I'm fine with the Time's version:

nytimesspire.jpg
 
I like the new design as well.
I thin it better fits Commerce Court.
The angles of the previous design seemed out of place.

That said, if they replaced the screens at the top of the tower with a crown (not setbacks, but texture wrapping around)
(so emulating Commerce Court North instead of Commerce Court West) that would provide some interest.

The glass pavilion still seems to be a weak point.
They should retain some of the concrete grid from Commerce Court South to ground it.

Like the top of this tower below.

ushahid said:
China World Trade Centre
View attachment 176672
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
someMidTowner said:
Combing through some files I came across a cool 80-storey concept plan for CC3 which was passed over in favour of the shorter tower and spire plan:
View attachment 176558
Click to expand...
It makes me wonder with every 2nd proposed office bldg. having shadowing issues in the downtown core if we will ever see an 80-90s/350/400m built??
I can only think of the of the area from Front to King and University to Bay :)
 
Automation Gallery said:
It makes me wonder with every 2nd proposed office bldg. having shadowing issues in the downtown core if we will ever see an 80-90s/350/400m built??
I can only think of the of the area from Front to King and University to Bay :)
Click to expand...
It's such a shame that city planning's extreme aversion to shadows means that even King & Bay can't support anything over 300m. My prediction is that Toronto will never see a 80-storey/350m-roof-height office building. :( Inside the core I don't think there are any developable sites remaining that won't cast a shadow on either Nathan Philips Square, St. James Park, or Berczy Park. And of course outside the core, height would be restricted by the clothesline policy.
 
I'll take two 40-60s office towers over one 80-storey office tower.

Why concentrate everything onto one site? We aren't constrained by land (with office space at least, residential is another story). Why not continue expanding out our financial core and have everything connected underground via the Path. :)
 
I'm not specifically defending how shadowing is handled in the city; however, I think we need to consider that shadowing does matter if we are considering how to design for our specific climate. Toronto has a very specific and extreme local climate with its own advantages and challenges. That said the horse has already left the barn in terms of how the CBD considers its environmental context (it doesn't).
 
As long as this is the place card and they're still tinkering with the design, I'm quite happy with the height reduction.

I agree with Cd Concept, plus we have a plethora of soon to be facad-ed 8-15 storie building on and around Bay Street to fill up the density downtown.
 
I feel like throwing in the fray yet again that I strongly believe that First Canadian Place is in fact not 298m tall. Google earth gives a 292m reading from King Street to the top of the mechanical penthouse, which tends to be accurate within a metre or two (it gives exactly accurate measurements of Aura, L Tower, Bay Adelaide, and a few others I tested, for example). This means that Commerce Court 3 would actually be taller than it by about 8m.

I should really go to the archives and pull the architectural plans for FCP to answer this, it's been bugging me for a while.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I feel like throwing in the fray yet again that I strongly believe that First Canadian Place is in fact not 298m tall. Google earth gives a 292m reading from King Street to the top of the mechanical penthouse, which tends to be accurate within a metre or two (it gives exactly accurate measurements of Aura, L Tower, Bay Adelaide, and a few others I tested, for example). This means that Commerce Court 3 would actually be taller than it by about 8m.

I should really go to the archives and pull the architectural plans for FCP to answer this, it's been bugging me for a while.
Click to expand...
ProjectEnd said:
You'd need Brookfield's written permission to submit a routine disclosure application on that.
Click to expand...
Maybe the supporting docs from the 2012-completed recladding would be easier to dig up?
I'd still love to see the original 1970s documents
 
ProjectEnd said:
You'd need Brookfield's written permission to submit a routine disclosure application on that.
Click to expand...
Surely you'd be able to pull up some staff reports from the time with some elevations or something?

I know I went and pulled the original plans for a century old building about 5 years ago (hand drawn blue prints and all). I imagined it would be similar here.

I don't believe the re-cladding work needed an SPA application, did it? I figure it would have been only permit. If so, I imagine it's routine disclosure only.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top