TORONTO | Bay-Adelaide Centre East Tower | 43 Floors | 196 Meters

caltrane74 · #1 Posted **Jun 11, 2011, 5:28 PM**

Description
Adjacent to Brookfield’s new 51-storey office development (Bay Adelaide West) in the Financial Core, Bay Adelaide East is a 43-storey, 900,000- square-foot office tower planned for the second phase of the Bay Adelaide Centre project. The tower is designed to achieve LEED Gold certification and will feature state-of-the-art operating and life safety systems. Connected to Toronto’s PATH system, the tower will have direct access to the 27 kilometer below grade public walkway and retail network.

Bay Adelaide North is the third phase of the Bay Adelaide Centre project and could accommodate a new development of up to 500,000 square feet.

Brookfield Properties operates its buildings at the highest standard. Our on-site property, facility management, security and fire-safety teams are in place to oversee and keep the properties efficiently operating. In addition to the core services found in all of the buildings, amenities specific to 2 Adelaide Street West include:

Building size (000’s Sq. Ft.): Office: 20; Retail: 8
Year Built: Approx. 1930s (8-14 Adelaide St. W) and mid 1900s (2-6 Adelaide St. W & 118 Yonge St.)
Year Renovated: 1986
Number of floors: 4
Typical floor size: 7,500 SF

Amenities

•Underground parking for 1100 vehicles (currently 860 stalls available due to construction)
•Proximate to major hotels, restaurants and shops including the 3.5 -million-square-foot Toronto Eaton Centre as well as The Bay department store
•Located in the Central Business District near public parks and transportation
•Situated equidistant from both the Queen and King Street Subway stations (Yonge-University Line) and a short walk south to Union Station

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-38680.pdf

yaletown_fella · #2 Posted **Jun 11, 2011, 9:24 PM**

DP my bad..

yaletown_fella · #3 Posted **Jun 11, 2011, 9:25 PM**

Like lots of T.O forumers I'm scared shitless that the design will look like the B/A phase one

I didnt actually mind the circa 1990 Bay Adelaide design!

Gresto · #4 Posted **Jun 12, 2011, 3:34 AM**

I actually find B-A 1 has an austere affability to it. It's no great shakes, but I don't mind it at all and hope they stick to the same design for the other two, just for continuity's sake.
The 1991 B-A design was Atlantaesque pomo, but it was 280 or so meters.

isaidso · #5 Posted **Jun 12, 2011, 6:11 AM**

I don't mind BA I either, but another one is just going to put me off the deep end. Something beautiful instead of numbingly practical please.

caltrane74 · #6 Posted **Jun 12, 2011, 12:57 PM**

Don't get your hopes up. A practical design will lease far faster.

Travis007 · #7 Posted **Jun 12, 2011, 2:29 PM**

Realistically, I'd expect another no frills design for the second phase. Although, I'd much prefer some design/form variance. My favourite ever proposal for BA centre was this 80 (or 90's?) design. I'm usually not too fond of pomo architecture but (IMO) it's a shame BAC wasn't built in this form. The building we have today is decent, but it would be nice to have some variance in the skyline. It reminds me of One Liberty Place in Philadelphia, which I quite like.

steveve · #8 Posted **Jun 12, 2011, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis007

Realistically, I'd expect another no frills design for the second phase. Although, I'd much prefer some design/form variance. My favourite ever proposal for BA centre was this 80 (or 90's?) design. I'm usually not too fond of pomo architecture but (IMO) it's a shame BAC wasn't built in this form. The building we have today is decent, but it would be nice to have some variance in the skyline. It reminds me of One Liberty Place in Philadelphia, which I quite like.

something like that would be more suited for the Canada/Sapphire tower lot. I always found that design wouldn't fit in/look good where the Bay Adelaide Centre was.

as for BA2, maybe if they tried something different, it would clash with the other tower, but as for BA north, i don't see anything stopping them for a redesign.

yaletown_fella · #9 Posted **Jun 14, 2011, 7:03 PM**

There's no hope for BA North so I'd rather the east tower gets a legit design. It's going to be stubby (like 150m) thanks to the stubborn nimbys at city hall (those that are left)

vegeta_skyline · #10 Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 6:20 PM**

That should of been The Bay Adelaide Center, not what we got. Would it have killed us to have one more Pomo tower? I say hell no! Not when we've got dozens of glass boxes with the same proportions going up. Of course it was economics that killed the original tower not the design or height.

