[interchange42]

It has to do with making economic sense. It's there's no case to be made for going supertall or megatall in a particular location, it's just not going to happen. There are typically quite different forces at work where these monsters are going up. Until Toronto's situation changes enough that it would result in a hefty profit for the developer, those lofty heights are just not going to be reached here. It certainly has nothing to do with fanboys fangirling over them.

42

 

[Big Daddy]

Super talls or mega talls have nothing whatsoever to do with "need". We don't "need" 70 story buildings either - or 92 stores condos - it's about aspiring to achieve something extreme or unique, making a statement to the world. If the statement a city makes is "we only build what is necessary" that's how it will be remembered, or forgotten as the case may be. Taking chances and aspiring for greatness isn't a terrible thing, we've built hundreds of buildings during this extended building boom but how many of them are even remotely memorable? Those building the supertalls are making a statement and the world is watching. Toronto's skyline is only special because of the CN tower. Without it, it's just another cluster of uninspiring buildings.

I'd like to see a Canadian developer put together something unique and grand whether it's supertall or not but it never happens here - we have to look overseas to see bold and daring architecture. Please don't build another 65 story glass clad unimaginative condo building and spend thousands on marketing telling us how "great" your apartment building is when in fact it is just that - another apartment building neither the world nor anyone in Toronto will care about in five years.

 

[isaidso]

I've been to Dubai at least 10 times in the past 15 years and can tell you first hand that the majority of those 70-100 story buildings are pure garbage.

People always bring up Dubai when making their anti super tall argument; never New York City. Are the 500m towers going up in NYC pure garbage as well? I honestly don't care if it's 400m-600m as long as it's designed well.

And the argument some make that Toronto can't handle the congestion that would come with buildings that tall is going to be met with a chuckle by people who've lived in truly congested cities. Toronto ain't anywhere close to being too packed with people and I live right downtown.

 

[wopchop]

People always bring up Dubai when making their anti super tall argument; never New York City. Are the 500m towers going up in NYC pure garbage as well? I honestly don't care if it's 400m-600m as long as it's designed well.

And the argument some make that Toronto can't handle the congestion that would come with buildings that tall is going to be met with a chuckle by people who've lived in truly congested cities. Toronto ain't anywhere close to being too packed with people and I live right downtown.

In NYC, they can justify tall buildings like that because the market of local and international mega-elites will buy the highly priced units within it.

In Toronto, the economics of a supertall start to become extremely dubious, and thus, most sane developers don't consider it a good investment.

 

[cliffy]

In NYC, they can justify tall buildings like that because the market of local and international mega-elites will buy the highly priced units within it.

In Toronto, the economics of a supertall start to become extremely dubious, and thus, most sane developers don't consider it a good investment.

The reason the world's mega elite won't buy into Toronto is because Toronto hasn't done much in the past 3 decades to put itself on the world stage. Toronto like the all of Canada has the luxury of totally depending on America for tourism. Led to it doing nothing marketing itself outside of N. America.

Would I prefer to live in NYC or London over Toronto, Hell no!
But that's only because I tasted life in Toronto.
If one has not lived in Toronto, they don't understand why they should put their money in Toronto vs NYC, London or even Paris!

So some sort of a balance in required. You don't need to go crazy like Dubai but once upon a time you had the ambition to build the FCP, CN tower, even further back the Royal York Hotel. Was the tallest building in the British Empire a necessity? Probably not. That said no harm done either. In fact a "Mega Tall" Royal York in its day served Toronto well. A quality, mega tall in a great location like Yonge and Bloor or Yonge and Queens Quay won't hurt either Toronto's residents nor its global reputation.

As a global city that Toronto is, we should accept the fact that we don't have many ambitions projects of late. The last big thing we did was 1972. We don't need 1 a year but how about 1 in 50 yrs? if we start planning today we could have something by 2022.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The reason the world's mega elite won't buy into Toronto is because Toronto hasn't done much in the past 3 decades to put itself on the world stage. Toronto like the all of Canada has the luxury of totally depending on America for tourism. Led to it doing nothing marketing itself outside of N. America.

Tourism has little to nothing to do with condos - and I am fairly sure it has nothing to do with condos of such height getting built in NYC either.

As a global city that Toronto is, we should accept the fact that we don't have many ambitions projects of late. The last big thing we did was 1972. We don't need 1 a year but how about 1 in 50 yrs? if we start planning today we could have something by 2022.

And those projects are pretty much all bank towers in need of making a statement - which, if you haven't noticed, are currently making another statement by building relatively boring new buildings. And who is this "we" we're talking about? Government isn't in that line of business (unless you're China or Russia), and that leaves the private sector - and we really can't dictate to them what they build, least of all in terms of minimum height.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

Our best shot at 'greatness' - architecturally speaking - will likely be the MG project if it comes to fruition. Look at what it takes though, the pairing of an artistic impresario of means and a world-famous architect, both of whom have very personal reasons for wanting to leave a legacy in Toronto. In other words, this is a private enterprise enterprise with a mandate that is not purely profit driven (directly at least). Just how often does this happen? In Toronto not often, but likely much more so in places like New York, Paris or London where there are many Gehrys and Mirvishes looking to make their mark

 

[Big Daddy]

^ your absolutely right - but we beat that proposal down until it is much less than it was going to be. Gone is the majority of the art gallery and perhaps more. When will we have a pairing like this again? I suspect it won't happen for a very long time.

Actually "the One" could be such a project - but with calls for heritage preservation starting up and planning sharpening their knives to enforce (create) height regulations to prevent anything outstanding happening - I suspect the odds are low.

