Canada's Tallest U/C #11 - #30 - Page 384

WhipperSnapper · #**7661** Posted **Dec 4, 2016, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Ive said before they should've omitted them. But then again maybe Im being harsh because many condo developers in Toronto specialized in building tract housing 10-15 years ago.

They're trying to add "trendy" and "contemporary" design gimmicks to appeal to buyers while value engineering as much of the rest of the structure as possible.

I've always been under the impression that they were included to give the guise of a true step back which would support the value engineering prospect. I just wish someone involved would have spoken up and said they aren't necessary as they completely disrupt the lines of the tower and the curtainwall glass further highlight their ungainly presence.

There's lots of towers being built that aren't all glass and many more that already exist but, I understand the desire for more non glass towers . I still gladly take another well crafted glass tower over a mediocre brick, concrete, stone tower. Of course, the majority of glass towers are mediocre at their best in particularly the height range of this one. They still beat this crap.

caltrane74 · #**7662** Posted **Dec 6, 2016, 1:43 PM**

Casa 3 - 180 meters

OTSkyline · #**7663** Posted **Dec 7, 2016, 7:58 PM**

I love 88 Scott! My fav tower going up right now. Love the mix of precast and glass.

koops65 · #**7664** Posted **Dec 8, 2016, 4:06 PM**

#22. One Yorkville - 183m, Crane is now up and there is plenty of rebar installed.

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Pix by me yesterday.

Gresto · #**7665** Posted **Dec 8, 2016, 8:44 PM**

Thanks for the phötös, koops. I hope this one lives up to the promise of the renders.

koops65 · #**7666** Posted **Dec 9, 2016, 3:55 AM**

Any time!

#13. E Condos S - 194m

[IMG]

[/IMG]

#17. Ernst & Young - 188m

[IMG]

[/IMG]
Pix by me today.

#22. One Yorkville - 183m, The crane is sticking out at the bottom right.

[IMG]

[/IMG]
Pix by me today

Ramako · #**7667** Posted **Dec 11, 2016, 8:02 PM**

First page of the thread updated.

Martin Mtl · #**7668** Posted **Dec 13, 2016, 1:59 PM**

L'Avenue

https://www.instagram.com/p/BN9PaSxh...-by=natesilver

caltrane74 · #**7669** Posted **Dec 15, 2016, 9:12 PM**

Taken before the snowstorm!

204 meters - 88 Scott

caltrane74 · #**7670** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 12:51 PM**

E condo - 194 meters

Ed Skira at UT

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachm...865-jpg.94346/

Echoes · #**7671** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 3:18 PM**

That location of that fat, squat Altus Group building looks like the perfect site for a supertall for TO.

WhipperSnapper · #**7672** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 4:23 PM**

It's squat for a good and still relevant reason. It's about as perfect a site for a supertall obsession as any site in the city. I'm not opposed to a taller tower here but, the view of the Gooderham with the twin BCE towers far behind is also about as Toronto as you can get.

Gresto · #**7673** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 8:29 PM**

"Supertall obsession"?

Still riding your high horse, I see.

Echoes · #**7674** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 9:48 PM**

I'm only suggesting that it's a great site for a significant building, reasons for the current building being there aside. And you never know, that Gooderham view could be enhanced with a new tower of exceptional design. The current building is completely unexceptional for a significant site.

WhipperSnapper · #**7675** Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 12:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echoes

I'm only suggesting that it's a great site for a significant building, reasons for the current building being there aside. And you never know, that Gooderham view could be enhanced with a new tower of exceptional design. The current building is completely unexceptional for a significant site.

I get it. It's a large, dated building that is only 12 storeys tall right beside the core. Insert supertall. I don't expect you to know Toronto and understand its nuances. I will just say planning a great city is usually not that simple as making everything taller. It's not the worst place for a supertall. It's far from perfect either.

Exceptional design is wishful thinking and "significant site" has been the go to in rationalizing supertall obsessions that it has lost most of its significance. What makes this site any more significant than a hundred or even a thousand other sites?

A quality reskin would do a lot for this aging building that actually has some qualities not found in today's office warehouses. For example, the large floor pate is broken up by a full height atrium.

Echoes · #**7676** Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 4:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I get it. It's a large, dated building that is only 12 storeys tall right beside the core. Insert supertall. I don't expect you to know Toronto and understand its nuances. I will just say planning a great city is usually not that simple as making everything taller. It's not the worst place for a supertall. It's far from perfect either.

Exceptional design is wishful thinking and "significant site" has been the go to in rationalizing supertall obsessions that it has lost most of its significance. What makes this site any more significant than a hundred or even a thousand other sites?

A quality reskin would do a lot for this aging building that actually has some qualities not found in today's office warehouses. For example, the large floor pate is broken up by a full height atrium.

I never suggested that planning a great city is only about bumping up the height. In fact, my planning education and work experience has taught me much to the contrary.

I was only making a personal observation about a singular site and conducting an exercise that many people do -- imagining what might be fun, or exciting, or attractive in one's own eyes when they look at something and imagine what it could otherwise be.

I will refrain from conducting this exercise out loud in the Canada forum in the future, lest I be swooped in on by those that police the forum with impunity so that they may immediately set me straight. Thank you for the lesson learned.

caltrane74 · #**7677** Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 11:08 AM**

From the jay scale Instagram. - click the link for full quality. (This is just a screenshot)

Jayscale Instagram

WhipperSnapper · #**7678** Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echoes

I never suggested that planning a great city is only about bumping up the height. In fact, my planning education and work experience has taught me much to the contrary.

I was only making a personal observation about a singular site and conducting an exercise that many people do -- imagining what might be fun, or exciting, or attractive in one's own eyes when they look at something and imagine what it could otherwise be.

I will refrain from conducting this exercise out loud in the Canada forum in the future, lest I be swooped in on by those that police the forum with impunity so that they may immediately set me straight. Thank you for the lesson learned.

You posted an observation. That doesn't mean it isn't open to criticism. Maybe you should have chosen your wording a little more carefully. You can't expect me to know your background. I can only base responses on what was posted. "Supertall", "perfect", "significant" are very specific and common to those that rationalize their views on height. They tend to see height as only a simple measurement in which higher is also better. A 3 metre difference on a random 167 metre tower can be nothing or the end of the world depending on the subject matter.

Any open site is a perfect site for a supertall. There isn't a sizable parking lot left that hasn't been suggested as the perfect site for a supertall. Any ugly building has received the same brainstorm. You are easily the twentieth forumer in the past ten years that has made the exact same suggestion for this building. It's boring so I ended it. There are plenty of fantasy fun threads out there. I suggest you choose one of them next time.

yaletown_fella · #**7679** Posted **Dec 23, 2016, 12:42 AM**

The upper portion of the Berczy condo looks even more drab than usual in the above photo of the financial district. An omen of whats to come with 88 Scott maybe.

isaidso · #**7680** Posted **Dec 23, 2016, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The upper portion of the Berczy condo looks even more drab than usual in the above photo of the financial district. An omen of whats to come with 88 Scott maybe.

I hate the top of Berczy. They did it in an attempt to make it feel shorter/lighter than it really is under the delusion that people don't admire buildings and/or don't like solid looking buildings. All they accomplished is make it look like they ran out of money when they got half way up. The eye is immediately drawn to that cheap tin can facade.