gmania's Dec 10, 2008 post:

gmania said:
Found out the results of the C of A hearing on December 3: Approved with Conditions. The height has been reduced to 51 storeys (178.75 m), distributed as follows:

Five levels of underground parking
Ground floor - Loading / Lobbies
2 - Service / Back of House
3 - Office Reception / Restaurant
4 - Business Centre
5 - Structure Transfer
6 to 22 - Offices
23 - Mechanical / Amenities
24 - Hotel Back of House
25 to 32 - Hotel Suites
33 to 51 - Residential Floors
Mechanical Room
Machine Room
Upper Mechanical Room

The plans call the project "Canada Tower"

The conditions of approval include:

- Knock out panels for a potential future connection to PATH;
- Amend the existing Section 37 agreement (no $$$ given);
- Revise the development to address the recommendations of a Pedestrian Level Wind Study (not sure what these revisions are);
- A minimum of 200 bicycle parking spaces;
- Continuous weather protection with a minimum depth of 3 m on Temperance Street and Sheppard Street (to be detailed through Site Plan Approval);
- Agree to improve the watermain on Shepapard;
- Agree to private refuse collection for the retail component;
- Site Plan Agreement: prepare, implement and maintain a valet parking, drop-off and loading Management Plan;
- The Management Plan will also describe the parking, loading and drop-off facilities within the building.

The variance relating to the number of and types of loading spaces was withdrawn by the applicant at the hearing. Originally the applicant was only proposing two Type B spaces, but the City wants a Type G loading space, as well as the Type B spaces.

Sorry, no pics of the elevations.
Click to expand...

Given that the project will have 3 more storeys than the 51 storeys given at that hearing, you can possibly add about 10m to the total height, bringing it up to the 187.5m height that had been previously mentioned. I wonder what they did to get the City to allow the earlier proposal (if that is what happened)?
 
Last edited:
More messy, blue glassed, inexplicably asymmetrical shlock from an architectural firm that produces nothing but. A thoroughly depressing proposal. Surely Canada's "Finnacial capital" deserves better.
 
Last edited:
The video contains no mention of an office component... but they are really trying to sell residences in the vid, so they may just be ignoring it. Otherwise, that is something else that has changed.

42
 
Looks pretty good to me, albeit a bit stumpy. It does seem better than the last couple of proposals there, especially that tubular design with the disco ball on top.
 
Right now I'm waiting for a better render than this low-resolution video allows. At first glance it is similar to the final Stinson design, with its sloped roof (although more like the Ritz roof than the Stinson roof), but we need a high-resolution render to get a better idea of its appearance. Until then I will withhold a final opinion on its design (other than I wish it were taller, but that was probably never in the cards).
 
Art Vandelay said:
What this is similar to is the Ritz Carlton. And yet located so close to FCP and Scotia Plaza and Trump it looks tiny. Hardly a new iconic building for the Financial District. From many vantage points it won't even be visible. I understand the shadowing issues prevent this building from going taller but if you can't go tall and you want to be iconic be originial. Another glass box with a sloped roof line doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. I'm disappointed. This would look good somewhere else in the city, but it's not good enough for the financial district at all.
 
It will blend with the cluster of boxes, i was hoping for unique design for this location. I have lost count how many new hotels Toronto will be getting.. must be close to 10!
 
It still reminds me of the MET more than anything; the shape (apart from the top), the cladding, even the large terrace balconies at the top.
 
^But unlike older hotels like The Sheraton or Hilton, many of these new hotels are on the lower floors and lack any great views offered by ALL-Hotel designs like the afformentioned.

I'll never forget my disappointment when I returned to live in Toronto at the age of 15, from 3 years overseas, and stayed at the Plaza II Hotel at Yonge and Bloor. As we drove up I was hoping we would have a high floor in the tower facing south. Much to my dismay, the hotel only occupies the lower 6 floors of the bunker. The tower is a condominium. I'm sure these same crestfallen faces will be seen by many future Toronto tourists.
 
Some poor screenshots of the video:

ScreenShot027.jpg


ScreenShot028.jpg


ScreenShot033.jpg


ScreenShot034.jpg


ScreenShot036.jpg


ScreenShot037.jpg
 
This new design is the seventh tower concept that I've seen for this site.

The first would be the Graphic Arts tower around 2000, which for some reason morphed into the First Toronto Tower, that I believe Stinson was involved with as well. This tower's selling feature was... A flagpole on the roof.

Then 'The Harry' brought us 4 Mad-Hatter's-Tea-Party attempts at architecture, each more "Fincial" then the last. This painfully extended 'Condo Show' began with the Downtown Plaza, which was so awful that Stinson actually used this design as a threat of what we would end up with if the city didn't grant him the rights to build higher.

Then came the rather graceful Sapphire tower. This tower's swimming pool on the penthouse was also to act as the building's counter-weight. For some reason this project was quickly mutated into an unrecognizable mess in Harry's misguided attempt to maximize the undoubtedly vast profits he was to make.

The final Stinson attempt at this site, I believe was to be called the Emerald Tower. Judging by the shape of this new design, it looks like Skyline is following the same basic idea as Harry's final iteration. Note the Southward sloping roof. This again must be based on the city's planning decision to save Nathan Phillips Square from one more shadow.

Will seven be the charm in this case?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top