on the corner of Duplex Avenue, where that short, very orange looking building, with the blue roof in the middle left of the picture is located.

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/images/yonge_eg_rendering_lg.jpg

WhipperSnapper

Mar 13, 2010, 6:12 PM

^that's true. here's an elevation line drawing

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a234/mark3333/44Eglinton.jpg

WhipperSnapper

Mar 13, 2010, 6:18 PM

pretty basic in comparison but, I find the old version of RAC3 confusing

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a234/mark3333/RAC3.jpg

MolsonExport

Mar 13, 2010, 11:21 PM

some awesome proposals, but I reckon only half or less will see the light of day...all those office towers for Toronto? In the current climate?

niwell

Mar 13, 2010, 11:57 PM

^No way for the majority of the officer towers in the next 5 years at least. I wouldn't be surprised to see taller condo proposals before most are even considered to be viable.

WhipperSnapper

Mar 14, 2010, 12:12 AM

Yeah both FCP and TD Centre are seeing major renovations, a restaurant is being installed on the BA 2 site, and the new owners of the Front Street Data Centre proposal have expressed publicly that they are not proceeding in the forseeable future.

steveve

Mar 14, 2010, 1:32 AM

Great work on the list/thread Ramako! :cheers: :tup:

Alot of the proposals i had never even seen/heard of before! And some of the buildings i was suprised they plan to be in Canada! The architecture is totally different for some of them!

And about the Yonge/Eglington developments going on... its funny how locals to the area hated the idea of the Minto Towers when they were first proposed.... Wait till they see whats about to hit them just by looking at that render! :haha:

caltrane74

Mar 15, 2010, 10:02 PM

by me... should be in the construction thread by the end of the week...

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6286/sany0140e.jpg

kicking absolute into the 11 to 30 thread..

steveve

Mar 17, 2010, 12:12 AM

Can't wait to see l tower on the list! ^^^

*I noticed on our diagrams page, Number One Bloor is listed for completetion sometime in 2013... Considering Aura is due in 2014 i find it hard to believe considering the units haven't even been sold yet... anyone know where they base the criteria for buildings in general? :shrug:

jlousa

Mar 17, 2010, 1:13 AM

Am I the only one disappointed in this thread? I was expecting the top 25 proposals, not the 25 tallest proposals. :shrug:

Ramako

Mar 17, 2010, 1:21 AM

Am I the only one disappointed in this thread? I was expecting the top 25 proposals, not the 25 tallest proposals. :shrug:

As in top quality? That's pretty subjective, don't you think? How could you quantify that into a list?

caltrane74

Mar 17, 2010, 1:34 AM

then every post would have its own 25 best in the country... I guess that would be way to subjective...

jlousa

Mar 17, 2010, 1:48 AM

I agree the top 25 would be subjective, hence it being a discussion forum. With it being the 25 tallest there is a lot less to discuss, not that there is anything wrong with a 25 tallest list. My opinion is just that tallest ≠ top. Maybe a renaming of the thread would avoid future confusion. :cheers:

caltrane74

Mar 17, 2010, 2:59 AM

Looking at your last post makes me realize how matter of fact the Toronto Forumers are, at least compared to the others here. Really as a hole, with the exception of goodlookin, they do not engage in alot of hypothectical dicussion, whether on this forum or other sub forums on this site.. ...hmmmm also explains why Traynor is such a hardass...

yyzer

Mar 17, 2010, 1:03 PM

Media Advisory - One Bloor - Toronto - Great Gulf's newest condominium unveiled
Thursday, March 25, 2010 @ 10:30 AM

Interview Opportunity

TORONTO, March 16 /CNW/ - Members of the media are invited to an event at which the details will be released about Great Gulf's flagship condominium to be located at the crossroads of Yonge and Bloor Streets in Toronto, at the gateway to prestigious Bloor-Yorkville. The world-renowned design team includes Hariri Pontarini Architects, Cecconi Simone Inc., and Janet Rosenberg + Associates Landscape Architecture/Urban Design, with construction by Tucker Hi-Rise Construction Inc., and sales by Baker Real Estate Incorporated. One Bloor's sensuous silhouette is sculpted with piano curves and evokes a timeless modernism. The first two storeys of the podium will encompass prime retail along Yonge and Bloor, and year-round contemporary amenities will create an environment that encompasses wellness, fitness and pampering amid the ultimate urban backdrop. One Bloor, This Is Your Fantasy.

