News   Apr 24, 2024
That's Some Arm
 321     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Madison Resubmits Midtown Proposals with Viñoly-Designed Towers
 2.6K     5 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Avontuura's Wanderer Guides Designed For Architecture Buffs to Geek-out in Toronto, and Worldwide
 640     0 

Supertall and near-Supertall Rumour/Speculation Thread

Rumours no doubt. Fun to speculate, though.
Here's a deco-ish 1000'-er for Bloor-Yonge with two other future towers blocked in on the other side of the street. One of the screenshots has Wyliepoon's model of the previous 1 Bloor East incarnation in it.

blooryonge.jpg



blooryonge2.jpg



blooryonge3.jpg



blooryonge4.jpg



blooryongeb.jpg



blooryongec.jpg



blooryongea.jpg
 
I'm a little torn... I'd be lying if I didn't confess to feeling a little like joining in the omgsupertall!1!eleventy party, but from a skyline-wank perspective I dunno if I like the idea of the CBD getting upstaged by Yonge-Bloor.

Aside from the CN Tower offset to the southwest of the core, it just seems aesthetically "right" to me that the tallest towers be clumped more or less in the current pattern as the focal point of the skyline from 30 km away, with proportionate step-downs from FCP down through the rest of the Bay Street gang. The day probably will come where FCP gets out-heighted by some fresh omgsupertall!1!eleventy proposal, but ideally that should be by another downtown core location first, with FCP falling into line as the new beta dog and so on down the line.

I'm totally for a secondary cluster of height at Y-B, but to me, part of it being secondary is having it being at least 15-20% shorter than the main stage act to the south---in other words, ideally nothing past 250m at Y-B until something else is past 300m in the CBD.

I realize that sort of sentiment could, objectively, be seen as irrational cranky-old-man-type conservatism about things needing to be the way they are because the way things are is best. And, needless to say, the skyline from 30 km out isn't some master-planned portrait painted by a single artistic vision, but rather an emergent piece of art that's a sort of functionalist product of land-use policy and infrastructure placement and market conditions. If there is to be a 300+m residential tower built in Toronto, it could well be that the market says the financials would be easier with a Yorkville placement a la 1BE compared to being down in the financial district a la Trump.
 
^^ haha, I love it when rumour and speculation come complete with equally tantalizing renders to put it all into perspective! :D Thanks CN, I for one think that the area could certainly support a tower of those proportions. On a side note, your render reminds me of the Rockefeller Centre.

Platform, I have no doubt that we'll eventually see more than one supertall in the city, and outside of the CBD, this corner of the city would be a good place for one IMO.
 
Platform 27 said:
I'm a little torn... I'd be lying if I didn't confess to feeling a little like joining in the omgsupertall!1!eleventy party, but from a skyline-wank perspective I dunno if I like the idea of the CBD getting upstaged by Yonge-Bloor.

Aside from the CN Tower offset to the southwest of the core, it just seems aesthetically "right" to me that the tallest towers be clumped more or less in the current pattern as the focal point of the skyline from 30 km away, with proportionate step-downs from FCP down through the rest of the Bay Street gang. The day probably will come where FCP gets out-heighted by some fresh omgsupertall!1!eleventy proposal, but ideally that should be by another downtown core location first, with FCP falling into line as the new beta dog and so on down the line.

I'm totally for a secondary cluster of height at Y-B, but to me, part of it being secondary is having it being at least 15-20% shorter than the main stage act to the south---in other words, ideally nothing past 250m at Y-B until something else is past 300m in the CBD.

I realize that sort of sentiment could, objectively, be seen as irrational cranky-old-man-type conservatism about things needing to be the way they are because the way things are is best. And, needless to say, the skyline from 30 km out isn't some master-planned portrait painted by a single artistic vision, but rather an emergent piece of art that's a sort of functionalist product of land-use policy and infrastructure placement and market conditions. If there is to be a 300+m residential tower built in Toronto, it could well be that the market says the financials would be easier with a Yorkville placement a la 1BE compared to being down in the financial district a la Trump.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying. Look at Chicago. They have two large clusters as well. Maybe it won't be that bad. I mean it is where 2 subway lines meet.
 
khristopher said:
I get what you're saying. Look at Chicago. They have two large clusters as well. Maybe it won't be that bad. I mean it is where 2 subway lines meet.
Click to expand...


TO's problem with supertall skyscrapers and subsequent densities have to do with our narrow sidewalks and only 4 lanes of traffic that are suppose to accommodate vehicular traffic for both directions.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Make them one-way...everyone know traffic flows better, also safer with bike lanes and pedestrians.
Click to expand...

Problem 1: You need another parallel road to make it work.

Problem 2: Toronto has very few continuous east-west routes that transverse the city that are also close together, like in New York.
 
Whats the problem with keeping University two way, making Bay southbound, Yonge northbound, Church southbound, Jarvis two-way, Sherbourne northbound, Parliament southbound.:confused:
 
Last edited:
ponyboy said:
One way streets destroy street life
Click to expand...

I agree, but I said that once in a thread and everyone launched in and blitzed the thread with reasons why that isn't true... (I still don't believe them)

I'm with you on that one.

Edit: Didn't take me long to find something that backs-up my opinion. http://domz60.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/the-impact-of-one-way-streets/

One-way streets result in a significant increase in speeding. Former “shopping streets†(often including residences) become increasingly abandoned drive-throughs instead of drive-tos.
Click to expand...

Harm to Retail and Residential Neighborhoods. Long-standing one-way streets seem to lose residences and businesses due to the more hostile, noisier, higher speed conditions. For a residence, in addition to the perceived increase in danger and noise pollution, the higher speeds create the impression of excessive traffic volumes, even if volumes are modest. Businesses are harmed, in part, due to the lower storefront exposure the business now experiences on the one-way street, as one direction of travel (and the exposure of the lost direction) is eliminated. Storefront exposure is also reduced by the increased speed of motor vehicles, whereby the motorist has less time to “read†a storefront or sign.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Platform 27 said:
I'm a little torn... I'd be lying if I didn't confess to feeling a little like joining in the omgsupertall!1!eleventy party, but from a skyline-wank perspective I dunno if I like the idea of the CBD getting upstaged by Yonge-Bloor.
Click to expand...

Except that our city hall is so concerned with shadows in the CBD, there is no where to build tall buildings there.
 
I know it's off-topic, but do you really think the street life of Ste-Catherine or Saint-Laurent in Montreal is destroyed? If not, why do you think they're different?

Except that our city hall is so concerned with shadows in the CBD, there is no where to build tall buildings there.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Most of the CBD isn't affected by the NPS shadowing issue. If you wanted to put a 100-storey building on the BCE 3 site, I have no doubt it would be approved.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top