Render of The Southlands from this video @ 29mins 5secs.

Southlands.png
 
Last edited:
first suburban supertall in North America? If I had to bet on a location, Mississauga would be a good one to pick..

The Site Plan Application for what I believe is this site indicates a 72-storey building, which likely wouldn't hit that supertall status. It does look like it may have a decent office component in the podium levels though so that may push it up in height.. hard to say.

3672 Kariya Drive

DESCRIPTION: 4 residential towers with 60, 60, 40 and 72 storeys with at grade retail for 3 towers.
Click to expand...
 
innsertnamehere said:
first suburban supertall in North America? If I had to bet on a location, Mississauga would be a good one to pick..

The Site Plan Application for what I believe is this site indicates a 72-storey building, which likely wouldn't hit that supertall status. It does look like it may have a decent office component in the podium levels though so that may push it up in height.. hard to say.
Click to expand...
The caveat here is that 111 West 57th Street (NYC) only has 80 stories despite being 435 metres tall. So that's not outside the realm on any possibility here...

...but I also agree that this seems way too ambitious for this city. And that rendered shiny tower in question suspiciously looks like a placeholder trolling for the woos. /sigh
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
The caveat here is that 111 West 57th Street (NYC) only has 80 stories despite being 435 metres tall. So that's not outside the realm on any possibility here...

...but I also agree that this seems way too ambitious for this city. And that rendered shiny tower in question suspiciously looks like a placeholder trolling for the woos. /sigh
Click to expand...

NY is an oddity. Due to their density zoning and land-assembly challenges, much of the cost is per-floor rather than by height.

Building a 20 floor building on giant stilts (I.e. a 300m tall lobby) was getting close enough to being reasonable in billionaires row that the city specifically outlawed it a few years ago.

In short, unusually tall ceiling heights aren't unusual in Manhattan.
 
Last edited:
Greater floor heights are typically for higher end buildings. The units in such buildings will have higher ceilings which means fewer floors and fewer units. These are intended for high net worth end users.

This is very different from this building which will be mostly investor owned rentals. These units will be getting standard 8-9 foot ceilings, meaning more floors and more units.

So this won't be 400 metres or even 300. The typical residential level in a mainstream "production" building is 3-3.2 metres, making this one around 220-230 metres.

As @innsertnamehere alluded to, the office component may boost the height. A typical office floor is 4.5-5 metres. Assuming five office floors, you get 24 ish metres for a grand total of 250 ish. Really high, but not quite supertall (300 metres) if we're being pedantic.
 
Last edited:
There are also those 2 'forests' of cross-braces, each about 15 metres in height, which made my guesstimate at 282 metres.

The Southlands A.gif
 
rbt said:
NY is an oddity. Due to their density zoning and land-assembly challenges, much of the cost is per-floor rather than by height.

Building on a 20 floor building on giant stilts (I.e. a 300m tall lobby) was getting close enough to being reasonable in billionaires row that the city specifically outlawed it a few years ago.

In short, unusually tall ceiling heights aren't unusual in Manhattan.
Click to expand...
That's great knowledge there I did not know. And thanks for that! But it still stands that they could stretch 72 floors to break 300m mark if the devs here choose to do so...

...whether it's in their best interest to do so is another matter. 😺
 
NYC is another example of poorly considered regulations creating perverse incentives leading to weird and unintended outcomes that are not necessarily socially optimal.
 
innsertnamehere said:
first suburban supertall in North America? If I had to bet on a location, Mississauga would be a good one to pick..

The Site Plan Application for what I believe is this site indicates a 72-storey building, which likely wouldn't hit that supertall status. It does look like it may have a decent office component in the podium levels though so that may push it up in height.. hard to say.
Click to expand...

Not meaning to bump the thread for this as I was looking around at other Mississauga proposals.

But...

When do you think Mississauga would be considered NOT suburban? If you look at most Canadian and American cities Mississauga is very large, 7th in City Population (Not Metro) and if it wasn't located right next to Toronto, it wouldn't be called suburban. I personally think it is about time to change the narrative and call Mississauga what it is, a city and therefore if/when it finally hits the supertall mark, it would be just that and not "outside of a downtown" similar to if Humber Bay Shores area got one.

Funny also how when arriving by plane at Pearson or in the airport, there are a fair amount of people seeing the Mississauga skyline now thinking it is Toronto. It is definitely looking a lot taller these days with more to come.

Not trying to call you out specifically @innsertnamehere , your post just triggered my thought process.
 
tstormers said:
Not meaning to bump the thread for this as I was looking around at other Mississauga proposals.

But...

When do you think Mississauga would be considered NOT suburban? If you look at most Canadian and American cities Mississauga is very large, 7th in City Population (Not Metro) and if it wasn't located right next to Toronto, it wouldn't be called suburban. I personally think it is about time to change the narrative and call Mississauga what it is, a city and therefore if/when it finally hits the supertall mark, it would be just that and not "outside of a downtown" similar to if Humber Bay Shores area got one.

Funny also how when arriving by plane at Pearson or in the airport, there are a fair amount of people seeing the Mississauga skyline now thinking it is Toronto. It is definitely looking a lot taller these days with more to come.

Not trying to call you out specifically @innsertnamehere , your post just triggered my thought process.
Click to expand...
Mississauga will always be suburban because it exists not as a centre of its own metro area, but as an area a part of the wider GTA which is focused on Toronto. That’s the intent of my discussion - if this is indeed a super tall, it would be the first in North America to be constructed outside of the primary downtown of the metro area.

Also its built form is just overwhelmingly suburban in nature.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Mississauga will always be suburban because it exists not as a centre of its own metro area, but as an area a part of the wider GTA which is focused on Toronto. That’s the intent of my discussion - if this is indeed a super tall, it would be the first in North America to be constructed outside of the primary downtown of the metro area.

Also its built form is just overwhelmingly suburban in nature.
Click to expand...
Is New Jersey its own city or just a suburb
 
Ok how about Oakland and San Francisco. Ottawa and Hull. Detroit and Windsor. Surely there are other cities pushed up directly beside each other.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top