WHO: David Gerofsky, President & Chief Operating Officer, Great Gulf
Group of Companies

David Pontarini, Founding Partner, Hariri Pontarini Architects

Anna Simone, Founding Partner, Cecconi Simone Inc.

Janet Rosenberg, Founding Principal, Janet Rosenberg +
Associates Landscape Architecture/Urban Design

Barbara Lawlor, President, Baker Real Estate Incorporated

Michael McGrath, President, Tucker Hi-Rise Construction Inc.

WHAT: A SPECIAL DESIGN-FOCUSED MEDIA BRIEFING AND INTERVIEWS WITH THE
ARCHITECT, PROJECT DESIGN TEAM, CONSTRUCTION AND SALES WILL
FOLLOW PROJECT OVERVIEW REMARKS.

WHERE: ONE BLOOR PRESENTATION TENT
Southeast corner, Yonge and Bloor Streets, Toronto
ON-SITE PARKING ACCESSED THROUGH EASTERN-MOST BLOOR STREET GATE

WHEN: THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010 at 10:30 AM

WhipperSnapper

Mar 17, 2010, 2:22 PM

Am I the only one disappointed in this thread? I was expecting the top 25 proposals, not the 25 tallest proposals. :shrug:

But there's not even one ferris wheel?!?

steveve

Mar 17, 2010, 5:03 PM

Here's a elevation drawing posted on the "36-44 Eglington Avenue West" thread on UT...

I can't really tell what tower it is but as you can see there are plans for a curved section of the building which should be interesting :) !

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4440276356_829839b15f_b.jpg

Dylan Leblanc

Mar 17, 2010, 7:07 PM

The strange thing about that tower is that it is right smack up against the office building beside it.

Traynor

Mar 17, 2010, 7:19 PM

The strange thing about that tower is that it is right smack up against the office building beside it.

I believe purchasers of units that also work at 20 Eglinton Ave W. can add a plank from their condo unit to their office for a nominal cost.

Best commute ever!

:D

WhipperSnapper

Mar 17, 2010, 7:51 PM

like the fire escapes at District Lofts

steveve

Mar 17, 2010, 8:11 PM

I believe purchasers of units that also work at 20 Eglinton Ave W. can add a plank from their condo unit to their office for a nominal cost.

Best commute ever!

:D

AHAHA! :haha: :haha:

Like in those commercials they used to have on tv!! :haha:

steveve

Mar 18, 2010, 1:44 AM

From Urban Toronto:

Number One Bloor Launch Coming Next Week?

Rate this article
Published on 2010-Mar-17 Number of Views: 330 2 Comments
CP24 is reporting that Great Gulf will be launching Number One Bloor next Thursday. A corner that's gone through three owners and at least three previous designs, we hope this time it actual works out.

As this picture from forum member urbandreamer shows the tent is up and the launch is ready to go. All Urban Toronto needs is an invitation. BTW CP24, the model you showed is of Aura, another condo that's just started construction.

http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/OneBloor-urbandreamer.jpg

http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/2010-OneBloorRendering.jpg

urbandreamer

Mar 19, 2010, 3:17 AM

^I just modified my photo tonight for fun:

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/8603/dsc01274picnik.jpg

yyzer

Mar 19, 2010, 1:10 PM

something new brewing in Toronto....from today's Daily Commercial News, which is notorious for having errors in its numbers, nevertheless there were rumours on UT about this site a while back.....

CONDO APARTMENT BLDG, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, RETAIL Proj: 9074840-8

Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON WORKING DRAWINGS
70 Temperance St, Bay and Richmond Sts, M5H
$50,000,000 est
Start: October, 2010 Complete: 2012

Note: Owner is seeking City Council site plan approvals. Preliminary Working drawings are underway. Owner expects tender for Gen Cont and construction schedules will be set Summer/Fall, 2010 pending approvals. Further update mid-June, 2010.
Efficiency Engineering Ltd is the LEED Consultant on the project. Address for the project has changed.

