AlbertC said:
Marina District has to be the ugliest assembly of skyscrapers in the world. Sorrento isn't that far behind...
Click to expand...

+1! And people here make fun of the blue and red/orange glass being used at Ripley's lol. That's nothing. They need to travel to Dubai or China to see how truly garish and ugly a master planned City is. Don't get me wrong, I love to travel around the world...but I always love coming back home to TO. It's real here.
 
Critique said:
"The project's 88-storey highrise would likely tower above First Canadian Place (Canada's tallest building)."

This can't be true, unless it is true that 272m doesn't include mechanical.
Click to expand...

It apparently doesn't.

ChesterCopperpot said:
I should say from what I could make out - the 272m doesn't include the roof feature on the taller tower
Click to expand...

Mongo said:
Did another pixel count using the clearer image using 272m as the height to the start of the roof element, came up with a height to the top of the roof of the tallest building of 295m.

The other roof heights of the new buildings, from tallest to shortest, are 268m, 262m, 247m, 230m and 184m (plus the Toronto Star building at 138m).

The heights are likely to be off by one or two meters due to photographic distortion, but they must be close to those numbers.
Click to expand...
 
How far east can development of this scale and density go? It's been a bit over a year since the report about a 75-storey tower planned for the LCBO lands just to the east of here came to light, although if those lands were sold for $200 million as reported (not much less than the $255 million for the nearly equally sized 1-7 Yonge lands), I would expect something much larger in scale to justify the land cost. Probably something on the same scale as the 1-7 Yonge project itself. And then there's the Loblaws just to the east of that, it uses only a fraction of the land it's on -- perhaps one day it too will be turned into a grove of towers. There must be current zoning and height restrictions for this area, but I don't know how old they are and whether they are likely to be updated any time soon. If the transit down QQ East ever happens, I can see this whole are booming with development.
 
Last edited:
Mongo: The LCBO and Loblaw's sites, with the 1-7 Yonge site, are all part of the Lower Yonge Precinct Plan initiative. Current zoning for the LCBO and Loblaw's sites is for Industrial uses with a maximum density of 3.0 and 0.5 for certain non-residential uses, as per the October 2012 Staff Report. The Update Report suggests that a Final Report could be ready sometime in the summer, which should give an indication of what is envisioned for these blocks. My guess is that the Final Report will make it to Council's agenda following the summer Council break.
 
if you look at this pic

26PwcQz.jpg


the toronto star building is exactly 100m- 25 floors- there is a slight bold line marking the current height of it- above that is where the extended floors would be

if you take that 100m and times it by 3 you get

L9iHm99.jpg


the last line at the top would be 300m and lines up exactly with the tower
 
Who else thinks it will end up being 299m? The quintessential Toronto tower!
 
cc46 said:
Mongo, why is that important to you?
Click to expand...

Many people care. I know it shouldn't be something of that importance but everyone who has been on this forum or any other Toronto skyscraper forum know that a soopertall in Toronto is something of a curse that looms ever so close and yet manages to stray our grasp. Then again, many ignore their want for it but whether you like it or not, 300 or more would be pretty big news in Toronto.
 
In an era when megatalls are as yet still a rarity, it would be nice for Toronto to break that 1000 foot ceiling so as to at least to enter supertall status.

But aside from the notable fervour of skyscraper enthusiasts, I suspect few people care about such distinctions. A great city consists of a variety of important traits, and the height of its buildings need never enter into the equation.
 
I think the interest in supertall status in Toronto is partially due to the fact that, for many years, when Toronto wasn't known for being a thriving, cultural metropolis, it was known for height. There was an era when we had some of the tallest buildings in the entire world (not even including the CN Tower), and that was a point of pride. Whereas before, being tall was one of our main claims to fame, now it's more of a characteristic, but certainly still part of our identity.
 
Lenser said:
But aside from the notable fervour of skyscraper enthusiasts, I suspect few people care about such distinctions. A great city consists of a variety of important traits, and the height of its buildings need never enter into the equation.
Click to expand...

I agree that a great city consists of a variety of traits but it would be nice to break the 300m mark. The height of buildings shouldn't fall into the equation but it does fall into the equation when you look at skylines. It would be pretty cool to see how such a building will look and see it rise.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top