[UrbanAffair]

So many variables to consider when looking at why cities like Toronto aren't building supertalls, and cities like New York are. Size, land constraints, harbour cities vs great lake cities, highest and best use (physically possible, economically feasible, legally feasible, maximally productive), economic size of the country as a whole, infrastructure and transit availability, etc, etc... Simply following that other cities, like San Fran and NYC have/are getting SOOOOOOpertalls and thinking Toronto should too, is such a basic analysis of the situation here, and falls in line, at least in my opinion, with overextending thinking, uninformed thinking and thinking in general that often can result in a negative consequences, if economic conditions dramatically change. Personally, I am impulsive sometimes...well often...but I sure wouldn't be with a decision of the magnatude of lets build a 1400ft'er. Sure zoning is part of it, but only a small part in reality when looking at highest and best use, and I think the city would definitly consider an iconic building that is a supertall if proposed when all the other factors fall in line. There will always be land to be redeveloped. We should be very very ecstatic with the mass amount of growth the core in general is/has and will be receiving in the next while. After all, 10 years ago most proposals were much smaller and few and far between. As land decreases, height will increase generally. If we stopped building towers outside of the core, (kind of like Chicago) Im sure there would be many buildings of supertall height in the core. Personally I like our layout a bit better.

 

[urbanboyto]

Let us be ambitious and sustainable at the same time. I would rather have 5 towers in that very dense cluster at 1 Yonge, and have one of them be a super tall of 120 storeys that is architecturally significant than 6 mediocre 70-ish storey towers. Perhaps allowing a few more supertalls in empty parking lots will help ease the pace of the corporatisation of ground level retail as small older structures downtown are demolished in favour of large glass retail spaces at the bottom of condo towers that are not condusive to smaller diverse businesses.

 

[bleu]

Anyone who claims a 300M tower is not economically sensible should think why Toronto built a 298M one back in 1976. Guess that was a bad decision back then?
I don't necessarily look forward to a 300M tower (95% chances another green glass one, so sick of them now), but to pretend economics is the reason we don't build it is far from the truth. Addtional 20M for a building doesn't make such a big difference, especially when we had one so close to it 35 years ago.

 

[67Cup]

Agreed that numbers like 300 meters or 1000 feet are arbitrary and essentially meaningless dividing lines. It still surprises me that there appear to be several projects brewing that are just under those figures. I would have thought it would be useful advertising to be able to push....

Live 1000 feet up!
Your home in the sky, Canada's tallest building!
Super tall, super living, the xyz

It would distinguish this particular building from the rest.

Building a 290 metre structure seems a bit like taking a long two point shot in basketball. Tke one step out nd shoot the three!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

bleu:

Anyone who claims a 300M tower is not economically sensible should think why Toronto built a 298M one back in 1976. Guess that was a bad decision back then?
I don't necessarily look forward to a 300M tower (95% chances another green glass one, so sick of them now), but to pretend economics is the reason we don't build it is far from the truth. Addtional 20M for a building doesn't make such a big difference, especially when we had one so close to it 35 years ago.

What constitute economic sense to developers might very well have changed over the past 50 years. And let's not forget, the developers themselves have definitely changed over that period of time.

67cup:

Building a 290 metre structure seems a bit like taking a long two point shot in basketball. Tke one step out nd shoot the three!

Except that the arbitrary 300m mark doesn't make it go from a 2 to 3 point shot, and that the whole Canada tallest ____ tower argument has been used to death already; and certainly the developers can use the term supertall without it being actually defined as one in their marketing anytime they wish, should they chose to do so.

AoD

 

[UrbanAffair]

Anyone who claims a 300M tower is not economically sensible should think why Toronto built a 298M one back in 1976. Guess that was a bad decision back then?
I don't necessarily look forward to a 300M tower (95% chances another green glass one, so sick of them now), but to pretend economics is the reason we don't build it is far from the truth. Addtional 20M for a building doesn't make such a big difference, especially when we had one so close to it 35 years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I would love, love love to see a tower over 300, 400m etc.. Trust me there are plenty of developers/company execs who would emulate TRUMP level ego and would love to build a supertall for status. However, the reality is, that economics are a HUGE part of it, or rest assured it would happen more often here, and by that I mean the willingness of these same companies/developers to risk the costs associated with building and to attain tenants to take enough space, as well as the direction the economy is going. These are things they actually do consider. As well, we are more conservative up here with our investments and risk then American companies in general I would think. Also the 1970's was a different time, different economic climate and FCP was already under construction before the economy collapsed. Right now we are really just slowly moving forward economically, lost jobs last month, appears not everything is as rosy or ideal for the construction and risk of building supertalls...yet. Anyway isn't the Oxford Proposed office or mixed use towers over 1000ft?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Anyway isn't the Oxford Proposed office or mixed use towers over 1000ft?

Mixed-use towers that might be over 300m. Regardless, I will take those without a blink.

AoD

 

[67Cup]

AoD, I see your point, but still think there must be value in claiming to be "the first" or the "only" or the "tallest.". It distinguishes your product from the competition. That seems to me to be the metaphorical equivalent of the extra point.

 

[bleu]

bleu:

What constitute economic sense to developers might very well have changed over the past 50 years. And let's not forget, the developers themselves have definitely changed over that period of time.

AoD

I agree with that.
I have no problem with no developers proposing a 300M tower, since they must have done the math, and the market decides whether it makes sense. However, I hate the fact that regulators prevent that from happening for all sorts of excuses (shadow, density, lack of infrastructure etc, sure one can always find reasons not to do it pretending a 275M tower avoids all the issues a 320M tower has) when the real reason is sheer fear of height.

