Deadpool X said:
There is only one that will exceed The One's height - One Yonge phase 2.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I forgot about Poe’s law. ;)
Regardless, I don’t think it catches this one, the heavy lifting is done, and the floors get very repeatable from here on up.
But it might be close…
 
UpwithOlives said:
Which Pinnacle? There are so many.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I'm basing this on which of these buildings is going to be finished first, as opposed to given height they'll reach here. Since The City did not approve the extra floors Mizrahi was asking for, they would be a distinct advantage now of getting this done first..

...though which building would reach the 300 m mark first, that maybe a different matter.
 
Last edited:
Times like this make me wish we could scrap city planning and replace it with the OMB.

City planning should be concerned with the quality of materials or haphazardly placed windows and extrusions, not shadowing.
 
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but someone is very unhappy with the concrete pump on Balmuto.

20230123_083934.jpg
 
xy3 said:
Times like this make me wish we could scrap city planning and replace it with the OMB.

City planning should be concerned with the quality of materials or haphazardly placed windows and extrusions, not shadowing.
Click to expand...
So many uninformed criticisms of city planning from armchair critics these days...

Quality of materials is quite literally out of the control of City Planning. The closest planning can get to "concerning themselves" over materials is essentially limited to site plan control, which is more in the realm of character and aesthetics, but not the materials themselves.

I honestly can't think of a city where the height of the buildings is what makes the city great. Sure, tall buildings can be awe-inspiring and incredible to look at, and yes, they can bring a certain sense of prestige to a city, but ultimately, it is the public and shared spaces that these buildings sit in that make a city great. The streets, parks, patios, plazas, pedestrian spaces... I could go on... these are all incredibly important and so often overlooked or undervalued; case in point - those arguing that the height of The One is more important that having access to sunlight.

A taller building may wow those who marvel at it, myself included, but in the end it only benefits those who own it and profit from it. Higher quality public spaces, on the other hand, have the potential to benefit everyone.
 
xy3 said:
Times like this make me wish we could scrap city planning and replace it with the OMB.

City planning should be concerned with the quality of materials or haphazardly placed windows and extrusions, not shadowing.
Click to expand...
No planner wants to go to LPAT or OLT. The idea that the outcome would be different if appealed is a big assumption.

The planner wrote a refusal report because the existing policies don’t support the height increase. There’s a very good chance the board will agree - as skyscaper fan-boying isn’t a legit planning rationale for increasing height.
 
robmci said:
So many uninformed criticisms of city planning from armchair critics these days...

Quality of materials is quite literally out of the control of City Planning. The closest planning can get to "concerning themselves" over materials is essentially limited to site plan control, which is more in the realm of character and aesthetics, but not the materials themselves.

I honestly can't think of a city where the height of the buildings is what makes the city great. Sure, tall buildings can be awe-inspiring and incredible to look at, and yes, they can bring a certain sense of prestige to a city, but ultimately, it is the public and shared spaces that these buildings sit in that make a city great. The streets, parks, patios, plazas, pedestrian spaces... I could go on... these are all incredibly important and so often overlooked or undervalued; case in point - those arguing that the height of The One is more important that having access to sunlight.

A taller building may wow those who marvel at it, myself included, but in the end it only benefits those who own it and profit from it. Higher quality public spaces, on the other hand, have the potential to benefit everyone.
Click to expand...

I don't want to re-hash and old debate, but it's not a simple as "those arguing the height of The One is more important then having access to sunlight". The issue was more about just how much sunlight is going to be lost? for how long and how many months of the year? How many people are even going to notice? The location of the building is in the one of most important intersections in the city, so if we can't have a real tall building there, then we can put one??

Anyway don't answers these as they're rhetorical questions, but my point is, it's not as black and white as you made it seem.
 
C-mac said:
The location of the building is in the one of most important intersections in the city, so if we can't have a real tall building there, then we can put one??
Click to expand...

It will be the tallest in Canada. I'd say it is a "real tall building" already.
 
robmci said:
So many uninformed criticisms of city planning from armchair critics these days...

Quality of materials is quite literally out of the control of City Planning. The closest planning can get to "concerning themselves" over materials is essentially limited to site plan control, which is more in the realm of character and aesthetics, but not the materials themselves.

I honestly can't think of a city where the height of the buildings is what makes the city great. Sure, tall buildings can be awe-inspiring and incredible to look at, and yes, they can bring a certain sense of prestige to a city, but ultimately, it is the public and shared spaces that these buildings sit in that make a city great. The streets, parks, patios, plazas, pedestrian spaces... I could go on... these are all incredibly important and so often overlooked or undervalued; case in point - those arguing that the height of The One is more important that having access to sunlight.

A taller building may wow those who marvel at it, myself included, but in the end it only benefits those who own it and profit from it. Higher quality public spaces, on the other hand, have the potential to benefit everyone.
Click to expand...

Perfect!

Very well said. My sentiments exactly!
 
Edward Skira said:
It will be the tallest in Canada. I'd say it is a "real tall building" already.
Click to expand...
r
I agree that it's tall and sky scraper geeks like me are still happy about it, it just seems that the time and location was ripe for building a real statement that’s sky scraper more then 10 meters taller of super tall status. Anyway, I won’t go on about it anymore. It just comes from being super patriotic and Toronto geek that loves this city. Just nice when tourists come here and get wowed by amazing buildings, and the extra height on this one would have gave it that much more of a “wow” factor, and realty make the north side of the DT core compete with the financial district.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top