This beast would of been 945ft/288m (including spire, the top of the roof looked to be in the upper 800's ref; http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1494). Also with Bay Adelaide East coming in the near future that would of giving us basically the exact same glass box we got instead. (only 79ft shorter)

Observe;

Devolution is a more fitting description. I would of taken the 3rd version as well over what we got especially considering theres going to be at least one more building exactly like it. Not only are we building boring boxes like crazy in Toronto, every new complex has twins! As if one wasn't bad enough. RIP original Bay-Adelaide Centre and know that you are dearly missed.

steveve · #11 Posted **Jun 19, 2011, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

That should of been The Bay Adelaide Center, not what we got. Would it have killed us to have one more Pomo tower? I say hell no! Not when we've got dozens of glass boxes with the same proportions going up. Of course it was economics that killed the original tower not the design or height.

This beast would of been 945ft/288m (including spire, the top of the roof looked to be in the upper 800's ref; http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1494). Also with Bay Adelaide East coming in the near future that would of giving us basically the exact same glass box we got instead. (only 79ft shorter)

Observe;

Devolution is a more fitting description. I would of taken the 3rd version as well over what we got especially considering theres going to be at least one more building exactly like it. Not only are we building boring boxes like crazy in Toronto, every new complex has twins! As if one wasn't bad enough. RIP original Bay-Adelaide Centre and know that you are dearly missed.

nice stuff.... and yeah, proposal 3 wouldn't have been so bad, and 2 either (though the 2 design looks a bit more dated)... actually, the 3 design reminded me of aura for a split second... nonetheless, BA1 isn't all that horrible, but seeing 2 more of them will get old very fast. BA 1 fits perfectly on the skyline though both in height and design.

Gresto · #12 Posted **Jun 28, 2011, 5:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

Version 3 looks the most interesting to me (though it's a bit of a hodgepodge), but it's hard to say with certitude because the artist messed up the perspective of the rendering.

DrNest · #13 Posted **Jul 18, 2012, 4:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

I really like the original proposal, and agree with the other comments that it's like One Liberty Place in Philadelphia. It also reminds me of the United building in Chicago. Both of which I would love to see in Toronto. It would be great for the Toronto skyline to have something of their design.

However, I see now that we're getting another glass box. Good density filler, but nothing otherwise to get excited about.

Mrs Sauga · #14 Posted **Jul 19, 2012, 4:11 PM**

Where was Deloitte currently headquartered?

caltrane74 · #15 Posted **Jun 12, 2011, 5:52 PM**

I'm not a fan of Atlanta style POMO but the Toronto skyline is getting so huge we can accommodate a few more of these beasts along with BCE Place and Trump without too much damage to the aesthetics of the skyline.

caltrane74 · #16 Posted **Jun 14, 2011, 7:19 PM**

I think it's already approved at 196 meters. so no worries.

yaletown_fella · #17 Posted **Jun 15, 2011, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

I think it's already approved at 196 meters. so no worries.

I know the east tower will probably end up 196m. but the north towers the same height eh? I thought the north proposal had shadowing issues (pretty close to the Canada Tower site, go figure)

Dylan Leblanc · #18 Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 11:12 PM**

Well put.

TO continues the dull corporate architecture with the recently proposed Waterpark Place 3.

WhipperSnapper · #19 Posted **Jun 19, 2011, 2:30 AM**

I'm a firm believer that it would of killed us if the PoMo Bay Adelaide design was built although I would give version three the worst rating. The version that was built is the best of them all. Waterpark 3 needs tons of work but those suggesting keeping the theme of the original twins should face a firing squad. I've yet to see a successful updated version of 1980s PoMo and why oh why would anyone want a twin tower complex to become a three tower complex. Keep it simple and modern with top quality curtain wall that adds depth to the design. Consult Germany.

vegeta_skyline · #20 Posted **Jun 19, 2011, 3:06 AM**

The originals not as bad as Trump and I don't see anyone committing suicide over that thing. A high quality curtain wall, while always appreciated is not enough to save the most boring design in the universe