Project: structural steel frame, fuel fired heating system, proposed construction of a mixed-use building. The project will be 55 storeys and may include commercial and office space and a residential component. This building will be an environmentally friendly project designed to achieve LEED Gold certification.

Scope: 400,000 square feet; 55 storeys
Development: New
First report Fri Dec 21, 2007. Last report Fri Nov 20, 2009.
This report Thu Mar 18, 2010.

Traynor

Mar 19, 2010, 4:17 PM

^ That would be where this building is at 362 Bay.

Hmmmm... a 180+meter tower here would be nice but you know stupid Nathan Phillips and it's dumb shadowing rules will have a say in this.. (I for one couldn't care less about shadows there. This is Toronto, it's cloudy all Spring and Fall anyway. Not to mention that the sun sets by 3pm in winter! LOL)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2788/4445902552_5827ca2d28_o.jpg
(Courtesy Google images at http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&tab=il )

Ramako

Mar 19, 2010, 4:35 PM

I completely agree with you with respect to shadowing Traynor.

Anyway, it turns out that this is the old Sapphire site further west along Temperance, not the property along Bay (though I'm sure it will get developed into something large sooner or later). This site will get at least 175m

Traynor

Mar 19, 2010, 5:17 PM

Ramako

Mar 19, 2010, 5:39 PM

Well according to Google Streetview 70 Temperance is the north side of Temperance on the corner of Bay. The city numbers lots even if buildings don't have entrances there. 362 Bay has its entrance on Bay for obvious reasons but 70 Temperance is encompassed by it. So if the proposal is indeed 70, then it will include this building in one form or another.

According to the report, the street number has changed. So unless Google is updating their maps vigilantly, they've got it wrong. Anyway, Google Streetview lists 56 Temperance as 82 Temperance even though it says 56 right on the door, so they might just be off a bit.

Traynor

Mar 19, 2010, 5:47 PM

^ Yes I noticed that too. Oh well ... It won't help the Bay Street streetwall... There goes this new condo helping Caltrane74 and his goal of making Toronto the canyon city of North America! LOL

:D

Ramako

Mar 19, 2010, 5:57 PM

^ Yes I noticed that too. Oh well ... It won't help the Bay Street streetwall... There goes this new condo helping Caltrane74 and his goal of making Toronto the canyon city of North America! LOL

:D

There's still that old rumour about an office tower for that corner. I'm sure it will get developed one day. On that note, one day in the not-too-distance future, the canyon on Bay south of Queen will be quite EPIC.

WhipperSnapper

Mar 19, 2010, 7:03 PM

- 360 Bay already provides a more than adequate 10 storey streetwall (these lower class smaller buildings are also important in keeping the downtown as the the place to set up shop)
- fully support shadowing and/or view corridors as part of city building even if it means a particular site can only support 600 feet rather than a 1000.
- this development was approved by the CofA a year ago.

Traynor

Mar 19, 2010, 7:24 PM

WhipperSnapper

Mar 19, 2010, 7:48 PM

Same with height restrictions... They get amended eventually anyways, so you are just delaying the inevitable. I say, just let developers have a field day

Toronto's equivilant to height restrictions are rarely amended and almost exclusively by the OMB stepping outside of their boundaries. What you see being amended are specific zoning bylaws which are purposely kept at ridiculously low maximums to force developers to apply for zoning changes.

You don't have to go very far in the GTA to see what happens when you let developers have a field day either.

caltrane74

Mar 19, 2010, 9:03 PM

wow........ that's amazing. I close my eyes for one second..

New development.. for extremely tall tower. (This one could be a monster)

No stopping this town...unreal

steveve

Mar 20, 2010, 2:37 AM

Holy crap! Crazy!!!! Toronto is a BOOM TOWN! :banana:

City hall HATED sapphire so i won't say anything yet about this one...

But its hard to resist :haha: !

This one could add some even more serious density to the financial core! EPIC!

koops65

Mar 20, 2010, 2:43 AM

^View shmoo... Every generation wants their childhood picture of the city preserved. I imagine Edwardian Torontonians wanted late Victorian views preserved and look at the city now.

Same with height restrictions... They get amended eventually anyways, so you are just delaying the inevitable. I say, just let developers have a field day.

:cool:

If you let developers have a field day, you'll end up with Dubai!

