Originally Posted by suburbanite
Well the only >80 floor buildings in New York are the World Trade Center and The Empire State Building So I don't really understand the comparison.
N.Y.C. is always a controversial comparison, I know, but just look at a few of the proposed residentials and mixed-uses
-225 West 57th, 88 storeys, 433 m. (compared to 1 Yonge #1 with 88 storeys at 293 m.; granted, it's residential-only)
-432 Park Ave., 85 storeys, 426m.
-111 W. 57th, 74 storeys, 411 m.
-Tower Verre, 82 storeys, 320 m. (this is a closer to Toronto's storey-height ratio)
I don't get how you can say developers are cheapening out in relation to height when they're often building 2 200m+ buildings in one development. They've obviously found a sweet spot in their cash flow valuations, and it lies between 200-300m.
I don't disagree with your last sentence, but it implies that there's a dearth of vision and ambition, in contrast to the demand. Why so many twins in T.O.? Why not, instead of two 220 m. buildings, one 400 m. building? Because the former is cheaper
. Expediency and savings.
The same cost-cutting is prevalent in government. Why not, for instance, submerge the entirety of the raised Gardiner, which would incontrovertibly
be the best option? 1) We can't afford it (but it was done in Boston). 2) Red tape (decades-long consultations, environmental assessments, and bureaucratic wrangling).
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper
We went from 90 metres being tall to 220 metres in 12 years. During that time, we went from 11 150 metre towers to 30 with another 25 under construction and 10 more to break ground during the next year. Patience is required.
300 metres will be eclipsed in due time. When it happens, it won't be just one tower either.
I'm not sure your precedence/slippery-slope argument holds water, but we'll see.
Anyway, I digress... Carry on with top-20 proposals.