3Dementia said:
^ Like many here I agree that Concord has polluted our town with way too many bargain basement builds (unfortunately this one looks to be a 299m stain on the skyline).

But why did you flip (horizontally) the rendering... my old brain couldn't process this for a few minutes... is there some subtext I'm not getting?
Click to expand...
After seeing the new rendering I was thinking I was stuck in "the parallel universe".
 
Bjays92 said:
I have no idea what you're trying to say given you're also a new member and the two renders are of the same site.

Granted the first render is the way back original proposal that I believe was like 350m and immediately shot down and was overhauled into what was finally approved by Cresford, but the overall sentiment remains and it is certainly the same site
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if my comment came off rude. I'm sure UT enjoys having new members join - that's how the site stays relevant. How long you have been a member has little to do with your ability to contribute to the conversation in a meaningful manner. You could have joined yesterday but are an architect with insider technical knowledge on the project who can blow any member on the site out the water.

But coming in here and posting a mirror image of the tower (your second photo is a mirror image) while simply stating it's not good enough, brings the level of this discussion down to just plain banal.

I enjoy reading one liners but those are masterfully done by veteran members on the site and can be quite the provocation on your thoughts on and perception of a particular project.
 
The renders of the extremely shiny cladding makes me wonder whether neighbours will have issues with reflected sunlight. Believe Museum Tower in Dallas and Walkie Talkie in London, UK are quite the nuisance depending on time of day/ sunlight angle. Although the lens flare seems to be isolated to the camel toe at the top of the tower, so maybe not really an issue once the final product is made.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Sort of, @Contra. KPF demanded that their name be permanently removed from that project when it became apparent that Concord weren’t interested in anything but maximum profit. They are not currently affiliated with it at all, AFAIK.
Click to expand...
Mods should probably update the Database info then 😅
 
DavidCapizzano said:
@mods think it's time to rename this thread to concord sky?
Click to expand...
Sure thing… but we normally wait until we can change more than just the name; in this case I wanted a high quality rendering to go with it. So, now that we've got that, the database is updated, the thread title changed, and we have a front page story with a couple more facts loaded into it than some of the more speculative news from last week.

What you'll all likely want to know first is a confirmation of them chopping the floor heights to get 95 storeys into the same height. THEY'RE NOT. Concord are simply applying the way they number floors to the counts they are throwing about. Concord Sky won't have 95 storeys, even if its highest floor will be numbered 95; it will have 84* storeys, as the building will skip 4, 13, 14, 24, 34, 44, 54, 64,74, 84, and 94. Here's how that works, with the numbers in red being the real storey numbers and the numbers in yellow being the numbers that Concord will apply to them:

CSkyAerSW1280Markup.jpg


I picked out levels with terraces or extra height ones (where there are presumably transfer beams to account for the extra height) to drop the numbers on.

So, higher res pic of the building than we have seen so far, but it's still not enough info to be definitive about everything. We've asked for the updated architectural plans, but apparently that package is still being put together by the architects, so nothing yet. While there are obviously balconies on the north and east sides, we cannot tell yet, for example, if they've been added to the south side, or if the light areas you can see at the southeast corner are simply the light pouring through full floor-height windows: that could be an interior space despite how bright it is.

I am also not 100% certain on how many floors will be in the base either, as a previous version only had two behind the old 3-storey facade. (Based on the rendering, the numbers don't add up to 84/95, however, unless there are 3 now in that section.)

We've left the "second tallest residential" thing out of the front page story because, for goodness sake, this has got an office section and retail at ground level, The One (taller) has retail, restaurants, and a hotel, the SkyTower at Pinnacle One Yonge (taller) has a hotel, two Sugar Wharf Phase Two towers (same height) may be on the way up, 212 King Street West will probably be on the way up to a taller final point, Gehry Toronto will have who the hell knows what… and who knows how far along any or all of them will be at the time. For whatever month one of them is taller than the other, they can make their claims then. Until then, whatevs…

42

* EDIT: Not sure how I miscounted the uppermost section when labelling the real floor numbers, so the image should say 84, not 83.
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
Sure thing… but we normally wait until we can change more than just the name; in this case I wanted a high quality rendering to go with it. So, now that we've got that, the database is updated, the thread title changed, and we have a front page story with a couple more facts loaded into it than some of the more speculative news from last week.

What you'll all likely want to know first is a confirmation of them chopping the floor heights to get 95 storeys into the same height. THEY'RE NOT. Concord are simply applying the way they number floors to the counts they are throwing about. Concord Sky won't have 95 storeys, even if its high floor will be numbered 95; it will have 83 storeys, as the building will skip 4, 13, 14, 24, 34, 44, 54, 64,74, 84, and 94. Here's how that works, with the numbers in red being the real storey numbers and the numbers in yellow being the numbers that Concord will apply to them:

View attachment 351750

I picked out levels with terraces or extra height ones (where there are presumably transfer beams to account for the extra height) to drop the numbers on.