Isn't 70 Temperance "Skyline Tower" from last year? I made a fantasy drawing for that a while back...

niwell

Mar 20, 2010, 3:17 AM

If you let developers have a field day, you'll end up with Dubai!

Only if the developers are owned by the government with a strict mandate for largesse. Pretty sure Mattamy or even Tridel doesn't fit that mold...

Traynor

Mar 20, 2010, 3:20 AM

Well, I was being a tad facetious. Teeheehee

But I do think the whole view cone/sight-line thing rather amusing. The same folks who want to preserve these things laugh at people that buy condos downtown and complain they are going to lose their view.

They chortle and quip: "Well duh, what did you expect? You bought downtown. You think they were never going to build another building after yours?"

So I say to City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square:

"You built your stupid square in the heart of the financial district. What did you expect? The city would stop making money and need new buildings?"

:koko:

WhipperSnapper

Mar 20, 2010, 4:21 AM

So I say to City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square:

"You built your stupid square in the heart of the financial district. What did you expect? The city would stop making money and need new buildings?"

:koko:

Interesting perspective to say least. The city made the mistake to build the square here and therefore must suffer the consquences of that decision for perpetuity so Bay street can potentially build taller than tall towers. Where's your civic pride? No wonder NPS has been allowed to deteriorate for so long. How much more overbuilt do you want the financial core to become? Don't get me wrong, it's awe inspiring but at the same time it's one of nastiest places to wander for most of the year. Why do you think people hovel by the masses in extremely loud underground caverns. I don't think it's to pick up.

steveve

Mar 20, 2010, 4:48 PM

I don't see why city hall is so picky about shadows for tall buildings on their square.... Sure it may not look that pretty but at the end of the day its not worth restricting what can be built in Canada's financial core! :haha:

Going back o the article yyzer posted:

Start: October, 2010 Complete: 2012

could there be a possibility for an October 2010 start? :shrug:
It would be awesome if it could start this soon!

WhipperSnapper

Mar 20, 2010, 4:58 PM

Traynor

Mar 20, 2010, 5:09 PM

... Where's your civic pride?...

I love this question! As if my civic pride MUST be exactly in the same place as yours for it to be considered pride at all. How arrogant is that?

My civic pride is right where it should be. Firmly placed in my own personal opinion and taste. Just like everyone else's.

:cheers:

caltrane74

Mar 20, 2010, 5:24 PM

Why do you think people hovel by the masses in extremely loud underground caverns. I don't think it's to pick up.

haha .. you said: "pick-up" !!

Hearing you say "pick up" is like my mom saying "sex".. yuckie!!

Anyways man, I don't care about the Shadows.. Cause most of the parties the good ones at least happen in NPS in the evenings and in winter. A few extra towers wont make a difference..

As you say.......

Ramako

Mar 20, 2010, 5:39 PM

^^I'm shock by your suggestion that extra tall buildings should take precedent over this culturally significant public meeting place as you even admit more shadows would not be pretty. As if a few extra metres would make any difference to the CBD skyline.

The thing that annoys me is that there are so many "special locations" around the core restricting height that I'm not even sure there are many places left to build tall (200m+), aside from a small handful of known locations. (e.g. parking lot east of the ACC, parking lot at Front & Simcoe, the two big parking garages near Y&B)

Everything east of Yonge is essentially off limits because it's a either a low-rise historic district, too close to Ryerson University, or oh-so-precious single-family Victorian houses. The rest is already built up with residential. Even those empty lots east of Yonge that are well placed in mid-rise areas have a gaggle of old churches around them that I'm sure are allergic to shadows. I'm actually shocked that Spire was allowed to go as high as it was.

Everything to the west of Simcoe is subject to that asinine tapering policy (not to mention the protections on the warehouse district that canned Theatre Park) which will ensure nothing else over 200m is ever built, aside from Ritz and Signature Tower.

Anything built on the north side of the CBD just south of Queen will cast shadows on NPS, and anything north of City Hall and east of Bay can't be tall enough to overwhelm City Hall - I don't know - for postcard reasons or something.

The Y-B core is equally straitjacketed. You've got low-rise Yorkville and Rosedale Valley on the north, U of T campus and Queen's Park sight-lines on the west, and everything to the south and east is already built up with 60s-era commie slab crap and more of those untouchable single-family houses, not to mention rabid St. Nicholas NIMBYs.

