Skyline impact (unofficial).
Even at 298m parapet, it exceeds roof height of FCP when you exclude its mechanical penthouse - which is nice. Even without the spire, it 'looks' structurally taller.

CC3 W.jpg
CC3 E.jpg


Expanded view here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/infographics-toronto-skyline.27943/#post-1289236
 

Attachments

  • CC3 W.jpg
    CC3 W.jpg
    53 KB · Views: 910
  • CC3 E.jpg
    CC3 E.jpg
    45.1 KB · Views: 835
Why, oh why, can't the roof just be at 350 meters and the spire go to 402? Come on world! It would just look sooo good (as long as the design is improved). Toronto is just one of those cities that rocks the pyramid-style of skyline so well (a la 2010-era skyline).

I'll give it to the developers though, at least the large render on page 2 of this thread is honest. The glass is even shown to be warped to shit and terrible quality. So I mean, if this gets built as low quality as it is currently proposed, we'll have no one to blame but the Toronto city government and its planning structures. :p
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
If one has to resort to technicalities to be put into that category, it doesn't justifiably belong there. Ask yourself - do you really think this is a supertall, at 64s? No. Putting it in that category just turns it into a joke that should be laughed at.

AoD
Click to expand...

I personally have always thought that spires should NOT count towards height when deciding if a given building is officially a supertall or not. See attached image, that I made some time ago:

Comparison_zpsc15235bc.jpg


I would be happy for Commerce Court 3 (and FCP as well) to be considered barely short of supertall status, provided that the New York Times Tower was also considered to be far short of supertall status.

But in this world, spires DO count towards the height for supertall status, so the CC3 spire should be counted too.
 

Attachments

  • Comparison_zpsc15235bc.jpg
    Comparison_zpsc15235bc.jpg
    89.6 KB · Views: 1,004
Mongo said:
I personally have always thought that spires should NOT count towards height when deciding if a given building is officially a supertall or not. See attached image, that I made some time ago:

View attachment 131048

I would be happy for Commerce Court 3 (and FCP as well) to be considered barely short of supertall status, provided that the New York Times Tower was also considered to be far short of supertall status.

But in this world, spires DO count towards the height for supertall status, so the CC3 spire should be counted too.
Click to expand...

Except the dimension that really mattered in this particular example is that it is a tower by Renzo Piano - that alone would have made it more desirable. Supertall status based on arbitrary cutoffs doesn't really interest me one way or another.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Except the dimension that really mattered in this particular example is that it is a tower by Renzo Piano - that alone would have made it more desirable. Supertall status based on arbitrary cutoffs doesn't really interest me one way or another.

AoD
Click to expand...

If supertall status were a judgment call, you are REALLY asking for abuse, since there would always be room for dispute. You need a set of criteria that are completely impartial, based upon reproducible measurements. I believe that the "official" standards for determining supertall status were poorly chosen, but they are what they are. The only justifiable system is one set of standards for all supertall candidates. Not preferential treatment based on the architect.
 
If the spire can make a building pass for being a supertall. Then so should anything that sits on top of a roof such as an antena. Dont you think?
 
Well I think it's a beautiful tower based on the pictures. It doesn't matter if it's a supertall or not. We know it's not going to be built at this height any way. My guess is that 5 years down the road, after several revisions and waiting it'll go ahead at 45-50 stories.
 
travis3000 said:
Well I think it's a beautiful tower based on the pictures. It doesn't matter if it's a supertall or not. We know it's not going to be built at this height any way. My guess is that 5 years down the road, after several revisions and waiting it'll go ahead at 45-50 stories.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps even taller than originally proposed. That also happens fairly often.

I personally would like to see it more slender and taller, but customers prefer massive floor plates.
 
Mongo said:
I have to disagree with this. Like it or not, spires are considered part of the official height of a building, and since this object is not an antenna, and it's so similar to other objects that ARE officially considered spires, it will undoubtedly be considered a spire, making this building a supertall by definition.
Click to expand...
This object is a "transmission antenna" according to the plans.

42
 
It can be, but it isn't here.

42
 
Even if they added 6 floors to make it 70 storeys, that would make this beast around 325 meters to tip. Still, pretty impressive for a purely office tower outside of NYC and China even at 298, in this day and age.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Dont forge


It's amazing whats going on in Toronto with the office sector, ....CIBC SQ.-2 should break ground shortly after the 1st phase tops off, by that time The Well, and BA-3, should be very well into construction
with this (CC-3), 156 Front, Union Centre, 30 Bay, Union Park, 1 Yonge, all in the pipeline, plus dont forget all the smaller ones (12s-18s) proposed in the east and west ends of the downtown core
Great time to live in Toronto:cool:
Click to expand...

Does the Toronto office market have the capacity to readily absorb this all this new proposed office space, or are these proposals going to remain mere proposals for the next 10 or 15 years?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top