Looks like Oxford are now the bigwigs in the city, with tall tower rumoured proposals...

100 Adelaide West/Richmond-Adelaide III......http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...-West-Richmond-Adelaide-III-(Oxford-39s-KPF)?
60 Harbour/ 30 Bay (TPA lands)....http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/18067-30-Bay-st.-(Redevelopment-TPA
Metro Toronto Convention Centre Redevelopment ....http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/16439-Metro-Toronto-Convention-Centre-for-sale/page2
Cumberland Terrace redevelopment ......http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...oor-West-Oxford-Properties-48-36s-B-H)/page29
50 Bloor St. W ....http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/18684-50-Bloor-St.-W-(Oxford-83s)
 
"Rumoured" being the keyword. Oxford seemed to be the most cautious developer. This is their third proposal for 100 Adelaide west over the past decade and still no shovel in the ground. Hopefully the current climate in Toronto will give then the confidence to build all of these proposals.
 
toto said:
"Rumoured" being the keyword. Oxford seemed to be the most cautious developer. This is their third proposal for 100 Adelaide west over the past decade and still no shovel in the ground. Hopefully the current climate in Toronto will give then the confidence to build all of these proposals.
Click to expand...

Well the under construction...RBC WaterPark Place (WPP III, 85 Harbour St, Oxford Properties, 30s, WZMH Architects) is a start.
 
Mongo said:
I would think that since they have already been approved (not to mention are already under construction), they would be grandfathered out of the Tall Building Guidelines, which I assume would only apply to buildings approved after the Guidelines come into effect.

So I guess it's a race between approval of this project (and any other tall buildings in the pipeline), and approval of the Guidelines.
Click to expand...
Actually the race would be when the application gets submitted and when the guidelines get approved. Once an application is submitted it's evaluated based on the policy in place on that day, and future changes in policy don't affect it. And even if the guidelines were approved by Council, they do have the power to approve something that doesn't entirely conform to it.

khristopher said:
We live in a city. Tall buildings are EXPECTED. Move to Milton!
Click to expand...
Wow, I didn't realize that Paris wasn't a city. Apparently Madrid and St. Petersburg aren't either. They had me fooled all this time!

I agree that 50 Bloor is perfectly appropriate for an 80+ storey building. But the argument that cities automatically equal skyscrapers and if you don't like a proposal you should move the the country is ridiculous.
 
caltrane74 said:
60 Harbour/30 Bay is /was rumoured to be the other supertall proposal.
Click to expand...

Yes, although LeftCoaster on SSP says that the economics for a supertall on that site did not work out, and it will likely be two shorter (but still tall) towers instead. So basically, another MLS / Ice / 90 Harbour multi-tower development, with about the same height as those projects.

We still have the Toronto Star lands, the LCBO lands to its east, and maybe the Cumberland Terrace redevelopment (possibly the site of the 100s Synergy tower?) that could become sites of additional supertalls.
 
Last edited:
Don't really care how tall it is (talk of height really bores me). The most important aspect of this development is whether it improves things at street level.
 
Exactly. Dubai has big towers. It may be impressive in a picture from far away but I would live in Toronto over Dubai any day. The pedestrian experience is the only one that matters.
 
Street level is going to be a modern, luxury department store. I don't think you need to worry about whether it will be a positive addition to the pedestrian experience.
 
Mongo said:
We can only hope. Of course, there is always the OMB which has the power to override the Tall Building Guidelines if they are enacted -- but wait, many people on this site want the OMB abolished as well!
Click to expand...

They may not have any such power soon enough, city council voted to opt out of the OMB back on Feb 6. It remains to be seen what the provinces final response on the matter will be, but the OMB's days might be numbered in Toronto.

MisterF said:
Wow, I didn't realize that Paris wasn't a city. Apparently Madrid and St. Petersburg aren't either. They had me fooled all this time!

I agree that 50 Bloor is perfectly appropriate for an 80+ storey building. But the argument that cities automatically equal skyscrapers and if you don't like a proposal you should move the the country is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I understand how his brashness would illicit such a response, but Yorkville is not comparable to the general form of any of those cities. Furthermore, with the exception of St. Petersburg, those cities are not devoid of skyscrapers. Paris has 13 500ft+ buildings with 3 more under construction. For comparison, up until 2005 Toronto only had 10. Madrid has 5 over 500ft and 4 of those are above 700ft. Which is 1 less 700ft'er than Toronto had just 4 years ago. Clearly tall buildings have been excepted in certain localize area's of those cities, much like how they are in Yorkville.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
I understand how his brashness would illicit such a response, but Yorkville is not comparable to the general form of any of those cities. Furthermore, with the exception of St. Petersburg, those cities are not devoid of skyscrapers. Paris has 13 500ft+ buildings with 3 more under construction. For comparison, up until 2005 Toronto only had 10. Madrid has 5 over 500ft and 4 of those are above 700ft. Which is 1 less 700ft'er than Toronto had just 4 years ago. Clearly tall buildings have been excepted in certain localize area's of those cities, much like how they are in Yorkville.
Click to expand...
I agree that Yorkville is different from those cities, that's why I said this site is appropriate for a skyscraper. But Yorkville is still very close to low rise neighbourhoods and the placement of new skyscrapers has to be carefully evaluated.

Cities like Paris and Madrid do have skyscrapers but they're generally on the edge of the city instead of in established neighbourhoods. Their central cores are predominantly low and midrise, much more so than Toronto. They were examples off the top of my head to show that brushing off opposition to a skyscraper with "Tall buildings are in cities. Don't like it, move out to the country" is childish and simplistic at best. If you did the same thing with an 80 storey skyscraper in central Madrid you'd get laughed out of the room.
 
Last edited:
For skyscraper geeks this is great news! If it looks neat at street level...well that's okay as well ;)
 
Ramako said:
Street level is going to be a modern, luxury department store. I don't think you need to worry about whether it will be a positive addition to the pedestrian experience.
Click to expand...

800px-Neiman_Marcus_Boston.jpg


This looks less than adequate.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top