Toronto needs more 300m+ Towers

[old boy]

Toronto doesn't have the supertalls, nor the squalor of some of the over-reachers of the world . The scale of what's being built, and proposed, in Toronto is just about right for this place. A safely conservative and civilized evolution is what Toronto presents to the world. A supertall here and there would be jarring. When the TD Centre was built, it stood out for a long time as the lonely, in- your- face gamble of a game changer for this city, and it took time for Toronto to catch up. Luckily it did grow up, but today a new supertall is more likey to end up as a lonely icon.

 

[gabe]

A 300 m building downtown Toronto wouldn't at all stick out like a "lonely icon" for long, maybe in North York then yes. As Mongo pointed out a 300 m is hardly considered tall these days, Downtown Toronto in the next 20 years there will be no other place to build but up.

 

[Dan416]

Just wait until we run out of parking lots to build on. Then we'll get some supertalls... Yes that's a long ways away.

 

[sodapop]

Just wait until we run out of parking lots to build on. Then we'll get some supertalls... Yes that's a long ways away.

not really...we're very quickly running out of surface parking lots, and i'm sure in about 3 years they'll all be gone. if what your implying is that after we run out of surface parking lots we'll get supertalls, i agree...but i think it will probably be only 4 or 5 years after we run out unless thats what you mean by a long time....

 

[jn_12]

I still haven't heard a good argument for why we need 300m+ towers. It's essentially just height for height's sake, unless some people around here have money invested in some postcard companies. The fact is that from within the city, a 300m+ building contributes nothing that a 200m building can't also do, and from our perspective at ground level, there's no way to really discern the difference between a 200m and 300m tower. They're just tall at that point.

The fact that this thread is 80 posts long without a logical argument in favour of these developments suggests quite a bit to me.

 

[gabe]

You hate tall buildings we get it. there is no 'need' for tall towers anywhere.


"I'll take three 25 storey buildings over one 75 storey anyday"

jn_12

 

[jn_12]

How about you take the entire quote?

I actually have no problems with tall buildings if someone wants to build one (though I'll take three 25 storey buildings over one 75 storey anyday), but this idea that such a plan will ruin the city (as was announced by some members on the first page of this thread) is certainly absurd and for some people entirely based on the premise that we need tall buildings to make our city look better in postcards. The fact is that, in Toronto, vibrancy is almost synonymous with the low-rise areas of our city, while the areas where new condos have been built are somewhat sterile and lack energy. For example one only has to look at Queens Quay or the Bay Street corridor where a bunch of big condos have gone up in recent years to see how poorly many of these buildings meet street level. I think that's a fair argument to make.

At least I'm making a logical argument. I've yet to hear one from the "we need taller towers" crowd.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I hate to be a party pooper, but 300 metres is hardly considered tall these days. There are at least 70 buildings over 300m under construction right now worldwide, with about the same number of serious proposals as well. I have noticed a growing opinion on other boards that the new supertall standard should be 400m, or even taller -- 300m or 350m is nothing these days.

Without question, Toronto is clearly the most active city in Canada right now, but in terms of height it's equally clearly a second- or even third-rate city on a world scale. Even cities like Mumbai are climbing past Toronto in terms of tall buildings:

India Tower (125 floors, 720m)
World One (117 floors, 442m)
Shreepati Skies (81 floors)
Orchid Heights A (80 floors, 300m)
Orchid Heights B (80 floors, 300m)
Indiabulls Sky Forest (80 floors)
Minerva (77 floors)
Orchid Crown 1 (75 floors)
Orchid Crown 2 (75 floors)
Orchid Crown 3 (75 floors)
Indiabulls Sky Suites (75 floors)
Orchid Turf View A (70 Floors)
Orchid Turf View B (70 Floors)
Palais Royal (66 floors, 320m)
Oberoi Skyz 1 (65 floors, 230m)
Oberoi Skyz 2 (65 floors, 230m)
Indiabulls Sky Tower (64 floors)
Skylark Tower (60 floors, 300m)
Imperial 1 (60 floors, 249m)
Imperial 2 (60 floors, 249m)
Imperial 3 (60 floors, 249m)
Orbit Terraces (60 floors)

That's 22 buildings at least 60 storeys tall that are completed, under construction or seriously proposed. Toronto has 7. And Mumbai is far from unique, in fact it is typical of many Asian cities today. There are cities in China that I had never heard of before that have dozens of supertalls and near-supertalls planned or under construction. That number of very tall buildings would not be built for simple 'pride', they must be economically worthwhile in the eyes of the builders. In Canada, the banks' financial requirements are considerably more restrictive than elsewhere, so no truly tall buildings are being built -- even Aura and Trump are not tall by world standards. But yeah, if you're satisfied with 250m buildings instead of 450m, Toronto is okay.

The cautiousness and conservatism of Canadian banks can be a good thing -- that's why we weathered the global economic meltdown so well -- but it has definitely held us back in terms of building heights, compared to the rest of the world.

this is actually sad.

 

[jetsbackincanada]

This is an unfair comparison, Mumbai is going from nothing to, a huge skyline so in a city of 11 million, without tall towers to start building them from scratch supertalls make sense. Plus they have yet to actually build any of them,

 

[maestro]

Comparring the two most populated countries to one of 30 million is ment as a joke , right? Also, these countries are in the mist of improving their world wide status so everything they do is a matter of pride.

You almost suggest the Canadian banks conservative policies are too restrictive. Aren't you aware of what has been happening in the world since 2008? If you need a more local perspective, the real estate bomb in 1992 would have killed a few of our banks were it not for a sizable federal injection.

 

[Bogtrotter]

I think a 300+m tower in Toronto anytime soon would have to be mixed use and /or involve a significant roof component like a spire.

 

[Mongo]

You almost suggest the Canadian banks conservative policies are too restrictive. Aren't you aware of what has been happening in the world since 2008? If you need a more local perspective, the real estate bomb in 1992 would have killed a few of our banks were it not for a sizable federal injection.

Why don't you read what I actually wrote before you make accusations:

The cautiousness and conservatism of Canadian banks can be a good thing -- that's why we weathered the global economic meltdown so well -- but it has definitely held us back in terms of building heights, compared to the rest of the world.

 

[bigkiwibird]

The psychology behind it all

Fellow members,

I love tall buildings, having been fascinated by them since the TD Centre first went up but I often wonder just what about it makes us so compelled to discuss, photograph and sadly even attack in print those among us who don't feel the need for supertalls. Just what are we getting out of seeing plans for 300 meter buildings? Why stop there? 400, say why not even 500 meters if we can pull it off. Is it the need for us to puff out our chests to the rest of the world? Bragging rights? More impressive postcards? It's all for naught if it isn't planned well and creates havoc at the street level. I'd much rather see an intelligent exchange of viewpoints about supertalls without the personal digs, subtle and otherwise. Still I remain vexed on a personal level..."Why am I so intrigued by supertalls and what am I getting out of it when I stand at the base of First Canadian Place and look up....way up.

 

[Haljackey]

Can someone please change the name of this thread to "Toronto needs a/some 300m+ Tower(s) or Supertall(s)"?

 

[unimaginative2]

The biggest problem with street-level vitality in Toronto seems to have less to do with the height of buildings than their age. New low- and mid-rise buildings don't contribute much to their neighbourhoods, in most cases. Even on established commercial strips like Queen and Bloor, new buildings seem to produce a deadening effect. We've either forgotten how to build proper retail strips or developers of new buildings won't rent to the kinds of businesses that animate a street.