I think the only place where there's really room to grow is south of the Gardiner. My one big fear is that anything really tall proposed close to the water will appear almost as big as the CN Tower from the islands, and God knows we can't have something like that ruin our pre-conceived notion of what our postcards should look like.

Anyway, I personally don't mind shadows in the city. In Manhattan you never see the sun, and I love it.

Traynor

Mar 20, 2010, 5:52 PM

steveve

Mar 21, 2010, 12:47 AM

Traynor

Mar 21, 2010, 2:06 AM

Let's not all forget that shadows move throughout the day. I think during the Stinson Saphire days they demonstrated exactly how many minutes a shadow would actually fall ion NPS. It was less than an hour or so. Also consider they will never build at Osgoode so there will always be sun all afternoon. Furthermore, as Caltrane pointed out, many functions happen in the evening or at night. And finally, as Ramako pointed out:There ain't no sun in Manhattan and it's a hip and happening place!

Besides, dermatologists everywhere agree: The sun is bad for you! LOL

:D

niwell

Mar 21, 2010, 2:27 AM

Well put Ramako.

I actually believe that Toronto is really just a municipal experiment for all other cities in North America....

"What would happen if the WHOLE city was a NIMBY? Every person, company, district, and city councilor. Would anything ever get built or developed?"

Enough with the dramatics. NIMBYism is FAR more rampant in other Canadian cities. Ever read about the shadow bylaws in Calgary, view cones in Vancouver, height limit in Montreal, pretty much anything ever proposed in Ottawa? We have it pretty good in Toronto.

Just because the odd proposal is actually turned down (as opposed to slightly downgraded which the developer expects to begin with) isn't really all that telling. That proposal across from Metro Hall was inappropriate despite being fairly attractive, as was Giraffe and Bloor and Dundas W.

Seriously, I think the only thing I don't like about this city is the constant whining about how things are somehow worse here.

waterloowarrior

Mar 21, 2010, 3:00 AM

Yeah really... consider that Ottawa-Gatineau's tallest building is as tall as the Royal York and that only one building over 100 metres has been built in the last 20 years.

Ramako

Mar 21, 2010, 4:18 AM

Enough with the dramatics. NIMBYism is FAR more rampant in other Canadian cities. Ever read about the shadow bylaws in Calgary, view cones in Vancouver, height limit in Montreal, pretty much anything ever proposed in Ottawa? We have it pretty good in Toronto.

Just because the odd proposal is actually turned down (as opposed to slightly downgraded which the developer expects to begin with) isn't really all that telling. That proposal across from Metro Hall was inappropriate despite being fairly attractive, as was Giraffe and Bloor and Dundas W.

Seriously, I think the only thing I don't like about this city is the constant whining about how things are somehow worse here.

I don't think things are worse in Toronto by any stretch. In fact, I'm certain that we're the most pro-height city in the country. For those who live in those others cities and crave height, I truly sympathize, but frankly I don't care what other cities are doing. What I care about, as a Torontonian, are the limitations to height in Toronto that I outlined in my previous post.

Nouvellecosse

Mar 21, 2010, 4:54 AM

^ For such an ardent Torontonian, you have an awfully Nova Scotian location. You living here now, or just for school?

Ramako

Mar 21, 2010, 5:08 AM

^ For such an ardent Torontonian, you have an awfully Nova Scotian location. You living here now, or just for school?

I've been at Dal for the last three years, and will be heading back to Toronto for good this summer. I'm saddened that I won't be able to watch Trillium and the Life Science Research Centre come to fruition. I love Halifax, but the one thing I won't miss is the staggering NIMBYism that is stifling the downtown core.

Nouvellecosse

Mar 21, 2010, 5:15 AM

Sad to hear you're leaving, but don't worry; those of us still here will continue press on in the name of progress. :)

WhipperSnapper

Mar 21, 2010, 4:04 PM

WhipperSnapper

Mar 21, 2010, 4:14 PM

The thing that annoys me is that there are so many "special locations" around the core restricting height that I'm not even sure there are many places left to build tall (200m+), aside from a small handful of known locations. (e.g. parking lot east of the ACC, parking lot at Front & Simcoe, the two big parking garages near Y&B)

Everything east of Yonge is essentially off limits because it's a either a low-rise historic district, too close to Ryerson University, or oh-so-precious single-family Victorian houses. The rest is already built up with residential. Even those empty lots east of Yonge that are well placed in mid-rise areas have a gaggle of old churches around them that I'm sure are allergic to shadows. I'm actually shocked that Spire was allowed to go as high as it was.

