- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
3Dementia
Senior Member
Wow... what tangled web was woven.
My selfish skyscraper geek brain was most disappointed that it appears The One will indeed be capped at its original 85 storey height.
BloorMan
Active Member
I like this sketch in the Star:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
What a mess. We are very lucky we didn't end up with The Stump 2.0 here.
Meanwhile, from the posted article...
...looks like there will indeed be a height and floor count change @Paclo, @interchange42.
Meanwhile, from the posted article...
...looks like there will indeed be a height and floor count change @Paclo, @interchange42.
xy3
Active Member
306m is a huge height chop and isnt very impressive considering the quality downgrade that will result from Skygrid VE. It wont appear any higher than FCP and lacks the volume/robustness.
It'll just read like just another condo. Closer in height and quality to Aura than John Hancock in Chicago.
I'd rather have had a 240m-280m RAMSA like originally planned when Mizrahi first acquired the site
Out of principle , I think I'll bow out from following this closely.
Wouldnt suprise me if Skygrid also scraps the spot lighting on the beams. It sounds like their general contractor will be ruthless. Expect tacky bright LED strip lighting that dosent flatter the beams
It'll just read like just another condo. Closer in height and quality to Aura than John Hancock in Chicago.
I'd rather have had a 240m-280m RAMSA like originally planned when Mizrahi first acquired the site
Out of principle , I think I'll bow out from following this closely.
Wouldnt suprise me if Skygrid also scraps the spot lighting on the beams. It sounds like their general contractor will be ruthless. Expect tacky bright LED strip lighting that dosent flatter the beams
Last edited:
thaivic
Senior Member
The General Contractor (Skygrid) is not the one that makes the decisions, those decisions will be made by whomever lands up being the owner of the project. The GC is getting paid to manage the project not being paid to make decisions on what gets removed or added to the project, they will take direction from the owners.
xy3
Active Member
I was under the impression the decision cap at the stubby height is ultimately up to the owner, while the Skygrid general contractor could VE bait and switch to "premium window wall" and other slap-dash finishes.
thaivic
Senior Member
All of the cladding is already paid for and sitting in a warehouse, if the new owners ask for areas where savings can be had that would be on interior finishes not on the exterior. Skygrid for the moment is working on a 90 day management fee contract as the receiver has put the building up for sale. It will be up to the new owners if they want Skygrid to continue or if they will have someone new running the project. The new owners can also apply to the city to shrink the size of the units so that they create more units to sell.
xy3
Active Member
Id imagine it'd be a legal headache to downgrade the interiors of the actual condo units, especially the ones paid for in cash. It'd result in a lot of lawsuits.
However, I could definetly see the common areas, unsold units, hotel and commercial substantially downgraded to Aura at College Park type quality.
BloorMan
Active Member
Update from today (Saturday). Looks like they put in the floor forms for level 56 (I think):
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
You make it sound like they cutting the tower all the way back to the first mechanical by saying that. So let's be clear, and say there is nothing stubby about 306 meters, lol. No, it's not 328 meters...but it's still a supertall that will dwarf anything that's being and been built around it.
Rascacielo
Senior Member
Get one of the penthouse owners to construct a 6-storey treehouse on their rooftop terrace and we're back to 91
xy3
Active Member
the proportions are less elegant on the 306 meter version . it looks awkwardly truncated
khaldoon
Active Member
All this discussion assumes the Star article is factual. Secondly, reducing the height doesn’t actually make sense. The idea of adding more floors was to increase the return since it is an incremental cost to what is already been paid in startup costs. Unless of course they think they can’t sell the extra units.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
For good or bad, this article is not the first to be saying that regarding the height change. But the two things I gleaned off of said article that may be at play here: First that there was an indication of significant numbers of buyers who got spooked and bailed over this, so they don't have as much of the monied clientele in the pocket as they did before the insolvency shite hit the fan with Mizrahi. And secondly, the extra floors may have fell upon an extended contract that hasn't fully been sussed out or agreed upon yet. Meaning, it could be subject to cutting with little on no penalties on the road to recuperation and "let's get it done with!", or something like that...
This is not to say any this is true or factual here, rather how I am reading it and for what that's worth. As well as to say, I hope this all incorrect and they still going with the 91 in the end floors. But I guess we shall see.
Truncates is also a poor term here, as the crown will remain unaffected regardless of what height the building is decided upon in the end. You can safely go with a tad shorter, but stubby or truncated it will most certainly not be.
Last edited: