Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals - Page 3

yyzer · #41 Posted: **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 · #42 Posted: **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)

(Courtesy Google images at http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&tab=il )

Ramako · #43 Posted: **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 · #44 Posted: **Mar 19, 2010, 5:17 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.

Ramako · #45 Posted: **Mar 19, 2010, 5:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

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 · #46 Posted: **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

Ramako · #47 Posted: **Mar 19, 2010, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

^ 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

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 · #48 Posted: **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 · #49 Posted: **Mar 19, 2010, 7:24 PM**

^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.

WhipperSnapper · #50 Posted: **Mar 19, 2010, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

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 · #51 Posted: **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 · #52 Posted: **Mar 20, 2010, 2:37 AM**

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

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

But its hard to resist

!

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

koops65 · #53 Posted: **Mar 20, 2010, 2:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

^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.

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 · #54 Posted: **Mar 20, 2010, 3:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

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 · #55 Posted: **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?"

WhipperSnapper · #56 Posted: **Mar 20, 2010, 4:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

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?"

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 · #57 Posted: **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!

Going back o the article yyzer posted:

Start: October, 2010 Complete: 2012

could there be a possibility for an October 2010 start?

It would be awesome if it could start this soon!

WhipperSnapper · #58 Posted: **Mar 20, 2010, 4:58 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.

Traynor · #59 Posted: **Mar 20, 2010, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

... 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.

caltrane74 · #60 Posted: **Mar 20, 2010, 5:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

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.......