AlvinofDiaspar said:
Even as a scraper geek pushing a mediocre tower just to make that 300M mark smells like desperation, not a whole-hearted effort. Avoid.

AoD
Click to expand...
Theres nothing wrong with wanting height and it’s certainly not something to bash anyone over it’s a simple question why not go for the mark when only off a few metres. Height competition use to be a thing years ago between cities why not amongst the neighbouring buildings with in their own cities. It’s not height obsession. It’s called why not? It’s a very logical question on these forums. Doesn’t make one a geek. This is the place to ask these questions. I for one would like to see the “Experts” here answer with out the comical insults.
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
Theres nothing wrong with wanting height and it’s certainly not something to bash anyone over it’s a simple question why not go for the mark when only off a few metres. Height competition use to be a thing years ago between cities why not amongst the neighbouring buildings with in their own cities. It’s not height obsession. It’s called why not? It’s a very logical question on these forums. Doesn’t make one a geek. This is the place to ask these questions. I for one would like to see the “Experts” here answer with out the comical insults.
Click to expand...

Because what's the gain of adding a few unneeded metres? Even if there is the urge to compete in height (which there isn't much of one) in this scenario, adding a few metres here won't get it taller than 1 Pinnacle next door.

AoD
 
Also, the public wants to see better public realm, better materiality, better podium design. Torontonians are increasingly "over" height wars... even many of the old UT fanboys have moved on to a more mature understanding of urbanism, including public realm design and broader issues of planning.
 
Sure, height is inherently interesting, whether pyramids or steeples or skyscrapers. IIRC, Toronto pulled a couple of fast ones with respect to announced heights of the CN Tower back in the seventies to ensure that it would end up being taller than the Moscow Tower. I can also see that there might be an advertising advantage for a condo... “Live in the tallest building in Toronto/ the country!” But such a competition would be in relationship to other structures, not to an arbitrary number like 300 metres. And to be the tallest in Toronto, or actually even the immediate area, the height would have to be increased not by four feet but by ten metres or more. I don’t know the cost of adding ten metres, way up there, but it probably isn’t negligible.

I also don’t know anything about the negotiations that led to the site approvals. For all I know, there was a less than 300 metre height limit as part of the agreement and the developers have pushed very, very close to that limit. (I say that in part because in the very much smaller building process I was directly involved in, there were some very specific height considerations involved.)At any rate, four more feet may not be as easy as it sounds.

I like height too, but I am not bent out of shape by the difference between 298.9 and 300 metres
 
I'd like to clarify what I was asking and what prompted my question. YSL is now obviously in limbo due to the cresford situation, but it was initially proposed to be a supertall, and then when it was revised it was down to 299m. To me that doesnt seem coincidental.

Likewise, a couple of years ago I saw an article that seemed to think that at least one or two of the buildings in the development would eek into supertall status and yet they sit right below it. So naturally I was curious if there were any additional hoops to jump with the city if a developer crosses the 300m threshold.

It makes sense to me the architects and builders wouldnt care much about the difference between 298m and 302m just as they likely wouldnt care about the difference between 275m and 279m. However, from the aspect of being a world city, saying something like toronto has the most supertalls in north america, could be a potential attraction. (yes I know it doesnt and this development wouldnt push it into that threshold it's just an example)
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
It’s a very logical question on these forums. Doesn’t make one a geek. This is the place to ask these questions. I for one would like to see the “Experts” here answer with out the comical insults.
Click to expand...

I have worked in the development industry / planning profession for nearly 20 years and I have literally never once heard anyone in the development industry or in planning or the architecture profession ever use the term "supertall".

I have however seen it obsessed over on urban toronto, various skyscraper forums or on skyscraper enthusiasts youtube videos. The only professional body I have seen that uses that terminology is the CTBUH.

Based on my industry experience... "supertalls" aren't really a thing... I mean, if for marketing purposes whereby one wants to have the tallest building in the city, that could be a thing (which at this point would be topping one of the two 300m+ towers under construction)... but 299 vs 301 meters isn't really all that different from 277 meters vs 279 meters.
 
Thanks for that.. ya I don’t care per se on over achieving heights. More just adding random heights rather then all the same in one area. It tends to look ridiculous grouped together. All being the same height give or take a few metres. Scatter the heights around the city not just in one place. I know easier said then done. With so many issues that come with big buildings in random places. Just saying variety in height goes along way for a beautiful skyline. Even if these were smaller I’d be happy. Taller or smaller. But relative heights to its neighbouring buildings looks terribly clustered.
 
Bjays92 said:
I'd like to clarify what I was asking and what prompted my question. YSL is now obviously in limbo due to the cresford situation, but it was initially proposed to be a supertall, and then when it was revised it was down to 299m. To me that doesnt seem coincidental.

Likewise, a couple of years ago I saw an article that seemed to think that at least one or two of the buildings in the development would eek into supertall status and yet they sit right below it. So naturally I was curious if there were any additional hoops to jump with the city if a developer crosses the 300m threshold.

It makes sense to me the architects and builders wouldnt care much about the difference between 298m and 302m just as they likely wouldnt care about the difference between 275m and 279m. However, from the aspect of being a world city, saying something like toronto has the most supertalls in north america, could be a potential attraction. (yes I know it doesnt and this development wouldnt push it into that threshold it's just an example)
Click to expand...
As has been stated in the thread and front page stories, that building was chopped in height so that it wouldn't add shadow to Allan Gardens. That just happens to bring it down to 299 metres - it's coincidental in regards to supertall status, and everything to do with where that sun floats by overhead.

42
 
Just a couple of renders from the WT presentation:

1591305762545.png


1591306001604.png


1591306040294.png


1591306079256.png


1591306169170.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top