[someMidTowner]

I agree caltrane. No point judging the design until we see a render. I will admit I'm worried about the quality of the design...not based on the elevation sketch just in general. This thing will be visible from most of Toronto so I hope that the city demands a lot in exchange for height.

 

[p5connex]

Not hard to guess the Cumberland situation, especially since I pretty much provided enough info to guess, save for mentioning his name.

Also, what does your link point us to besides RSH' homepage? I can't find anything other than the information regarding St. Lawrence Mkt.

No I meant for this location. Another Toronto architect I follow on twitter said he's heard it was this firm as well. So is it 100% confirmed? No. But knowing Oxford works with them it makes sense.

I've thought about that--perhaps CT & Holts are preceeding at the same time with the same architect? It may make sense as to why they're now doing one taller tower there.

 

[gabe]

Looks great! but i will save judgement until i see the colour renderings. I can't wait to see all these buildings erected in the skyline.

 

[Mongo]

Good illustration of what is planned and under cinstruction here in terms of tall towers (50 Bloor West at 83s@277m, Number One Bloor at 75s@255m, plus the new Four Seasons at 52s@204m). If the additional proposed talls (the Cumberland Terrace project redesign, which is still under wraps but is surely going to be over 200m in height, Casa 2 at 57s@187m, and the 50 Cumberland two tower project at 56s and 46s) were added, we would be looking at an incredible cluster of high-rise density.

 

[driverso]

Holt Renfrew already has a plan for what they are going to do during construction. Cumberland Terrace, The Bay, Yorkville Plaza, all seem like reasonable alternatives.

Holt Renfrew will probably stay where it is during it all. They can add more floors to the existing no problem (this is the newest part of the present complex with good foundations). The tower is to the east and will disrupt some of Holts (handbags and restaurant above) and the likes of Zara, BCBGMAXARIZIA, and others on the lower concourse level. Subway walkways between Bay and Yonge will be complicated. CT was required to keep subway access active. Probably why Morguard had raised some concerns at the CT approval meetings.

 

[unimaginative2]

is yonge and bloor the most "iconically urban spot in canada".

What is urban? We are all making an assumption that x number of floors is urban. Some may argue that Old Montreal is "the most iconically urban spot in canada."

I love the new four seasons buildlings, but I'm also very struck at how TALL it is compared to the rest of yorkville. This building will be one-third taller than the 4S. Is it appropriate? Maybe... but there's an assumption on this board that tall = urban and that the taller the better. Taller raises questions of traffic - how are the 600 parking spots going to exit or enter the building? What happens while this beast is being constructed? How will these new units impact parkland in the area etc...

While Yonge and Bloor may be the centre of our subway system, we do forget that it borders on some VERY low level buildings and one could make an argument that tall buildings should tapper as we head north from the Financial District.

I wish people would be less fanboys about height and more tolerant towards other opinions. Just my opinion.

Great points. I completely agree. I have nothing inherently against skyscrapers and I support this project, assuming it looks a little better than these line drawings suggest. That said, I think we're making a big mistake in assuming that skyscrapers are necessary for any great "urban" neighbourhood. I live in New York and I can tell you that many of the most popular, exciting, dynamic, and, yes, urban neighbourhoods are the ones that have no skyscrapers at all. Nobody goes to have fun and enjoy themselves among the skyscrapers of Park Avenue. Times Square is mostly tourists. The Lower East Side, East Village, Chinatown, West Village, Soho, etc. are all low rise neighbourhoods. In fact, people would be horrified at the idea of building a mass of glassy condo skyscrapers in any of them. Sure, there are a couple of towers you can point to, but it's nothing like what we're building in Toronto and they're almost never demolishing older buildings to do it.

I'd say that Queen West, the Danforth, Kensington Market, Saint-Laurent, Byward Market, etc. are all just as urban as, if not much more so than, condo skyscraper neighbourhoods like Bay and Wellesley, and Cityplace.


On the other hand, I really don't get these firm height limits like 137m at a location like this. As I said before, I don't really see the difference in impacts between a 45-floor building and a 60-floor one.

 

[prosperegal]

Re The Bay being Holts' temp store: It's way, way too big. Sure, Holt Renfrew Bloor is beginning to outgrow its current location, but the Bay is probably three times plus its size.

 

[MisterF]

Great points. I completely agree. I have nothing inherently against skyscrapers and I support this project, assuming it looks a little better than these line drawings suggest. That said, I think we're making a big mistake in assuming that skyscrapers are necessary for any great "urban" neighbourhood. I live in New York and I can tell you that many of the most popular, exciting, dynamic, and, yes, urban neighbourhoods are the ones that have no skyscrapers at all. Nobody goes to have fun and enjoy themselves among the skyscrapers of Park Avenue. Times Square is mostly tourists. The Lower East Side, East Village, Chinatown, West Village, Soho, etc. are all low rise neighbourhoods. In fact, people would be horrified at the idea of building a mass of glassy condo skyscrapers in any of them. Sure, there are a couple of towers you can point to, but it's nothing like what we're building in Toronto and they're almost never demolishing older buildings to do it.

