Mongo
Senior Member
Aura, 264m to architectural top.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Mongo
- Start date
PUTOTO
Active Member
This is showing where exactly Toronto belongs. I think it's doing a great job in terms of the quantity, not quality(architecturally).
I hope the day will come soon that we see (1)Toronto on the list for 500m+ buildlings.
I hope the day will come soon that we see (1)Toronto on the list for 500m+ buildlings.
Last edited:
Red October
Senior Member
Honestly, I don't really want any 500m+ buildings in Toronto, as they would take the entire point of the CN Tower away.
I would love buildings between 300m and 450m, but the views (and purpose) of the CN Tower should stay intact.
That's why my ideal height for Toronto's new tallest would be between 350 and 400 metres, I think it would look great on the skyline with the other towers, but not draw attention away from the focal point of the skyline (la tour CN).
I would love buildings between 300m and 450m, but the views (and purpose) of the CN Tower should stay intact.
That's why my ideal height for Toronto's new tallest would be between 350 and 400 metres, I think it would look great on the skyline with the other towers, but not draw attention away from the focal point of the skyline (la tour CN).
caltrane74
Senior Member
Oh this list is under construction.
Not built, my bad.
Not built, my bad.
Mongo
Senior Member
I am not sure why you think that it takes 6 years to construct a 200m+ building in Toronto. Bay-Adelaide West took 3 years (2006-2009), the Ritz-Carlton took 4 years (2007-2011), the Four Seasons will take 4 years (2008-2012), and Trump, Aura, Ice, Shangri-La and the L Tower are all on pace to finish in 4 years. (I am taking an average of mid-xxxx to mid-yyyy for the construction time.)
Looking at Shanghai, the Shanghai World Financial Centre took 11 years (1997-2008), the Shanghai IFC north tower took 5 years (2006-2011), the Shanghai Shimao International Plaza took 4 years (2001-2005), Wheelock Square took 6 years (2003-2009), Tomorrow Square took 6 years (1997-2003), the Bokom Financial Towers took 5 years (1997-2002) and the Grand Gateways Garden towers took 9 and 11 years (1994-2005 and 1996-2005). That is as far as I checked, but it is clear to me that if anything, 200m+ buildings take just as long if not longer to build in Shanghai as in Toronto.
Checking another city, Bangkok, I find that Baiyoke Tower II took 7 years (1990-1997), The River Tower A will take 6 years (2006-2012), Centara Grand Hotel took 4 years (2004-2008), the MET took 4 years (2005-2009), and The Pano took 5 years (2005-2010). Those are all the ones I checked in Bangkok.
So in conclusion, I find no evidence that tall buildings go up more quickly in developing nations, in fact if anything they take longer.
Last edited:
canmark
Active Member
Interesting how few US/Canada/European cities are on that list. And where is Chicago, so oft compared to Toronto on that list?
And I wonder what percentage of these buildings are office, residential, hotel, or mixed (office/residential/hotel)?
And I wonder what percentage of these buildings are office, residential, hotel, or mixed (office/residential/hotel)?
Red October
Senior Member
Chicago actually doesn't have that many tall buildings under construction right now. They did a few years ago when Aqua and Trump and whatnot were still under construction.
I'm guessing for Toronto the vast majority are residential/mixed use (hotel and residential).
Last edited:
Mongo
Senior Member
Chicago:
7 100m+
1 150m+
Tallest under construction: Ritz-Carlton Residences 151m. The other 6 are under 150m.
7 100m+
1 150m+
Tallest under construction: Ritz-Carlton Residences 151m. The other 6 are under 150m.
Bogtrotter
Senior Member
Aura. Supposedly it could surpass Trump in height. I will be interesting to see if they can revive Spire or a similar project for that site a few years down the road, they have completed the foundation from what I recall.
Last edited:
kkgg7
Banned
You are not being fair there.
Shanghai World financial center started in 1997 but was halted after foundation was done due to the Asian Financial Crise. Real construction restarted in 2003 and the building was completed in 2008, so it took 5-6 years.
Bay-Adelaide Center is essentially the same story. The project started in 1990, not 2006 if you use 1997 for SWFC. It went to into trouble and was halted in 1993 due to reccession and the project restarted in 2006. So the actually time for completion was more like 5-6 years.
Let's say the two projects took roughly the same time. However, SWFC is 492m tall with a floor area of over 380k sm, while B-A center is 218 m, less than half and a floor area of 108k sm.
Aura, L tower etc are NOT completed. Please don't take them as facts. Trump Toronto is almost complete, and it will have taken 4 years exactly. Remember Trump Tower is only 57fl at 236m tall. Shangri-la took the same time with similar size (214m, 65fl). In comparison, Shanghai's iconic Jinmao Tower, with 88 floors (370m), 50% larger, also took 4 years.
I would maintain my position it takes 50% more time to construct a building of similar size compared with Shanghai.
kkgg7
Banned
Seems chicago has passed its golden construction era, plus the city is losing population so keeping building skyscrapers doesn't seem a sane idea.
Hope Toronto will soon catch up! Too bad our central waterfront has been completely ruined by those tacky condos. Yet the financial district could easily expand east of Yonge st between Queen and Front. Right now, there is almost no tall buildings besides Spire.
Mongo
Senior Member
Since the original "stump" was not used in the Bay-Cadelaide Centre as built, I would not count its construction time in the total. I stand by 3 years for its construction time.
Danielinthecity
Active Member
Toronto
Thanks, Mongo...no matter where we are on the list, it's pretty obvious that relatively speaking were doing quite good, and I agree with another poster (forget who now) in that I think the amount of development activity - especially downtown - (especially residential and then gradually commercial will follow) is only going to increase in the coming years.
Thanks, Mongo...no matter where we are on the list, it's pretty obvious that relatively speaking were doing quite good, and I agree with another poster (forget who now) in that I think the amount of development activity - especially downtown - (especially residential and then gradually commercial will follow) is only going to increase in the coming years.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
The level of highrise construction in Toronto is certainly impressive. However, how "good" this is is indeterminate and subjective. All we know is Toronto is changing a lot. We will not know the true impact of this change for decades.
Personally, I find that some of the highrise construction in this city has really enhanced some areas of this city, while other areas have really suffered from this present wave of constructions.
Personally, I find that some of the highrise construction in this city has really enhanced some areas of this city, while other areas have really suffered from this present wave of constructions.
ttk77
Senior Member
If it's not going too far off topic, what areas do you think have benefited/suffered from the highrise construction? I can certainly see how the intensification has brought increased foot traffic and gentrification to previously downtrodden neighbourhoods, but in general I think condo planning in this city is not well done. There seem to be very low architectural standards and very little thought into where they're placed. Cityplace IMO is a prime example of this.