Since it's been mentioned a couple of times, what are the odds the province gets involved. This doesnt have to be built as is, but anything similar to what is currently proposed would make this a flagship/iconic building in the city.

I'd rather the province get involved than see this chopped to some boring 250m tower
 
Bjays92 said:
Since it's been mentioned a couple of times, what are the odds the province gets involved. This doesnt have to be built as is, but anything similar to what is currently proposed would make this a flagship/iconic building in the city.

I'd rather the province get involved than see this chopped to some boring 250m tower
Click to expand...
I have no idea...but I put that out there because I figured they can. Not that they will.

ProjectEnd said:
By 'get the province involved' do you mean issue an MZO?
Click to expand...
I guess so...if that what it takes. I was more thinking of changing the legislation though.
 
isaidso said:
Culture is constantly in a state of flux. What City Planning considers too dense very likely won't be considered too dense 20 years from now. The generation growing up today are far more comfortable with tall buildings; many actually admire them. The current staffers will eventually retire and people born in 2000 will take over. Toronto will get tall skinny buildings like this (300m, 400m, 500m) but it will take time.

The view that current ideas about density will remain the same is unrealistic not to mention a little naive. It's frustrating having to wait 20+ years for the culture to shift but it will happen.
Click to expand...

Isaido,
you bring up an interesting point about density which I would like to wade into. Perhaps given the rapid downtown expansion over the last 20 years our cities' density plans may not be enough to meet future requirements however as for building significantly taller than 300m I would offer the following, please formers as always comments welcome.

For the most part Supertalls outside Manhattan and Hong Kong are not created for fundamental economic reasons but rather prestige. Prestige was the case for the original Toronto bankers towers build in the 60-80s, a model not broken until Sun life built more modest twin towers on University Ave. As I remember they were much favoured to work in over buildings in the true financial core. City planning aside, office buildings are built based on cost per square foot versus market rental rates. With a typical box shaped building the usable square footage cost of going over 50-55 floors generally increases due to additional structure and larger service cores. There are significant human factors as well such as elevator wait times. Ultra luxury low unit density condo towers with or without an office podium are probably the only realistic Supertalls in this city for the foreseeable future yet I would ask how many of these towers do we really need? The One is an oddity that no typical condo developer would embark on, the Mervish Gehry towers have undergone several value engineering exercises over the last 5 years and yet silence, One Yonge gives me hope as its development is based on a building model which could be repeated, albeit finding a similar parcel of land in Toronto now very difficult. Finally the ultra luxury condo market is driven by the older crowd, most of us with or without money would rather be closer to ground, in lower density neighbourhoods, long sets of stairs and elevator rides are not desired. I'm starting to ramble but my point is I expect to see many Supertall proposals come and go in this city but few realized.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much agree with what you've said re: supertalls as res/mixed-use. The good news is that proposals keep landing during a highly unlikely Covid time and I think one or more will happen. I know naysayers like to claim that almost every tall proposal is little more than an up-zoning/up-value exercise (would love to be a graphic designer 'cause they are getting paid).

On the office front, though not supertalls, if CIBC Phase 2 moves forward these 2 beauties pretty much equal the heady days of King/Bay bank towers. The work from home doom predictions for the office market are beginning to lose steam... but a reverse scenario - clients needing even more square footage (distancing etc.) - might be some light at the end of the tunnel for proposals like CC3.

"Sun life built more modest twin towers on University Ave. As I remember they were much favoured to work in over buildings in the true financial core."

An interesting "never built" tangent: I saw the drawings for Erickson's designed (shelved) Sun Life Towers and I was tres excited. Two half pyramids (sloping west on the west side of the street and sloping east on east side)... joined across University by a roof-level skywalk. Wowser.. shame. :mad:
 
Last edited:
P.S. I'm suprised we haven't seen proposals that marry very large office components to very large residential components in one structure... one might think this mix would have client/employee (purchaser) appeal for the post pandemic era. Almost "work from home" but safe from the newborns' crying fits during the workday ;-)
 
Last edited:
Hi 3Dementia,
totally agree that large office/residential in hot market conditions here could create some new peaks in the downtown. As for new office towers I'm hearing the industry is very much in a wait and see mode. I remember the city had much to say about the Sun Life tower design but the specifics have been lost over the years on me. Thanks for the memories.
 
I think they'll be lucky to get a tower at all... too little separation between it and 80 Bloor W.
 
Koops65 said:
I think they'll be lucky to get a tower at all... too little separation between it and 80 Bloor W.
Click to expand...
At 32.6 m, you could have a nice row of townhouses with a couple of store fronts...
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I guess so...if that what it takes. I was more thinking of changing the legislation though.
Click to expand...

Didn't they change a shadowing legislation a while ago? I thought this applied to whole entirety of downtown including Bloor. I guess this time around they came up with some other excuse to cut height of another promising project. Makes me think some developers are just waiting for someone to retire already before proceeding with anything bold :rolleyes:
 
crumplescotch said:
Didn't they change a shadowing legislation a while ago? I thought this applied to whole entirety of downtown including Bloor. I guess this time around they came up with some other excuse to cut height of another promising project. Makes me think some developers are just waiting for someone to retire already before proceeding with anything bold :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are not being remotely fair to the City.

This proposal, on this site, given the location and size of its neighbours, current and proposed, was virtually a complete non-starter.

That would be the case in almost any city in the world.

It has nothing to do with boldness.
 
This is definitely a 'standout' project, but it's better to have a nicer district rather than one supertall building. Also, 80 Bloor (which is far superior in design) will not get built if this gets approved, because there isn't enough room for seperation.
 
daniel_kryz said:
This is definitely a 'standout' project, but it's better to have a nicer district rather than one supertall building. Also, 80 Bloor (which is far superior in design) will not get built if this gets approved, because there isn't enough room for seperation.
Click to expand...
if it gets approval, why wont it get build?
let me correct it for you. wont get approval because there isnt much separation between this and 80Bloor.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top