 

[UrbanAffair]

Mixed-use towers that might be over 300m. Regardless, I will take those without a blink.

AoD

Agreed, also I think those mixed use buildings might mitigate the risk if its smaller proportions of both res and comm then they would likely be more achiveable and realistic at very tall heights. Also could provide a live work environment in the same building which imo would be just great!

 

[alklay]

Wow. The amount of nonsense in the above posts is astonishing, and a bit sad, with respect.

"Stupidtall" buildings, add little if anything to a city's worth, in any category that matters (starting with 'liveability'). It is nothing more than immature and shallow bragging rights.

 

[adma]

Anyone who claims a 300M tower is not economically sensible should think why Toronto built a 298M one back in 1976. Guess that was a bad decision back then?
I don't necessarily look forward to a 300M tower (95% chances another green glass one, so sick of them now), but to pretend economics is the reason we don't build it is far from the truth. Addtional 20M for a building doesn't make such a big difference, especially when we had one so close to it 35 years ago.

Though re superlatives, keep in mind that in the mid-70s, feet rather than metres were still the standard means of measurement. So any hypothetical skyscraper geekery laments then would have been over FCP falling short of 1000 ft, not 300 m.

On the whole, I'm profoundly indifferent over whether something's above or below the 300m level at this point. And once again--there were other reasons why Toronto "pulled back" after FCP. Among them being that skyscrapers and supertalls ceased to be a be-all and end-all to "sophisticated" notions of valuing urbanism--other things (such as the broader warp and weft of the existing urban fabric, historic or otherwise) came into play. And while skyscrapers may be "back" these days, they still aren't the be-all and end-all that soopertall/skyscraper geeks want to think. It's nothing to do with being anti-skyscraper or height-tro-phobic--but unfortunately, all this skyscraper geekery is, to me, akin to how 30/40 years after the feminist revolution, we have these hordes of young dorks whose vision of desirable femininity has been conditioned by the Internet and all sorts of silicone/botox/photoshop/youporn fakery and who think that 70s bush is gross and disgusting and that Lena Dunham's a pig who should keep her clothes on...you get the hint.

Oh, and bleu, re your phobia t/w green glass, I can't help thinking back to your longing for something more, uh, Royal York-like--in which case, I recommend that you read this article.

 

[CanadianNational]

I think a dash of "tallest" has merit - here and there. It's usually good publicity for the builder, is very public city building (bordering on a feeling of communality at times) and sometimes city defining, and comes with a certain notion of 'progress' attached even if that is less lustrous than it used to be. The skyscraper, and the very tall skyscraper, have been an accepted urban norm for a century. Part of the giddy fun that is built into this architectural expression is it's inherent ability to gain great heights - and yawp about it. Whether that's a good thing or not largely depends on the quality of the building and it's context.

Height does matter, even symbolic height. This is the city that produced the CN Tower after all, which was seen as staggeringly high at the time, even if it did only surpass the Ostankino Tower by a smidge. That smidge did wonders for the city in terms of emphatically placing a big exclamation point declaring "HERE!" in all sorts of ways.
New structures probably won't have that kind of impact at about one thousand feet unless they're making it through different means - beauty, for example, vastly innovative technologies or green technology. The measuring line of a supertall is symbolic and a bit silly, but it is widely accepted. So, I don't think it's foolish to want to have a few, to show that we're up to it and keep things peppy

The supertall doesn't work in a vacuum, nor does anything else. As long as the quality is there and they work economically, contextually and aesthetically, (and not at the expense of other components of a liveable city) I wouldn't mind seeing a few myself.

________________


Actually, looking at the plans for the 1Yonge site, I think a few extra floors might help the tall building in the North-West corner, to help it stand out from the general pack.

 

[adma]

Honestly, I don't see why we should be having "supertall vs non-supertall" arguments here--in the end, when it comes to a location like this, it's a negligible matter. And those of us countering the supertall obsessives are merely countering the obsession, not the supertalls--and we also recognize that they're making a supertall mountain out of a molehill in attacking their supposed "anti-height" enemies. Look: given the precedent, this is a site presently "made for height"--nobody but the most kneejerk Kunstlerian would advocate a St. Lawrence Neighbourhood solution here. Design considerations aside, whether it's a higher higher, or a lower higher, is splitting hairs. And if there are demerits to "building too tall", let them work themselves out over time--sort of like how even as a wouldbe architectural-and-urban-dysfunction-in-the-making, Cityplace is a fait accompli. And at the moment, the dysfunction remains "wouldbe"--though we should monitor any telltale-signs very carefully...

 

[diminutive]

Not really sure what people are arguing about over here. As far as I can see, nobody is expecting some kind of abnormal intervention to push supertalls onto the City, economics/context/aesthetics be damned!

Sure, most threads have posts arguing that a given project should aim for >300m. So what? Most threads are also inundated with criticisms of the so called 'Toronto box' condo, even though by most accounts that's the most function-over-form layout available. Poor old Southcore and Bay-Adelaide have received quite a bit of flack for sacrificing 'signature' features for economic viability.

That's fine. Builders work backwards from a site's economic, urban and technical context to reach a set profit. Within those constraints it hardly seems abnormal for the public to wish for the occasional 'signature' feature, be that height or innovative massing or something else. I don't understand why the supertall-'stupidtall' (which is itself a stupid term) debate gets so polarized.