The 100 Metre List data for this building is still at the old 340+ m height, and it seems riddled with errors and omissions. Is it no longer being maintained?

@DonValleyRainbow
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Picture of the scaffolding
176588


Looks like some sort of stucco so the glass wont break when demolishing
176589


Never seen these lights on before, maybe they have a temporary office in there

176587


Back of the soon to be demolished buildings

176590
 
Urban-Affair said:
Again, it is not only about height. Say it with me now...
Click to expand...

So what if people care about height too much? It’s getting to be very predictable and boring that nearly all buildings are below 300 metres even in locations such as this one. Let’s not even get into how they decided on 299 metres and not just rounding up to 300 to reach “super tall” status.
 
Automation Gallery said:
C,mon do you believe that? when originally it was proposed @ 350 meters, it's Toronto city planning power tripping my friend
Click to expand...
It's crazy that they think that planning is their job!

42
 
If we recall, there were no multi res proposals in the 250m height range (I mean not truly) until Aura. Trump doesn't count with its lame looking spire. I know we all want and love to see density, salivating right now at the thought of it actually, BUT there are problems with cities that grow too much density too quickly. Just on the basis of site servicing keeping up with high density plots of land, street after street, generally leads to horrible consequences for a city's quality of life, which in the end leaves us worse off than before. I want density as much as the next person, but this is a long game, not a quick 'hey let's throw up 400 m, 1000+ unit towers everywhere and call it a day'. They may come, or they may not and I think we are still a level city on quality of life regardless.

On another point, I was at the developers conference last week, and one of the biggest takeaways for me was the concerns over hard costs, soft costs, and land costs squeezing entrepreneurial profit. Some developers on the panel have basically resorted to saying they are moving their business to the suburbs. Not sure if true or just a threat. A lot of the anger was directed towards city levies, but I think the hardest squeeze point is actually land costs. So I guess this begs the question, resorting back to the thread topic - will we see a decrease in the next few years overall in the high density residential market, and less proposals for supertalls, and massively expensive projects, like Mirvish, 1 Yonge, YSL? Perhaps OT, but it's all related to the risk for developers surrounding large towers like this.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top