Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals - Page 4

Ramako · #61 Posted: **Mar 20, 2010, 5:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

^^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 · #62 Posted: **Mar 20, 2010, 5:52 PM**

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?"

steveve · #63 Posted: **Mar 21, 2010, 12:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

^^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.

For the most part... City hall is completely open in most directions... Many of the buildings are spaced out... But putting a massive skyscraper that casts a slight shadow over the square won't kill anyone... The square is so large that even if a shadow is cast from a skyscraper, the vast majority of the square will still be open and shadow-free...

As long as the groundhog can still see his shadow... its all good!!!

Traynor · #64 Posted: **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

niwell · #65 Posted: **Mar 21, 2010, 2:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

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 · #66 Posted: **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 · #67 Posted: **Mar 21, 2010, 4:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by niwell

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 · #68 Posted: **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 · #69 Posted: **Mar 21, 2010, 5:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ 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 · #70 Posted: **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 · #71 Posted: **Mar 21, 2010, 4:04 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)

WhipperSnapper · #72 Posted: **Mar 21, 2010, 4:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramako

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 · #73 Posted: **Mar 21, 2010, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

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.

Ramako · #74 Posted: **Mar 21, 2010, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

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 · #75 Posted: **Mar 21, 2010, 4:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

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 · #76 Posted: **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 · #77 Posted: **Mar 22, 2010, 10:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

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 · #78 Posted: **Mar 22, 2010, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramako

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 · #79 Posted: **Mar 22, 2010, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramako

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 · #80 Posted: **Mar 22, 2010, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

^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.

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.