Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 351.85m | 106s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

interchange42 said:
If there's a debate, it's ill-informed. The glass now stops with a parapet wall at 109, exposing the top of the uppermost mechanicals. I get that some, many, most, ALL of us would rather believe that the glass walls were still going to surround the top of the building, but they aren't anymore. Pinnacle is cheaping out. I'd love be able to embarrass them into doing the right thing and completing the glass shroud as originally planned, but instead, Pinnacle seem to be fully willing to embarrass themselves and this city in perpetuity.

42
Click to expand...
I dunno...it just feels like a place holder to me, where they haven't decided what to exactly do here. But they needed something official to submit to The City in the meantime...

...I guess we will know if they decide to submit a minor variance or not at the last moment as to what the top part will look like for the ages. So I haven't written this off no matter how ill-informed my hopes are here until that fat lady sings.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I dunno...it just feels like a place holder to me, where they haven't decided what to exactly do here. But they needed something official to submit to The City in the meantime...

...I guess we will know if they decide to submit a minor variance or not at the last moment as to what the top part will look like for the ages. So I haven't written this off no matter how ill-informed my hopes are here until that fat lady sings.
Click to expand...
They have also made it clear multiple times that plans can and do change, and seem to be figuring it out as they go along, main examples being the addition of a 106th floor and, later, a full restaurant out of thin air.
 
ctf5650 said:
They have also made it clear multiple times that plans can and do change, and seem to be figuring it out as they go along, main examples being the addition of a 106th floor and, later, a full restaurant out of thin air.
Click to expand...
Just keep in mind that Mr. 42 may be privy to information here that we may not be aware of here....as he maybe closer to the horse's mouth on this. So I am not ruling out this might be a "Done deal, Jim" either.

...suffice to say, that this would be extremely disappointing if this was the case.
 
tstormers said:
Absolute garbage for a supposed iconic tower, especially one that will be the secondary face to the world after the CN Tower in all photos going forward.
I get money, but have some pride in it.
I think it is was done for the BMU (I think was mentioned), which will probably stick out like a sore thumb similar to Monde

Do we have any renders on how this new look will be lit up at night?
Click to expand...
no big deal it's only the tallest building in the country that we'll all have to stare at for the rest of our lives!
 
January 18, 2026:

IMG_7363.jpeg
IMG_7364.jpeg
IMG_7365.jpeg
IMG_7366.jpeg
IMG_7367.jpeg
IMG_7368.jpeg
IMG_7369.jpeg
IMG_7370.jpeg
IMG_7371.jpeg
IMG_7372.jpeg
IMG_7373.jpeg
IMG_7374.jpeg
 
ctf5650 said:
They have also made it clear multiple times that plans can and do change, and seem to be figuring it out as they go along, main examples being the addition of a 106th floor and, later, a full restaurant out of thin air.
Click to expand...

If there's a restaurant up there, maybe the roof is being redesigned with a rooftop patio and that'll be a future application.
 
mburrrrr said:
Maybe the current BMU design is the issue with a higher glass wall?
View attachment 710022

The bay is starting to freeze over. I assume the wind will die down tonight and @skycandy will be out tomorrow morning with one of his beautiful annual downtown shot from Polson Pier.View attachment 710023
Click to expand...

I would have been out if the weather cooperated (silly Alberta Clipper with its dull snowy sky scapes today). Thinking that Saturday morning may be more interesting with decent potential for Arctic sea smoke over any harbour exposed water, but bloody cold (generally need less than -20C (and that’s not the windchill) for Arctic sea smoke).

As for the mechanical discussion, I feel it won’t be an obvious carbuncle like most other buildings simply due to the relative scale. From @mburrrrr ’s drawing post, it looks to be just under 7 metres on a 352 metre slender building. Not ideal obviously but perhaps not a reason to toss this into the trash bin of woulda shoulda coulda buildings?! I included a cropped image of the drawing below, and also two glowing sunset shots from last evening.

IMG_3364.jpeg


DSC_4248.jpeg


DSC_4249.jpeg
 
skycandy said:
I would have been out if the weather cooperated (silly Alberta Clipper with its dull snowy sky scapes today). Thinking that Saturday morning may be more interesting with decent potential for Arctic sea smoke over any harbour exposed water, but bloody cold (generally need less than -20C (and that’s not the windchill) for Arctic sea smoke).

As for the mechanical discussion, I feel it won’t be an obvious carbuncle like most other buildings simply due to the relative scale. From @mburrrrr ’s drawing post, it looks to be just under 7 metres on a 352 metre slender building. Not ideal obviously but perhaps not a reason to toss this into the trash bin of woulda shoulda coulda buildings?! I included a cropped image of the drawing below, and also two glowing sunset shots from last evening.

View attachment 710247

View attachment 710248

View attachment 710249
Click to expand...
6.8 metres is a lot. it will look terrible guaranteed
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top