Everything to the west of Simcoe is subject to that asinine tapering policy (not to mention the protections on the warehouse district that canned Theatre Park) which will ensure nothing else over 200m is ever built, aside from Ritz and Signature Tower.

Anything built on the north side of the CBD just south of Queen will cast shadows on NPS, and anything north of City Hall and east of Bay can't be tall enough to overwhelm City Hall - I don't know - for postcard reasons or something.

The Y-B core is equally straitjacketed. You've got low-rise Yorkville and Rosedale Valley on the north, U of T campus and Queen's Park sight-lines on the west, and everything to the south and east is already built up with 60s-era commie slab crap and more of those untouchable single-family houses, not to mention rabid St. Nicholas NIMBYs.

I think the only place where there's really room to grow is south of the Gardiner. My one big fear is that anything really tall proposed close to the water will appear almost as big as the CN Tower from the islands, and God knows we can't have something like that ruin our pre-conceived notion of what our postcards should look like.

Anyway, I personally don't mind shadows in the city. In Manhattan you never see the sun, and I love it.

C'mon, There are plenty of places in the downtown area for 200 metre towers. Just consider Aura. And, were there a market, there are more than a few development opportunities for 300 metre towers in the financial core even considering how tiny and built up it is.

Traynor

Mar 21, 2010, 4:20 PM

NIMBYism is the perfect excuse that there hasn't being a market for an 80 floor office tower in Toronto in a long time if ever. Neither can they be happy with BA, RBC, Telus because some other shithole managed something taller (with some ridiculous crown)

^Perhaps you're right it isn't Nimbys after all. It is gutless developers that don't have the kohones do go big before other developers steal their leasable office space.

If some bold developer went ahead and built a 90 floor tower before Bay Adelaide, RBC and Telus were developed then ostensibly the same need would have been filled.

OH I KNOW... It doesn't work that way... Blah blah blah.... Whateves.

Just do the math... 2 million square feet of office can either be in one 90 floor tower or three smaller ones. Which option do you think the wimpy developers realize is better risk management?

I'm glad we have a New York and a Hong Kong and any number of Chinese cities on this planet to show 'em how it's done.

:D

Ramako

Mar 21, 2010, 4:26 PM

NIMBYism is the perfect excuse that there hasn't being a market for an 80 floor office tower in Toronto in a long time if ever. Neither can they be happy with BA, RBC, Telus because some other shithole managed something taller (with some ridiculous crown)

Market? That's a strawman.

First of all, I agree that Telus and RBC are the size they are simply because that's what the market dictated. There was no NIMBYism involved with those projects, and I never claimed there was.

Secondly, I also never said anything about building 80-storey "supertall" office towers in Toronto, because I know that the market can't support them. What I wrote is that the number locations for building 200+ metre towers in Toronto are limited. It's pretty fair to say that the market can easily support 200+ metre towers in Toronto, given that we're currently building a half dozen of them.

So the question isn't whether the market can support it, but whether planning policies will allow them. If Toronto stops building 200+ metre towers, it won't be because, as you seem to be claiming, we don't have the market for them. It will be because of NIMBYtastic policies.

Ramako

Mar 21, 2010, 4:29 PM

C'mon, There are plenty of places in the downtown area for 200 metre towers. Just consider Aura. And, were there a market, there are more than a few development opportunities for 300 metre towers in the financial core even considering how tiny and built up it is.

Aura is being built on one of the last large empty lots in the downtown core. It may be counter intuitive, given that we're talking about Toronto, but the number of parking lots downtown is quickly shrinking. Can you find me another spot within a few blocks of Aura where another 200 metre tower could be built? I've found only one.

I'm genuinely curious, what lots in the core do you think could handle 300 metres?

koops65

Mar 22, 2010, 5:44 AM

I don't know much about empty lots in downtown Toronto, but I do know that if there is a will, there is a way. Existing buildings can be demolished to create an empty lot.

