I say go with the 376. Yes its dumb but its consistent with past titling, the CTBUH and where it would fall in global rankings against other cities.

Everyone knows the roof height here is just shy of 300m (yes I think you should add the additional 2m) but rightly or wrongly this building will be recognized as Toronto's tallest internationally and as such I think this forum should reflect that.
 
Too bad about the height. I thought @interchange42 had had a chat with the developers and convinced them to find a way to push the roof height over 300m? I guess it goes to show that outside of these skyscraper nerd communities the "supertall" designation really is completely meaningless.
 
allengeorge said:
I’d go with 297/299. I believe that roof height has more impact on skyline (for buildings!) than spires do.
Click to expand...
I think if you raise roof's hieght to where the hieght of spire is. And add the spire on top it will really make an impact on the skyline and look great. Stop leveling the supertall at roughly the same height!
 
cd concept said:
I think if you raise roof's hieght to where the hieght of spire is. And add the spire on top it will really make an impact on the skyline and look great. Stop leveling the supertall at roughly the same height!
Click to expand...

This is not a discussion about the height of this building, which is not determined by members of UT, but rather, the developer.

This is a discussion about how UT will define the height of this proposal, as it is, in the database.
 
Official heights aside, I do like the idea of having a spire/antenna here, especially one as substantial/beefy as this one. It gives our skyline a Manhattan-like quality to it.

Going back to the observation level, the west views don't seem as impressive to me as I may have otherwise thought. It's still substantially below the roof heights of FCP and future development proposals to the west. It will be an amazing venue space, but I'm not sure if I see it as a tourist destination the way the CN Tower is. Great view of Bank logos though.

CC3 View.jpg
 
Northern Light said:
This is not a discussion about the height of this building, which is not determined by members of UT, but rather, the developer.

This is a discussion about how UT will define the height of this proposal, as it is, in the database.
Click to expand...
What you mean UT is not recording all my critiques and negotiating compromises with city hall and the developers? I was planning on billing UT at consultant rates for all of this... :)
 
Last edited:
ciceror said:
Observation deck is a good idea - I always felt the CN tower observation deck had one major problem - that when you stand in it and see the city, you can't see Toronto's most defining feature, the CN tower itself
Click to expand...

Which is why we need something like Rockerfeller Center's Observation Deck from which people can view the Empire State building and other tall buildings in New York.
 
marcus_a_j said:
TD Centre had one before converting it into a restaurant

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...to-dominion-centre-observation-gallery.32489/
Click to expand...
Yep, went up when in opened. As I remember it was decorated in plush red carpet on floor and walls. Think it closed when Commerce court west opened its observation deck decorated in sapphire blue carpeting on floor and walls. I've been recently told it closed when the CN Tower opened. I remember going up to the top of 1st Canada Place to the top floor during lunch hour when it opened but to my horror executive offices and no observation deck. I did not get out of the elevator!
 
Last edited:
NeilV said:
Too bad about the height. I thought @interchange42 had had a chat with the developers and convinced them to find a way to push the roof height over 300m? I guess it goes to show that outside of these skyscraper nerd communities the "supertall" designation really is completely meaningless.
Click to expand...
I did talk to the architects, and the height did change for the second proposal, how much my talk had something to do that I'll never know. Now that the height's been reduced again, it may simply be that the City came back and said "you're shadowing the park! you can't shadow the park!" Who knows?
The Preservationist said:
Yep, went up when in opened. As I remember it was decorated in plush red carpet on floor and walls. Think it closed when Commerce court west opened its observation deck decorated in sapphire blue carpeting on floor and walls. I've been recently told it closed when the CN Tower opened. I remember going up to the top of 1st Canada Place to the top floor during lunch hour when it opened but to my horror executive offices and no observation deck. I did not get out of the elevator!
Click to expand...
I believe the top floor of the BMO tower at FCP is now the home of the BMO's art collection. Prior to the pandemic you could make an appointment to go see the collection (and take in the views).

Meanwhile, it's starting to look like few people care what number we cite for the height… so I'm leaning towards rounding it up by 4 millimetres and listing it as 297 metres. Comments considered until Tuesday!

42
 
So does this mean QuadReal has a potential tenant? Or is it just standard procedure? Since 160 Front/CIBC we've had radio silence on any office tower news. With COVID this doesn't surprise me. But we have a solid list of 5-6 large towers all of which have been proposed/approved. Curious if any of these are close to launching.
 
If I remember correctly, the reason the CTBUH considers spires as part of the height of the tower is that the spires are part of the architectural design of the build and as such will not change. Antennas, on the other hand, can be taken down or replaced by taller or shorter antennas making the height of the building ever-changing.

I would vote to use the height including the spire as the height in the UT forums due to the above reason - 374m / 376m depending on what is defined as grade.

To give an extreme hypothetical, imagine the spire on this building was replaced with a 1 sq-m floorspace room with a height of 77 metres. Technically, the roof height would be 374 metres, but this room would serve absolutely no purpose (other than maybe housing a really tall ladder 🤣 ). So, why would that hypothetical room qualify as "roof" height, but an architectural spire not qualify to use as the total height of the building?

Horrible MS Word sketch of this hypothetical 77m tall room below!
1630813415907.png

Just my two cents.

Also, just pointing out that the "roof" height of the CN Tower is listed as 457m. I'll fight anyone who says this is the actual height of the CN Tower!! Hahahaha. The CN Tower is 553.3m tall, so help me god! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top