TRONto said:
and how about connecting to the PATH across the street? They are adding thousands of residents and should connect to the path literally a few meters away.
Click to expand...
I know the city is responsible for planning the expansion of the PATH, but I don't know whether this is the fault of the developer for not complying with the PATH master plan or of City Hall for not including an expansion to this site in their plans.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
...I wouldn't go that far.
Click to expand...
I would, because honestly it's largely a blank wall of glass save for the jaunty canopy. I look at something like Santiago Calatrava's Galleria at BCE Place and lament that we've struggled to build anything of landmark quality for decades now. Yes, I know that the big banks have a lot more money to throw around but surely there's some middle ground for more aspirational architecture. In fact one needn't go far, as just down the street 212 King St. W. has presented something a lot more impressive as far as street level is concerned.
 
If it's not impressive at street level, it's not a great landmark in my opinion. A local resident could literally go decades without stopping and twisting their head up to squint at what the tower looks like. You can't say that about a true landmark with actual design at street level like Old City Hall or the banking pavilion at the TD Centre. You can't help but appreciate the design details as you walk past it.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately the final configuration of these two towers will be based on what the entertainment district market will bear. I'm not sure if it's practical to introduce something of this magnitude of as high quality and price as for say King Condos particularity when they are offering a box in the sky instead of a mid-rise with useable balconies.
 
egotrippin said:
I would, because honestly it's largely a blank wall of glass save for the jaunty canopy. I look at something like Santiago Calatrava's Galleria at BCE Place and lament that we've struggled to build anything of landmark quality for decades now. Yes, I know that the big banks have a lot more money to throw around but surely there's some middle ground for more aspirational architecture. In fact one needn't go far, as just down the street 212 King St. W. has presented something a lot more impressive as far as street level is concerned.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Hopefully there's a lot more to the base than what we're seeing right now.
 
egotrippin said:
I would, because honestly it's largely a blank wall of glass save for the jaunty canopy. I look at something like Santiago Calatrava's Galleria at BCE Place and lament that we've struggled to build anything of landmark quality for decades now. Yes, I know that the big banks have a lot more money to throw around but surely there's some middle ground for more aspirational architecture. In fact one needn't go far, as just down the street 212 King St. W. has presented something a lot more impressive as far as street level is concerned.
Click to expand...
I will agree that it could look a lot better and more interesting. But if you look at the the other diagrams couple pages back or so, that blank wall is not the only thing going up there at ground level.

Source:

Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

Here's the landing page on Great Gulf's website. No new info here, but the project is referred to by them as 'Gehry Condos' : https://www.greatgulf.com/highrise/community/gehry-condos "Gehry is a visionary statement that will define the Toronto skyline: This is where modern luxury meets smart...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
They shrunk it in the last design pass. But no height change of recent as far as I am aware.
 
Last edited:
The 300m+ numbers here:

Post in thread 'Toronto | Gehry Towers | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners'
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-great-gulf-gehry-partners.19170/post-1725683

Include the height from sea level:

Post in thread 'Toronto | Gehry Towers | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners'
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-great-gulf-gehry-partners.19170/post-1725717

Saving you a click: the tower heights are 264m and 308m. I remember there being sadness from some that we didn’t get two supertalls.
 
allengeorge said:
The 300m+ numbers here:

Post in thread 'Toronto | Gehry Towers | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners'
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-great-gulf-gehry-partners.19170/post-1725683

Include the height from sea level:

Post in thread 'Toronto | Gehry Towers | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners'
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-great-gulf-gehry-partners.19170/post-1725717

Saving you a click: the tower heights are 264m and 308m. I remember there being sadness from some that we didn’t get two supertalls.
Click to expand...
They tried to raise the height, but The City wouldn't let them. Least to my understanding.
 
allengeorge said:
The 300m+ numbers here:

Post in thread 'Toronto | Gehry Towers | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners'
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-great-gulf-gehry-partners.19170/post-1725683

Include the height from sea level:

Post in thread 'Toronto | Gehry Towers | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners'
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-great-gulf-gehry-partners.19170/post-1725717

Saving you a click: the tower heights are 264m and 308m. I remember there being sadness from some that we didn’t get two supertalls.
Click to expand...
Yes, 300+ meters.

Thank you.
 
Mind the thread bump, but Great Gulf has changed the project name on its website from 'Gehry Condos' to '260 King St West'. The latter is likely a placeholder, but it is an interesting decision given Gehry's name has been used to market this project from Day 1. It has even been removed from the project description:

260 King St. West is a visionary statement that will define the Toronto skyline: This is where modern luxury meets smart design to provide a mindful and curated experience for both residents and visitors.

 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top