Ramako

Mar 22, 2010, 10:22 AM

I don't know much about empty lots in downtown Toronto, but I do know that if there is a will, there is a way. Existing buildings can be demolished to create an empty lot.

Not if that building is full of residential apartments.

WhipperSnapper

Mar 22, 2010, 3:35 PM

Aura is being built on one of the last large empty lots in the downtown core. It may be counter intuitive, given that we're talking about Toronto, but the number of parking lots downtown is quickly shrinking. Can you find me another spot within a few blocks of Aura where another 200 metre tower could be built? I've found only one.

I'm genuinely curious, what lots in the core do you think could handle 300 metres?

Actually, heights should go up as the parking lots disappear and the lot sizes shrink.

Four sites in the core for 1000 footers

4 King West /100 Yonge
70 York/55 University
48 Yonge/60 Yonge/ 21 Melinda
105 Adelaide West (well, 280 metres)

WhipperSnapper

Mar 22, 2010, 3:37 PM

Market? That's a strawman.

First of all, I agree that Telus and RBC are the size they are simply because that's what the market dictated. There was no NIMBYism involved with those projects, and I never claimed there was.

Secondly, I also never said anything about building 80-storey "supertall" office towers in Toronto, because I know that the market can't support them. What I wrote is that the number locations for building 200+ metre towers in Toronto are limited. It's pretty fair to say that the market can easily support 200+ metre towers in Toronto, given that we're currently building a half dozen of them.

So the question isn't whether the market can support it, but whether planning policies will allow them. If Toronto stops building 200+ metre towers, it won't be because, as you seem to be claiming, we don't have the market for them. It will be because of NIMBYtastic policies.

For one thing, my post wasn't specifically directed at you.

WhipperSnapper

Mar 22, 2010, 3:53 PM

^Perhaps you're right it isn't Nimbys after all. It is gutless developers that don't have the kohones do go big before other developers steal their leasable office space.

If some bold developer went ahead and built a 90 floor tower before Bay Adelaide, RBC and Telus were developed then ostensibly the same need would have been filled.

OH I KNOW... It doesn't work that way... Blah blah blah.... Whateves.

Just do the math... 2 million square feet of office can either be in one 90 floor tower or three smaller ones. Which option do you think the wimpy developers realize is better risk management?

I'm glad we have a New York and a Hong Kong and any number of Chinese cities on this planet to show 'em how it's done.

:D

New York developers kohones aren't any bigger than those in Toronto. They simply have the market for it. I understand your frustration but you have to also consider the huge risks involved and the number of multi-billion dollar developers that have lost it all over as little as a pair of towers to make this discussion worthwhile. You take the original builders of the 10 tallest office towers in Toronto. More than half are bankrupt.

It's Vegas baby! The house eventually wins. Kohones? Only gets you closer to the poorhouse. Setting up individual project companies to protect the numerous parent companies only protects you so long. Peel enough layers of an onion and eventually you don't have any onion left.

urbandreamer

Mar 24, 2010, 2:22 AM

On a 1000 acre parking lot, I would rather see 1000 6 story buildings built over a decade than 100 eighty story buildings built over a period of a century.

bob1954

Mar 24, 2010, 6:59 AM

1000 6-story buildings, how about a compromise.

Ramako

Mar 24, 2010, 7:08 AM

I'd prefer one 8,000 storey building.

caltrane74

Mar 24, 2010, 12:28 PM

Nice new pictures of ONE Bloor. I don't have the time to cut the pictures out of the website and post them here. But if anyone wants to give it a try.. That would be nice...

http://www.thestar.com/fplarge/photo/784366

GINZA STYLZ, here we come!!!

http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/realestate/article/784291--one-bloor-will-be-a-bold-futuristic-building

Delirium

Mar 24, 2010, 1:05 PM

^ looks great!

"There is only one Yonge and Bloor. It's not just the most important corner in the city, it's probably the most important corner in the country,"

So an RBC branch and Stollerys makes it most imporant corner in the country? Seriously? :haha:

Ah, marketing.

waterloowarrior

Mar 24, 2010, 1:59 PM

Number One Bloor (images from Toronto Star link above)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4459278299_9494a5ca4d_o.jpg

Traynor

Mar 24, 2010, 2:25 PM

I'll just say what I said over at UT.... MEH

I am still not feeling this design. It is not nearly as hideous as I previously thought, but I still think it would be better suited on Biscayne Bay rather than Yonge and Bloor.