 

[MAFK]

What I can’t understand is why is this piece of artwork going to be made in Korea instead of supporting the local economy? From what I have heard is

that it was not the Artists decision, it was the developer’s decision to try save some money. Why can’t this be made in Canada as I know there is at least one

or two companies that specialize in this type of work.

**sorry, I was talking about the public art piece “Safe Hands” that was designed by Ron Arad

Was thinking the same. I know the railings/glass is strong, probably strong enough to support a person/infant if they leaned on the glass, but yeah, not I wouldn't take my chances, not at those heights. If they were slanted, I'm sure people would get ideas. Having the railings point straight up is hardly a deal breaker.



Agreed. And it's not just artwork slapped on to the side of the building like what some buildings are doing now. Buildings like this are proof that skyscrapers can give back to a city in meaningful ways that everyone can appreciate; not just giant glass boxes that cast shadows over street level.

 

[Tewder]

^ your absolutely right - but we beat that proposal down until it is much less than it was going to be. Gone is the majority of the art gallery and perhaps more. When will we have a pairing like this again? I suspect it won't happen for a very long time.

Well there is a difference of opinion here. The revised project is far more enlightened, in my opinion. There were some losses (size of gallery) but there are some gains (POW and public space). This is going to be spectacular if delivered as promised, whatever one's opinion.

Actually "the One" could be such a project - but with calls for heritage preservation starting up and planning sharpening their knives to enforce (create) height regulations to prevent anything outstanding happening - I suspect the odds are low.

This will be an uphill battle for heritage preservation, there just isn't much justification here. I do hope they will let go of height restrictions. This site does have enormous potential.

 

[Benito]

Midday action.

 

[maestro]

I wouldn't say the majority of the tall towers going up in New York are that special either once you look beyond the superior cladding and extra tall spaces. Also, more than a few are being built to a lower density than what they replaced and/or is allowed. Things can get tall really quickly with extra high slab to slab heights.

The world's elite aren't bypassing Toronto either. They just aren't buying apartments in droves here. No amount of marketing of some super amazing mega tall will convince them to either.

 

[isaidso]

In NYC, they can justify tall buildings like that because the market of local and international mega-elites will buy the highly priced units within it.

In Toronto, the economics of a supertall start to become extremely dubious, and thus, most sane developers don't consider it a good investment.

We know that, but that's not what's at issue here. Economics/demand should be the principal deciding factors but people invariably argue that 400-600m buildings are tacky pieces of garbage by naming Dubai. That's an absurd argument and cherry picking examples to fit an agenda. The other argument people constantly bring up is the congestion it will bring. There is some merit to that but even that argument is weak. Downtown Toronto isn't anywhere close to being packed with people.

If economics dictate a 400-600m building our focus should be on whether the building is well designed (meets the street well, etc.). The other arguments are bogus and the market should decide if it gets built based on leases signed, condos bought, etc. Whether you or I find a building ugly or you or I find downtown crowded should NOT come into play. Too crowded? Move to Eglinton. Too ugly? Don't buy a condo in it.

 

[wolfewood]

We know that, but that's not what's at issue here. Economics/demand should be the principal deciding factors but people invariably argue that 400-600m buildings are tacky pieces of garbage by naming Dubai. That's an absurd argument and cherry picking examples to fit an agenda. The other argument people constantly bring up is the congestion it will bring. There is some merit to that but even that argument is weak. Downtown Toronto isn't anywhere close to being packed with people.

If economics dictate a 400-600m building our focus should be on whether the building is well designed (meets the street well, etc.). The other arguments are bogus and the market should decide if it gets built based on leases signed, condos bought, etc. Whether you or I find a building ugly or you or I find downtown crowded should NOT come into play. Too crowded? Move to Eglinton. Too ugly? Don't buy a condo in it.

People bring up Dubai because it illustrates how most of these towers are economically unfeasible. The sorts of buildings you see in Dubai would be impossible without both oil wealth and slave labour. No one doubts that 300m+ towers aren't economically viable, it's just simply doubtful Toronto has the need for 300m+ right now. Though parking lots in the old downtown have basically vanished (with some obvious exceptions in the downtown east and harbourfront), there is still a ton of easily developable space. I mean, the Portlands alone equal the current size of downtown. So though there are certainly pressures on the rental market, there's still so much land that gigantic condos don't make sense, at least not at the 400-600m level. Similarly, the office market here doesn't strike me as particularly strong (though certainly not weak either) and it's most certainly conservative in what it wants constructed. The tallest proposed office towers just barely peak over 250m if I remember right and, judging by how people on urbantoronto seem to feel, only one will inevitable be necessary for the downtown market. Barring all the companies who have moved to Mississauga office parks returning en masse to downtown, I really don't see a rationale for 300m+ towers and certainly not a cultural push for it either. So basically I can't see anything taller than MG or FCP being built for a looooong time.

As for your second paragraph, it's all well and good to tell people to move if they don't like density but telling people to shut up and accept subpar architecture is a bit much. I mean, if you were advocating ugly 3 storey buildings you'd have a point but are you actually suggesting that people should just accept a giant, 400m+ tower without any expectation that the developer should be held to a certain aesthetic standard? Anything taller than 200m already sticks out like a sore thumb, buildings of the height you're talking would be visible as far away as the suburbs (the CN tower is visible from Mt. Pleasant GO on a clear day and it has a minuscule profile compared to a full-sized building). Plus I don't care what MY building looks like but I certainly do care about the one I'll see all day, everyday from literally as far away as I can get in the city limits.

 

[Benito]

Pouring cement today. I think for the 43rd floor.