That's pretty disingenuous - the '50 foot' part is the piece tacked on the front. The height of the existing second floor slab will limit the lobby height of the 'revitalized' building just as it does today (unless they are planning major structural changes as well).
 
Irishmonk said:
University Ave is likely the best place in the city to add massive density. Indeed, if city planners were smart they would encourage developers to reach for the sky on this stretch of pavement since there's no place in the city with better transit capacity. (Wide street, wide sidewalks, underutilized subway during off peak hours).
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
grey said:
Unlikely because the concrete glazing obstructs views and natural light. The update will maximize the leasing potential of the office space and keep it competitive.

Believe me, I wish it could be saved or recreated, but I really think that only heritage protection could have saved it.
Click to expand...
Just to reinforce this comment, today I've been informed that my department is moving next year to a new floor in our tower that has been renovated with a more open layout; no barriers between desks and meeting rooms moved to the centre, rather than occupying the outer corners. It follows the "right to light" trend that's popular in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and some of our newer buildings (Bay Adelaide and RBC centre, for instance).
 
Scaled model:

IMG_0611.jpg


IMG_0612.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0611.jpg
    IMG_0611.jpg
    89.7 KB · Views: 2,232
  • IMG_0612.jpg
    IMG_0612.jpg
    91.1 KB · Views: 2,189
wmedia said:
Saying that, I never experienced how much the views were obstructed from the inside due to the grills. I assume they had quite an impact on the amount of light entering the floors.
Click to expand...

I have been inside this building. It's not as dark as one would think looking from outside.

I like the new design compared to how it looks now.
 
The X-bracing looks ridiculously thin - wonder what it is for. Compensating the additional lateral loads to the original elevator core from the tower addition and transferring it to the perimeter columns?

AoD
 
I have to give it to their marketing department, this project is being advertised all over downtown on key corners. I even saw one at bay and adelaide.

It seems destined to be one of the hottest selling projects of the year.
 
someMidTowner said:
If I ever become a real estate developer, I am buying a property with an address like 44 or 4444 and building every single floor with the number 13 just to prove how useless it is to add 8s, skip 13s and subtract 4s everywhere. We need to get over all this tetraphobia and lucky number nonsense in the real estate world.
Click to expand...

Lol... you would be a bankrupt developer too..
 
Most buildings have 4s and 13s and the developers do fine. Skipping 13 was done 25 years ago. It was reintroduced with this 4 nonsense probably to be more inclusive
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
Most buildings have 4s and 13s and the developers do fine. Skipping 13 was done 25 years ago. It was reintroduced with this 4 nonsense probably to be more inclusive
Click to expand...

Skipping floors also makes your building sound taller, or gives a false impression on how high of a floor you live on in a tall high rise.
It's like lying about your age or height.
 
Definitely a somewhat stodgy design. Perhaps exceptional cladding will help offset that a bit. Guess time will tell.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top