clarkburglar
New Member
have you seen the renderings? can you offer us a more detailed description of the building?
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
have you seen the renderings? can you offer us a more detailed description of the building?
maestro
Senior Member
It could be fairly close but, I doubt the aggregate real estate value after it's built will be a billion dollars. Planners shouldn't consider monetary values when evaluating the appropriate usage, density, etc. for a development site either.
buildup
Senior Member
All this is good, I'm not pretrified of the word 'jewels' I'm intrigued. Everything so far has been very encouraging beginning with the prompt business-like demolition of Stollery's, to the teases about the SNF ectoskeleton. Keep it coming - midtown is BACK.
cd concept
Senior Member
The only way I think the city will cut the 80 storeys floor plates down is if each condo floor plate is higher than 9 feet. That's already at 720 feet or 219 meters. If its between 10 to 14 feet per floor plate . That will elevate the building to be 800 to 1120 feet or 244 to 341 meters high !!
Look what what happened to the Trump Tower. It went from 75 to 57 storeys to keep in tone with the other skyscrapers. I think its floor plates are as high as an office building between 12 to 14 feet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramako
Moderator
That's not at all why Trump was shortened. The city approved the height. From my recollection, they just couldn't make the sales to afford the express elevators that the additional floors would have required.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It was approved at 68, Talon went to OMB and got 70:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...o-project-to-soar-to-70-stories-75563862.html
And they barely got 57 built. Likewise the original 1BE was approved for 78 at, inclusive of mechanical 290m - I think we need to put the big bad city revisionist narrative to bed.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-15763.pdf
AoD
Last edited:
steveve
Senior Member
Hard to say since we don't really know what height the developers are submitting, however, it seems like they can go at least 280m (the approved height for the old 1 Bloor east proposal) if they have a slender building (which it should be since the site is fairly narrow). There are predetermined height limits in certain areas around the city, but you also have to bypass shadow studies/concerns which is actually a difficult barrier to overcome.
If I recall correctly the financial district doesn't have set height limits (although shadowing over NPS is taken into account) which is why Trump was proposed and approved as a supertall building. Of course there is very little land left in the financial district to built a full fledged supertall. Up until recently, I wouldn't have expected our first building to be built outside the financial district, that is until Mirvish+Gehry came along. The city has warned up to tall buildings outside the cbd.
Perhaps a spire can jump the height barrier of The One due to its minimal effect on shadows, but I'd say we're looking at a roof of 280m at most extending up to a 308m maximum peek that includes an architectural feature or spire. Perhaps such as the diagrid bracing extending past the roofline and vanishing into the sky.
*also I think a large part of the public art contribution will be layered into the facade. Hence jewels. Just a thought
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
I think it's a bit much to consider their cladding an 'art contribution'.
Mongo
Senior Member
Isn't Concord proposing to do just that with Signature?
Tewder
Senior Member
I'm not aware Mongo, haven't really been following that one too much. I think it's a stretch though, no?
greenleaf
Senior Member
Cladding or building lighting in no way should be considered the art contribution. We have a couple failed examples.
The Uptown condo considered the ground level window framing its art contribution. It's too small to even notice if you are walking by. A total disaster in my opinion.
Same thing with lighting schemes on top of buildings, like at the Met on Carlton. Is that even on still?
The Uptown condo considered the ground level window framing its art contribution. It's too small to even notice if you are walking by. A total disaster in my opinion.
Same thing with lighting schemes on top of buildings, like at the Met on Carlton. Is that even on still?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I don't really mind art contributions that are integrated with the building cladding or based on lighting - and there are good examples where it worked (e.g. Market Wharf, BA1), though we should be cognizant of the failures, such as the saga that is the Trump Tower light spire. It all depends. Perhaps we need better vetting - and in the case of lighting schemes - some kind of commitment backed up by funds.
AoD
Benito
Senior Member
The lighting on the Met on Carlton is on, but is is malfunctioning.
Yes the art contribution on the Uptown is the unique ground level window frames on each of the lobby exterior windows. If you look at the windows you will see that each window has a different relief on its frame. It is not obvious from across the street, but if you are looking at the window from the sidewalk, you will see it. I don't think art always has to be in your face, it can be subtle as well.
Last edited:
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Community Consultation: 1 Bloor St. West - Wed. March 11 7PM - Park Hyatt #4 Avenue Rd
Mizrahi Developments is proposing the construction of an 80-storey mixed-use building inclusive of an 8-storey podium containing retail and commercial uses with residential condominium units in the tower above.
Mizrahi Developments is proposing the construction of an 80-storey mixed-use building inclusive of an 8-storey podium containing retail and commercial uses with residential condominium units in the tower above.
Last edited:
Benito
Senior Member
Great, thanks for sharing that, it would be interesting to attend.