The recladding did not need an SPA, just an application to the Building Department, but they did consult with Urban Design (part of Planning), recognizing the importance of the work.

42
 
Strange Advance said:
What's the over-under on the height being reduced, as is tradition?
Click to expand...
The height is cut where it is so that the lawn around St James Cathedral (which is not a public park, but which the City considers a significant open space) doesn't get more shadow on it. There's nothing else around that would trigger a further height cut.

42
 
Are those cables attached to the spire?
184109

pic from the database.
 
interchange42 said:
The height is cut where it is so that the lawn around St James Cathedral (which is not a public park, but which the City considers a significant open space) doesn't get more shadow on it. There's nothing else around that would trigger a further height cut.

42
Click to expand...
As it’s currently proposed they are only limiting shadow on the public park - not the cathedral forecourt.

This would be a lot more stubby if the forecourt was protected as well.

The problem with protecting the forecourt is that the city’s policies conflict as to whether it’s protected or not. The city did not protect it in TOcore I believe, only limiting shadows to the public park.
 
raclll said:
Drawings scale 1147' to top of spire!
Click to expand...

That height includes the little antennae on the roof. The building height was capped at 298.14 m. (under 300 m)
Just like YSL and Pinnacle One (before minor adjustment) and Mirvish Gehry (also prior to recent adjustment)

300 m seems to be a line in the sand that I don't understand. Even The "Hub" was reaching close to 300 and was cut back.
There certainly seems to be an aversion to crossing the 300 m line in this city.
 
Big Daddy said:
That height includes the little antennae on the roof. The building height was capped at 298.14 m. (under 300 m)
Just like YSL and Pinnacle One (before minor adjustment) and Mirvish Gehry (also prior to recent adjustment)

300 m seems to be a line in the sand that I don't understand. Even The "Hub" was reaching close to 300 and was cut back.
There certainly seems to be an aversion to crossing the 300 m line in this city.
Click to expand...

Watch out, people might claim you're a "height fetishist".
 
Big Daddy said:
That height includes the little antennae on the roof. The building height was capped at 298.14 m. (under 300 m)
Just like YSL and Pinnacle One (before minor adjustment) and Mirvish Gehry (also prior to recent adjustment)

300 m seems to be a line in the sand that I don't understand. Even The "Hub" was reaching close to 300 and was cut back.
There certainly seems to be an aversion to crossing the 300 m line in this city.
Click to expand...
holographic plastic said:
Watch out, people might claim you're a "height fetishist".
Click to expand...

Few outside of skyscraper circles have even heard of 300m as some sort of benchmark. No one in Planning cares about arbitrary numbers like that. Planning certainly cared about height back in 1972 when FCP was working its way through the process - to a final height of 298m. That's that's before the internet and sites like this one and any notion that 300m is some mystery number that we just can't seem to reach.

Your Alex Jones-ing 300m is buffoonish.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top