The pathetic attempt to incorporate commercial space on the ground floor, makes me think that we will see a travel agent, a nail salon and a new Public Optical, but not the high-end, anchor store that the corner demands.

Without a hotel component and a landmark retailer like perhaps a Neiman Marcus, this corner just becomes another row of storefronts.

:yuck:

WhipperSnapper

Mar 24, 2010, 2:57 PM

I'll take a row of streetfront boutiques over an internal mall any day. The once planned movie theatre (gone before Bazis) is a loss though. I'm completely indifferent to a hotel component. Office I could understand but hotel and residential are slowly becoming indistinguishable.

duper

Mar 24, 2010, 3:09 PM

^
I love how the architecture treats Yonge Street, though. It preserves a bit of the "open" feeling by setting the tower back from Yonge and bringing the podium out to the sidewalk.

Ice Cream Man

Mar 24, 2010, 3:29 PM

Can one of you folks from Calgary tell me what this is and what its status is?

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/1063/fcc2renqn2.jpg

Sorry for the lateness of this reply, but this project is on hold until further notice. There were rumours of a MAJOR tenant within Calgary moving in to the FCCP2, but those went away once the recession hit.

If I have any more updates on this one, I will definitely share.

Wooster

Mar 24, 2010, 4:42 PM

Like the Bell Festival Tower, the body of the building seems quite bulky. I wonder what the floorplate size of this is.

WhipperSnapper

Mar 24, 2010, 4:59 PM

I don't find the massing bulky at all but, of course, that's a matter of perspective. IIRC, the floorplates are around 8000 square feet.

Gresto

Mar 24, 2010, 6:04 PM

One Bloor: yawn

LeftCoaster

Mar 24, 2010, 6:18 PM

I like the one Bloor design... if it wasn't for Aqua i would love it, but at this point it just seems like a thinly veiled copy of its Chicago counterpart, hopefully it doesn't look so similar in reality.

And as for the most important corner in Canada... what a joke, I don't see how Young and Bloor is even moderately important. It's not even close to the most important corner in Toronto, let alone Canada. Leave it to the marketers...

niwell

Mar 24, 2010, 6:25 PM

And as for the most important corner in Canada... what a joke, I don't see how Young and Bloor is even moderately important. It's not even close to the most important corner in Toronto, let alone Canada. Leave it to the marketers...

While "most important corner in Canada" is certainly hyperbole it's clearly one of the most important intersections in Toronto. And some of the most expensive property in the city. Not sure how anybody could really deny that.

I'm still underwhelmed by the tower but like the podium quite a bit actually. The setbacks and street front retail should be good for that intersection.

WhipperSnapper

Mar 24, 2010, 6:28 PM

Yonge, BTW.

What's even more annoying are the number of forumers that have latched onto the marketing. It's the most important interchange on our pathetic small subway system but I haven't the foggest idea how exactly that carries over to the actual intersection. I think most would agree on Yonge/Finch and (soon to be) Kipling/Dundas as holes in the ground.

duper

Mar 24, 2010, 6:37 PM

While "most important corner in Canada" is certainly hyperbole it's clearly one of the most important intersections in Toronto.

It's a vital spawning ground of the city's yuppies. :yes:

LeftCoaster

Mar 24, 2010, 6:37 PM

Ramako

Mar 24, 2010, 6:46 PM

Haha oops, I do that surprisingly often... actually my usual type-o is Younge St.

Either way I don't even really know what constitutes an "important intersection", but I know there is no way Yonge & Bloor is the most important in canada... Unless you work for The Bay.

I think a pretty strong argument can be made for King & Bay, but nobody actually wants to live there. Yonge & Bloor isn't the most important, but the intersection arguably has the highest name brand recognition as far as locations go.

vanman

Mar 24, 2010, 6:57 PM

Number One Bloor (images from Toronto Star link above)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4459278299_9494a5ca4d_o.jpg

This is pure awesome. I love how it deviates from the typical Toronto box, however I agree if Aqua didn't already exist it would be much better.