Can’t wait until the hideous Toronto Star building is gone or altered beyond recognition. Now if only we could get rid of the equally hideous Westin Hotel.
Wha? What's wrong with 1 Yonge? You prefer another glass box instead? Wish we could have more of the 1 Yonge-type around to break the monotony. Thanks for making me remember Simpson Tower (trying not to shed tears).
 
The way the Toronto Star building meets the street level is brutal. If nothing else, that needs to be enhanced.
That's going to be transformed entirely, especially at the corner of Yonge and Queens Quay.

42
 
At 7am this morning, I counted 37 dump trucks queing up for this site and the one on Cooper street
A40C7548-AB69-4281-9B2E-462B3779D200.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • A40C7548-AB69-4281-9B2E-462B3779D200.jpeg
    A40C7548-AB69-4281-9B2E-462B3779D200.jpeg
    239.4 KB · Views: 782
Looks like a congestion nightmare compared to what exists currently. Lots of left and right turns for people. But great if you walk or take transit.

I think that's the point. At least 70% of downtown residents don't drive as is, and that estimate was circa 2011; it's likely risen with increased car congestion and more cycling infrastructure. The development and the street network is being built for the majority of people that live there, not for the driving convenience of out-of-towners parachuting off of the Gardiner.
 
Definetly getting deeper. Observed the breaking of the substrate this past week and it looks like 15-20 feet of rock has been removed, likely shale. Noticed also that 64.8 appears marked on the sides. I presume 64.8 is metres above sea level, can anyone confirm please? If so look at where the depth is below that, I guess 7 metres below. And for scale judge the depth by the height of the men, they are marking layout lines, I was thinking crane pad or elevator shafts. Anyhow fun to speculate, here are some photos yesterday and today.
4300A1BD-3F11-48B3-9C16-AFE8D9C00927.jpeg
42C670E8-C7DF-494B-B859-A81FBA2FAA28.jpeg
5982F3DF-F0BA-44D8-B88D-20747B364AFC.jpeg
418E671E-07A8-4E56-B8F6-327F8EB4C5FB.jpeg
DC6A3E2A-6EF0-476F-8E69-5CF496BB8360.jpeg
177DBA25-CAB3-40B0-BD44-5C7F786C69BE.jpeg
FF790A1E-DB94-4F51-B802-4852FC691CF9.jpeg
BA7376F4-8B4C-4F46-8F6B-FF353C47A913.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 4300A1BD-3F11-48B3-9C16-AFE8D9C00927.jpeg
    4300A1BD-3F11-48B3-9C16-AFE8D9C00927.jpeg
    127.6 KB · Views: 1,016
  • 42C670E8-C7DF-494B-B859-A81FBA2FAA28.jpeg
    42C670E8-C7DF-494B-B859-A81FBA2FAA28.jpeg
    194.9 KB · Views: 998
  • 5982F3DF-F0BA-44D8-B88D-20747B364AFC.jpeg
    5982F3DF-F0BA-44D8-B88D-20747B364AFC.jpeg
    187.7 KB · Views: 991
  • 418E671E-07A8-4E56-B8F6-327F8EB4C5FB.jpeg
    418E671E-07A8-4E56-B8F6-327F8EB4C5FB.jpeg
    206.9 KB · Views: 1,549
  • DC6A3E2A-6EF0-476F-8E69-5CF496BB8360.jpeg
    DC6A3E2A-6EF0-476F-8E69-5CF496BB8360.jpeg
    123.1 KB · Views: 943
  • 177DBA25-CAB3-40B0-BD44-5C7F786C69BE.jpeg
    177DBA25-CAB3-40B0-BD44-5C7F786C69BE.jpeg
    123.3 KB · Views: 965
  • FF790A1E-DB94-4F51-B802-4852FC691CF9.jpeg
    FF790A1E-DB94-4F51-B802-4852FC691CF9.jpeg
    102.1 KB · Views: 1,537
  • BA7376F4-8B4C-4F46-8F6B-FF353C47A913.jpeg
    BA7376F4-8B4C-4F46-8F6B-FF353C47A913.jpeg
    153.2 KB · Views: 952
Definetly getting deeper. Observed the breaking of the substrate this past week and it looks like 15-20 feet of rock has been removed, likely shale. Noticed also that 64.8 appears marked on the sides. I presume 64.8 is metres above sea level, can anyone confirm please? If so look at where the depth is below that, I guess 7 metres below. And for scale judge the depth by the height of the men, they are marking layout lines, I was thinking crane pad or elevator shafts. Anyhow fun to speculate, here are some photos yesterday and today.View attachment 159306View attachment 159307View attachment 159308View attachment 159309View attachment 159310View attachment 159311View attachment 159312View attachment 159313

The lake level is around 75.2m above sea level. Varies a lot but that is the average. 2017 was a high point which is why the islands flooded.
 
…so sure, those 64.8 m marks look like they might be 10 metres below lake level and would therefore refer to sea level.

42
 

Back
Top