News   Nov 28, 2024
Sunlight Shining Towards Us
 98     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
Towers to be Introduced to Longo's Site at 7 and Woodbine in Markham
 864     4 
News   Nov 27, 2024
Masterplanned Community in Markham Would Replace Big Box Centre
 722     1 

100 Metre List

Every database I have checked shows Sun Life Financial Centre (One York) as 569 feet.

That would have been the full height, but I am pretty sure they decided to lop off 5 storeys of the building somewhat late in the planning process but I can find no documentation showing a revised height.

Looking at the building in comparison to others around it, it appears to just barely break the 500 foot mark.
 
raclll said:
Every database I have checked shows Sun Life Financial Centre (One York) as 569 feet.

That would have been the full height, but I am pretty sure they decided to lop off 5 storeys of the building somewhat late in the planning process but I can find no documentation showing a revised height.

Looking at the building in comparison to others around it, it appears to just barely break the 500 foot mark.
Click to expand...

Any insight into this @interchange42 ?
 
No floors were lopped off.

42
 
Update: Statistical breakdowns are now provided in two new tables by district.

7I4oiGX.png
 
Ottawan said:
Interesting to see how Etobicoke-York is poised to leapfrog North York for height dominance (excluding Toronto-East York)
Click to expand...

This will be helped along by Pinnacle Etobicoke's injection of 8 towers in one shot, but it is interesting nonetheless. It's hard to see where all the proposals are concentrated, because I'm still working on re-addressing multi-tower developments, but certainly not all of it is in Humber Bay.

It's also interesting that Etobicoke is getting into 180m+ towers before North York and Scarborough.
 
Last edited:
DonValleyRainbow said:
Another thing that Pinnacle Etobicoke made me realize is that the list has quite a few towers for a single development with the same address listed. When these get mapped, that means pins are being stacked on top of one another. So I will be going through and differentiating some addresses over the next few weeks, purely for mapping purposes.
Click to expand...

This has now been completed, and The 100m Map has been updated. In addition, The 100m Map now includes an alternative rank. For Completed/Topped, this is the rank for all completed buildings (the tallest buildings standing today, not counting those under construction). For Under Construction, this is the rank for all Completed, Topped and Under Construction Buildings (the tallest buildings once those under construction are completed). For Proposed, it is out of all proposed buildings only (the normal "rank column already tells you the rank for everything).

I'd like to add it to The 100m List as well, but I'd need it to be function-based (always re-calculating when new developments are added/removed, or statuses change), and Excel/Google Sheets do not have a 'RankIf' function, which is kind of mind-boggling. I was only able to do it for the map because the values are static and only updated occasionally. My attempts at using a couple workaround solutions found through Google search resulted in errors.
 
So on the Stats sheet, there are two tables each for wards and districts: one for a status breakdown (Complete, Topped, Construction, Proposed), and one for a height breakdown. Then there is a fifth table which is a matrix between status and height for all districts.

I've tried to boil this down into 1 table. This reduces the spread, but provides even more stats; status is broken down for each ward/district+height range (e.g. buildings in Ward 27 between 180 and 220m). I think I will need to tweak things like font sizes, formatting, colour and borders to improve readability/accessibility (and I definitely welcome comments on that front), but you get the drift. Thoughts?

sEuQmqm.png
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
The 100m Map now includes an alternative rank.

...

I'd like to add it to The 100m List as well, but I'd need it to be function-based (always re-calculating when new developments are added/removed, or statuses change), and Excel/Google Sheets do not have a 'RankIf' function...My attempts at using a couple workaround solutions found through Google search resulted in errors.
Click to expand...

I have now completed a workaround and added it to the list. There are now three ranking columns: the left is for all buildings on the list, the middle is for completed buildings, and the right is for completed + under construction buildings.

EHuXM1x.png


For example,
  • RBC Centre a) is #65 out of all buildings on the list, b) is #21 of all completed buildings in Toronto, and c) will be #31 once buildings currently under construction are completed.
  • Casa III Condos a) is #75 out of all buildings on the list, and b) will be #38 once it and all other buildings currently under construction are completed.

DonValleyRainbow said:
So on the Stats sheet, there are two tables each for wards and districts: one for a status breakdown (Complete, Topped, Construction, Proposed), and one for a height breakdown. Then there is a fifth table which is a matrix between status and height for all districts.

I've tried to boil this down into 1 table. This reduces the spread, but provides even more stats; status is broken down for each ward/district+height range (e.g. buildings in Ward 27 between 180 and 220m). I think I will need to tweak things like font sizes, formatting, colour and borders to improve readability/accessibility (and I definitely welcome comments on that front), but you get the drift. Thoughts?

sEuQmqm.png
Click to expand...

This has been implemented. I have also eliminated "Topped" as a category in the list and stats, as it was proving to add little relative value.
 
What are you talking about? Emporis has One York at 163 metres and Maple Leaf Square south at 174 metres. That's about 35 feet in difference. Emporis and CTBUH are pretty much the same thing. Nearly every other lesser database is compiled from them with UT and SSP being the only exceptions. In this case, SSP has the same values too.
 
CTBUH has One York street as 173.5m.

I hadn't looked at Emporis for a long time and kind of forgot about them as a source.

Maybe they're the only ones who have it right.

As a fellow list enthusiast this is one height that has been bugging me....
 
@raclll, our figure of 569 ft/173.3 m comes from the background file that the zoning by-law allowing the construction of the building is based upon. Background file 50454 from September 21, 2012 lists that height on pages 23 and 44.

42
 
raclll said:
CTBUH has One York street as 173.5m.

I hadn't looked at Emporis for a long time and kind of forgot about them as a source.

Maybe they're the only ones who have it right.

As a fellow list enthusiast this is one height that has been bugging me....
Click to expand...


That's interesting. I guess CTBUH is going their own direction. I find UT and Skyscraperpage as your best sources.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top