I'd say that Queen West, the Danforth, Kensington Market, Saint-Laurent, Byward Market, etc. are all just as urban as, if not much more so than, condo skyscraper neighbourhoods like Bay and Wellesley, and Cityplace.


On the other hand, I really don't get these firm height limits like 137m at a location like this. As I said before, I don't really see the difference in impacts between a 45-floor building and a 60-floor one.

But but but....it's a CITY. If they don't like skyscrapers they should move to Long Island! /sarcasm

Of course, I agree with you completely. Some of the most urban neighbourhoods can be lowrise like Kensington Market, or highrise like Michigan Avenue. But height doesn't make a neighbourhood urban.

 

[pw20]

But but but....it's a CITY. If they don't like skyscrapers they should move to Long Island! /sarcasm

Of course, I agree with you completely. Some of the most urban neighbourhoods can be lowrise like Kensington Market, or highrise like Michigan Avenue. But height doesn't make a neighbourhood urban.

Thank you... there is an inherent belief on this board that height is good. Is College Street less urban than Yonge and Bloor? Bloor Street is the only high-rise retail street that has successfully worked in Toronto.

The point that "all of downtown should be skyscrapers" and if you don't like than move to East York is really detrimental to dialogue and in fact is puerile.

This is a very real conversation that Toronto politicians, residents and everyone in between should be having. How is city place at all urban?

My point in discussing this tower at 83 storeys is that it is REALLY REALLY high. If you drive down yonge and avenue road, the current four seasons is massive - it is intrusive on what was once a low-rise neighbourhood and what was successful BECAUSE of its low rise nature.

The debate and conversation that Torontonians should be having, should be about the type of city we're building, and what height means, how height is handled, where we want to see height etc...

Jizzing our pants because of a potential 83 story building (that based on line drawings looks not so nice - although I'm willing to reserve judgement) isn't actually inviting dialogue about "urbanness" its jizzing our pants over height.

Last I checked this board was called: Urban Toronto, not skyscraper Toronto.

 

[Miscreant]

Re The Bay being Holts' temp store: It's way, way too big. Sure, Holt Renfrew Bloor is beginning to outgrow its current location, but the Bay is probably three times plus its size.

Not to mention the fact that any occupancy of the Bay by any other retailer just means that it is for the duration of that occupancy that that unholy structure fails to meet an unglorified death through unceremonious bulldozing.

 

[whatever]

But given that Bloor has worked as a high-rise retail street, and given that this is on two subway lines, and given that the value of the street frontage almost guarantees quality, why is this such a problem?

When I look at this view and I imagine the proposed tower sitting there beside 2 Bloor W it just doesn't seem that outrageous to me. As long as it's well designed and well executed I'm fine with it.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=cumber...ntario&t=h&z=20&panoid=1MgOV5ecbvm8bNxil5p-Dw

 

[unimaginative2]

Just to be clear, I don't blame anyone for being excited about a potential 1000-footer. I'm excited too, as long as it's actually a well-designed and attractive building and it's in an appropriate location. And Yonge and Bloor is as appropriate as any place for a really tall tower.

 

[marsh]

I have mixed feelings about highrises. I agree that Bloor and Yonge can be appopriate for a highrise as it is a major intersection and hear of the city but to go back to of the other comments we need to think about highrises and intereaction with the community. Personally, I think Yorkville should remain low rise (and I fear it won't as encroachment is already happening with current and proposed devleopments). So will building highrise towers lead to further encroachment on Yorkville? I fear also cities need a diveristy of low rise and high rise neighbourhoods and as someone pointed out on earlier even NYC isnt all skyscrapers and some of the most vibrant neighbourhoods are lowrise.

Also, the type of condos that seem be built these days are either luxury high end condos that cost of millions of dollars or 500 square foot boxes. This type of unbridled growth isn't good for the long term growth of the city. We need a diversity of housing to accomodate diveristy of living arrangements. On the path we are going, we are going to have a city of have and have nots, and transiant dwellers who will move from their 500 square foot condos once they start having families (and most likely head out to the suburbs if they can't affford housing in Toronto).

Lastly, everybody justifies building towers along subway lines as points of density. I would agree with that except that the existing subway system (especially Yonge) is at over capacity now. I don't know how we're going to cope when all these condos do get built when their isn't a downtown relief line being planned or built in the foresable future.

So my point is highrises and increased density can be good thing and Bloor and Yonge can be appropriate spot, But there are a lot of things to think about and my concern under the current planning process these issues are not being addressed. Towers, skyscapers in and of themselves do not make a city "great".

 

[androiduk]

Re The Bay being Holts' temp store: It's way, way too big. Sure, Holt Renfrew Bloor is beginning to outgrow its current location, but the Bay is probably three times plus its size.

There's also the possibility Holt's could take over the Bay store and just stay there. With 1 Bloor going up, the cachet of that corner just increased.

 

[Haljackey]

A drawing for the Holt Renfrew Tower has now been created. 277 metres, no supertall. FCP retains it's crown as Canada's tallest for 37 years. Close but no cigar.

link
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=57390