sixrings said:
Just because there is a application for the site, does that mean if it gets approved it will be constructed ASAP? I mean ICE has approval for building a office building and they arent. MARS 2 stopped...
Click to expand...

I might be wrong, but Cadillac Fairview seems to be the kind of developer that likes to get things going, once they make a proposal. Then again, this kind of project would take at least 4 - 5 years to complete. I don't expect to see it in the skyline until at least 2016.
 
sixrings said:
Just because there is a application for the site, does that mean if it gets approved it will be constructed ASAP? I mean ICE has approval for building a office building and they arent. MARS 2 stopped...
Click to expand...

Your right, unless they have an anchor tenant confirmed, which could very well be this case... the condo structure will be the only thing going up.
But then again, all this could be water under the bridge if the world goes into financial chaos.
 
But even if they just started the condo, they are way behind about a hundread other condo projects sales. As a result it would be the first to be dropped if the world blows up financially.
 
I do believe that the Republicans in the U.S. know the stakes. It's posturing. I expect there to be a deal, and fairly soon.

Even with a deal, there could be another shakedown coming for the world economy. That would have an effect on these projects (incl. 90 Harbour).
 
TonyV said:
I do believe that the Republicans in the U.S. know the stakes. It's posturing. I expect there to be a deal, and fairly soon.

Even with a deal, there could be another shakedown coming for the world economy. That would have an effect on these projects (incl. 90 Harbour).
Click to expand...

If we escape the big one.....Canada and especially Toronto might just be able to weather the storm.
 
In an attempt to produce speculation about these buildings that is slightly more fact-based, I will repost a chart I had posted on another thread, that shows the building heights divided by number of storeys, for all residential buildings in Toronto that are at least 36 storeys tall. This shows NOT the floor-to-floor height, but that height plus each storey's share of the architectural roof elements, extra-height lobbies, etc.

ScreenShot079-2.jpg


This shows that a "typical" 65-storey residential building in Toronto has a total height to storey ratio of 3.4m, for a total expected height of 221m.

I do not have a similar chart for office buildings, but most tall office buildings seem to have a total height to storey ratio right around 4.3m, giving a total expected height of 232m.

So my revised expected heights for these two buildings are now 221m (65s residential building) and 232m (54s office building).
 
Last edited:
CanadianNational's preliminary renders are always a great addition. Note of caution: Whoever did the 3D mock-up of RBC for Google Earth, they either exaggerated its height or un derestimated the height of Ritz. They are not the same yet appear to be in CN's renders.
 
They probably got their height information from Emporis, which has both of them (incorrectly) at 208m.
 
I have no problem with these towers being built on those parking lots, but do we really need another façadectomy? Just keep the old building and build on the lots or at the very least keep the front half or third of the old building. Don't just paste the façade on to the front of a tower like Bay-Adelaide.
 
unimaginative2 said:
I have no problem with these towers being built on those parking lots, but do we really need another façadectomy? Just keep the old building and build on the lots or at the very least keep the front half or third of the old building. Don't just paste the façade on to the front of a tower like Bay-Adelaide.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'll go you one more, it's not facadism, it's fah-sadism.

Suggestion (to be taken with a grain of salt): why not give the facades to the developers of BA2, for free, so that they can be grafted into the base of the upcoming BA east tower? I am pretty sure CF would be happy to get rid of 'em.
 
Second Try:

Same basic (hypothetical) idea - based on the heights given by Mongo. That 221 and 232 metres, or, 725 and 761 feet.

154b-1.jpg



154a-1.jpg



154c-1.jpg



154frontg-1.jpg



154frontf.jpg



154fronte.jpg



154frontd.jpg



154frontc.jpg



154frontb-1.jpg



154fronta-2.jpg
 
Thank you CN, that definitely shows the impact that these towers will have on the immediate area (regardless of their exact massing). I look forward to what you can come up with once we have more information about this development -- at latest, that would be when the City reports are made public in a year or so from now.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top