Stunning... look forward to completion and “magic hour” pics, given that zigzag curtainwall on the left side faces west…maybe going to give CIBC’s diamonds a run for the money? (well both towers are banks so they don’t have to run for money ;-).
 
Argol said:
Looking absolutely massive and beautiful, and also exposes the neighbouring RBC Centre for how boring of a design it is...
Click to expand...
TD definitely has the best towers in the city, followed by CIBC, Scotiabank, and a tie for last between RBC and BMO (mostly cause they only have 1 notable tower each)

3Dementia said:
I'll call your 50m, and raise you another 10.13m ... obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
Ah sorry, best we can do is is 9.13m..
 
Bjays92 said:
Even the original 260m would be nice. It's the same thing with CIBC square. Such great buildings deserve to stand out more.
Click to expand...


Totally agree, especially since we have these zoning issues in Toronto so there's only so many spots to put big towers. Both these projects should have really been 40-50M taller.
 
Distance shots from June 25, 2022:

From atop the City Hall's green roof:
IMG_5221.jpeg
IMG_5222.jpeg
IMG_5223.jpeg


From the Staples on University Avenue across from the American consulate:
IMG_5242.jpeg
IMG_5243.jpeg
IMG_5244.jpeg
 
This is a very general 'construction question' but I will pose it here. There are currently three main construction methods in use in Toronto for mid and high rises: steel- beam frame as here, concrete and rebar as in many buildings and wood as in T3. Clearly wood cannot (or may not) be used in buildings over ca 10 floors but which is faster. Why did this building use steel beams rather than, the more common, rebar?
 
I'm no expert but if memory serves, almost every major office tower in the financial district (including this one)... was/were built with 1. reinforced concrete cores + 2. steel columns ^ and 3. steel beams > (plus steel decking underpinning floors).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top