So, higher res pic of the building than we have seen so far, but it's still not enough info to be definitive about everything. We've asked for the updated architectural plans, but apparently that package is still being put together by the architects, so nothing yet. While there are obviously balconies on the north and east sides, we cannot tell yet, for example, if they've been added to the south side, or if the light areas you can see at the southeast corner are simply the light pouring through full floor-height windows: that could be an interior space despite how bright it is.

I am also not 100% certain on how many floors will be in the base either, as a previous version only had two behind the old 3-storey facade. (Based on the rendering, the numbers don't add up to 83/95, however, unless there are 3 now in that section.)

We've left the "second tallest residential" thing out of the front page story because, for goodness sake, this has got an office section and retail at ground level, The One (taller) has retail, restaurants, and a hotel, the SkyTower at Pinnacle One Yonge (taller) has a hotel, two Sugar Wharf Phase Two towers (same height) may be on the way up, 212 King Street West will probably be on the way up to a taller final point, Gehry Toronto will have who the hell knows what… and who knows how far along any or all of them will be at the time. For whatever month one of them is taller than the other, they can make their claims then. Until then, whatevs…

42
Click to expand...

Excellent work!
 
It has been confirmed that Ryerson University will still be taking office space the base of the building, as was the case in previous incarnation of YSL. "Ryerson is still part of Concord Sky’s plans," says Leung. "Concord is also working with Ryerson to better integrate the school by opening up the development at grade. This more seamless approach will create more animation on Yonge Street, benefiting everyone involved."
Click to expand...
Well that's positive news - I was a little afraid that Concord would have torn up that agreement. Then again, finding guaranteed long term tenants for a space before construction has begun is probably great news for them.
 
I hope the glass is not that transparent like the Concord Adex's railway lands condos. Bottom line is that I'm not too frilled with this rendering . And transparent glass that I'm seeing will add more disgrace to this building at that height. As seen in the photos up above.
 
Personally I like the design from the previous Crestford approval. NOT to mention that giant waterhole will be gone soon.
 
interchange42 said:
Sure thing… but we normally wait until we can change more than just the name; in this case I wanted a high quality rendering to go with it. So, now that we've got that, the database is updated, the thread title changed, and we have a front page story with a couple more facts loaded into it than some of the more speculative news from last week.

What you'll all likely want to know first is a confirmation of them chopping the floor heights to get 95 storeys into the same height. THEY'RE NOT. Concord are simply applying the way they number floors to the counts they are throwing about. Concord Sky won't have 95 storeys, even if its high floor will be numbered 95; it will have 83 storeys, as the building will skip 4, 13, 14, 24, 34, 44, 54, 64,74, 84, and 94. Here's how that works, with the numbers in red being the real storey numbers and the numbers in yellow being the numbers that Concord will apply to them:

View attachment 351750

I picked out levels with terraces or extra height ones (where there are presumably transfer beams to account for the extra height) to drop the numbers on.

So, higher res pic of the building than we have seen so far, but it's still not enough info to be definitive about everything. We've asked for the updated architectural plans, but apparently that package is still being put together by the architects, so nothing yet. While there are obviously balconies on the north and east sides, we cannot tell yet, for example, if they've been added to the south side, or if the light areas you can see at the southeast corner are simply the light pouring through full floor-height windows: that could be an interior space despite how bright it is.

I am also not 100% certain on how many floors will be in the base either, as a previous version only had two behind the old 3-storey facade. (Based on the rendering, the numbers don't add up to 83/95, however, unless there are 3 now in that section.)

We've left the "second tallest residential" thing out of the front page story because, for goodness sake, this has got an office section and retail at ground level, The One (taller) has retail, restaurants, and a hotel, the SkyTower at Pinnacle One Yonge (taller) has a hotel, two Sugar Wharf Phase Two towers (same height) may be on the way up, 212 King Street West will probably be on the way up to a taller final point, Gehry Toronto will have who the hell knows what… and who knows how far along any or all of them will be at the time. For whatever month one of them is taller than the other, they can make their claims then. Until then, whatevs…

42
Click to expand...
Just as I predicted a while ago (skipping floors ending in 4 plus 13th), except they're not trying to squeeze in 4 more floors so that the 89th becomes the 100th. Maybe adding 4 floors is considered bad luck too, but they could've added 5 and call it a 101- storey building ;)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top