Benito
Senior Member
Today pouring cement again.
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
There's seems to be more focus on the podium peripherals of late than on the main attraction. I presume this is an exercise of "tying the loose ends up" in preparation of working on the building proper?
Lovestallthings
Active Member
They must be almost at or close to the top level of both the podium and the west elevator tower.
steveve
Senior Member
It does seem like structural work on the tower portion has halted since the last super column jump. The elevator core’s on the west and south sides have always been a few levels ahead of the main structure. I wonder if they are waiting for those corner pieces to arrive on site so that they can proceed to assemble the decking and formwork for the 2nd floor.
thaivic
Active Member
They have been working on the structural all along, they have to adjust and secure all of the the steel before they can start pouring the columns , the same thing happened on the lower section before they poured the columns and the slab.
khaldoon
Active Member
You can actually see them doing exactly that in the 2nd and 3rd of Benito’s pictures from today.
Rascacielo
Senior Member
They're forming the top level of the Yonge St podium. Maybe 2 more levels for the west elevator tower.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
To be clear, I am well aware they've been tweaking the aspects of main part of building for sometime now. But my main inquiry was about why they where focusing on the elements of the podiums much more. As I am presuming there was some method to their madness for this. 
whatever
Senior Member
They're two different crews. It's not like the ironworkers drop their connecting belts and walk across the site to start building forms. It's just that the forming crews are engaging in work that's much more readily visible than the erecting crews. Right now, at least. As soon as the hangers show up on site you'll be noticing the ironworkers again.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I'll take that then. Thanks!
ProjectEnd
Superstar
MetroMan
Senior Member
This photo really demonstrates how skinny this tower is going to be when taking its height into account.
condovo
Senior Member
So, the whole "light vs. shadow" debate is really a red herring. What's at issue is fanboys' pathological obsession with height. If supertalls created light, fanboys would be in favour of light. If they caused volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, fanboys would argue for more lava and bigger waves. If they spread disease and pestilence, fanboys would be on board for that too.
Last edited:
concrete_and_light
Active Member
Yeah I dunno — this seems reductive and is making some bad faith assumptions about people, even if it is part of the motivation for some. I don't know that anything is gained by calling people fanboys or their opinions "pathological obsessions" either.
FWIW, my contribution to the light vs. shadow conversation was more just speaking out in support of the shady side of the street in general and people who like shade in a world of sun-lovers
but I agree that in most situations the shade should not generally be provided by monolithic buildings — but rather tree cover, etc. — and that shadows cast by big buildings can be legitimately detrimental in many ways.It all depends on the specifics of the situation. In this case I'm not sure that the height increase really has a significant additive effect on shadow in the area, but I'd need to look at the shadow studies more closely. And sometimes shadowing concerns can be overplayed or weaponized by people opposed to a development for other reasons, but it's also something very important to look at all the ramifications of and we do have to be attentive to making the right choices about it, because you can never go back.
condovo
Senior Member
Well, it's always the same posters making any kind of "argument" possible, which just ends up being about wanting height. They don't come right out and say it because they know they'll be called out for wanting height anywhere, anytime and at all costs, regardless of design, planning, context, economics, etc. This time it happens to be about wanting more shade and shadow, which is ridiculous given our wintry climate. Other times it's about jumping at any tall proposal no matter how inappropriate it is, like the ridiculous scheme at Yonge/Carlton. Or defending Aura. Or trashing the Design Review Panel. Or bitching about the planning department because a given building's been reduced to 299 m. Or having a tapered skyline is bad. Or having a table-top skyline is bad. Or wind studies are stupid. Or heritage preservation is dumb. It's always something and it's always about wanting height, height, height. There's a definite pattern and it's annoying.Yeah I dunno — this seems reductive and is making some bad faith assumptions about people, even if it is part of the motivation for some. I don't know that anything is gained by calling people fanboys or their opinions "pathological obsessions" either.
FWIW, my contribution to the light vs. shadow conversation was more just speaking out in support of the shady side of the street in general and people who like shade in a world of sun-lovers
It all depends on the specifics of the situation. In this case I'm not sure that the height increase really has a significant additive effect on shadow in the area, but I'd need to look at the shadow studies more closely. And sometimes shadowing concerns can be overplayed or weaponized by people opposed to a development for other reasons, but it's also something very important to look at all the ramifications of and we do have to be attentive to making the right choices about it, because you can never go back.
Last edited: