Koops65 said:
Interesting... thanks for the feedback.
Click to expand...
UrbanToronto won't be supertalling this in the database file until we see the proof.

42
 
And the hecklers who stated that this tower wouldn't become a supertall lol! The same thing will happen to the 90 storey Sugar Wharf B Tower that's at 299m!
 
interchange42 said:
UrbanToronto won't be supertalling this in the database file until we see the proof.

42
Click to expand...
Of course... I look forward to seeing the proof myself. Just so you all know, it wasn't me who made the change ... somebody else at SSP did it. I don't know who.
 
I believe the "proof" here is that the 299m is measured from the ground floor level, which generally aligns with the Gerrard St Elevation. However, Yonge St slopes downwards towards the lake, resulting in the southwest corner of the building being at a lower elevation. The plans do not appear to dimension this difference, however the survey plans illustrate a grade change of approximately 1.5 metres between Gerrard and the south side of the site (95.2m ASL vs. 93.7 ASL)

So yes, this would be 300 metres tall if measured from the south side of the building, or 299 metres tall if measured from the north side.

The architectural plans choose to measure from the ground floor of the building, which visually appears to sit just below the Gerrard St grade, likely around 95m ASL, so I imagine the building height measured from the southwest corner of the building to the top would be right about 300m.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
I believe the "proof" here is that the 299m is measured from the ground floor level, which generally aligns with the Gerrard St Elevation. However, Yonge St slopes downwards towards the lake, resulting in the southwest corner of the building being at a lower elevation. The plans do not appear to dimension this difference, however the survey plans illustrate a grade change of approximately 1.5 metres between Gerrard and the south side of the site (95.2m ASL vs. 93.7 ASL)

So yes, this would be 300 metres tall if measured from the south side of the building, or 299 metres tall if measured from the north side.

The architectural plans choose to measure from the ground floor of the building, which visually appears to site just below the Gerrard St grade, likely around 95m ASL, so I imagine the building height measured from the southwest corner of the building to the top would be right about 300m.
Click to expand...
Hi, thanks for the helpful information. So will skyscraper fans, sites, CTBUH, and those who like to keep track of these things be expected to say the tower is only 299 metres? Or can it be officially called a SuperTall? It's great that it's 300 metres on the south side of the building, but if it's not officially acknowledged as a SuperTall, then that's too bad. 🤨
 
It's in the architectural plans. The ground floor has multiple planes according to the section diagram
 

Attachments

  • concord sky.png
    concord sky.png
    134.7 KB · Views: 91
Apart from the cloistered chambers of UT, most Torontonians wouldn't care if this is a supertall or not; it's tall, period. Worrying about it being just shy of supertall status just seems like a tempest in a teapot. It's not as if there aren't supertalls being built right now in the city, with more planned. I find myself wishing we had credible bragging rights to a better street presence, for example, or worked harder to establish and maintain high standards for our urban infrastructure.
 
Lenser said:
Apart from the cloistered chambers of UT, most Torontonians wouldn't care if this is a supertall or not; it's tall, period. Worrying about it being just shy of supertall status just seems like a tempest in a teapot. It's not as if there aren't supertalls being built right now in the city, with more planned. I find myself wishing we had credible bragging rights to a better street presence, for example, or worked harder to establish and maintain high standards for our urban infrastructure.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is just another tall building in the core which gives very little to the city in terms of attractive architecture. It's been all said before, time to move on, I reckon.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top