Supertall and near-Supertall Rumour/Speculation Thread

[someMidTowner]

As for the towers on Bay Street, honestly, how many others, aside from yourself, would actually know the height of the towers?

Anyone with internet access that cared to find out.

Im sure most people on this forum know that there are no towers above 160 meters in height on Bay north of Queen.

So where does that leave us? Unless its built outside the downtown core, it will be a very long time, if ever, that we will see a supertall, such a shame.

I think a supertall at Bloor and Church would make no sense.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hanlansboy:

I've always believed, if you're going to do something, do the very best. We've lost our claim to the worlds tallest structure, so wouldn't it be wonderful if we could claim, at the very least, having the tallest skyscraper in all the Americas?

First of all, CN Tower is not a skyscraper - and I don't believe we have ever had anything close to the tallest skyscraper in North America. Second, of the towers we've put up in this city of late, most are mediocre and some are good - certainly none could conceivably qualify as "very best". Quality is therefore what we should aim for, not height per se.

re: shadowing

Obviously it doesn't mean no shadowing of anything - because that's impossible (as much as some of the more radical residents would want that to be the case). But it does mean the impact of shadowing shouldn't be considered as a legitimate issue in some contexts, and where appropriate minimized through design changes, density reduction, etc. Each site is different - and each should be treated differently so long as there are legitimate justifications for doing so.

AoD

 

[Hanlansboy]

Hanlansboy:



First of all, CN Tower is not a skyscraper - and I don't believe we have ever had anything close to the tallest skyscraper in North America. Second, of the towers we've put up in this city of late, most are mediocre and some are good - certainly none could conceivably qualify as "very best". Quality is therefore what we should aim for, not height per se.

re: shadowing

Obviously it doesn't mean no shadowing of anything - because that's impossible (as much as some of the more radical residents would want that to be the case). But it does mean the impact of shadowing should be considered as a legitimate issue in some contexts, and where appropriate minimized through design changes, density reduction, etc. Each site is different - and each should be treated differently so long as there are legitimate justifications for doing so.

AoD

First off, I never said the CN Tower is a Skyscraper, it's pretty much a telecommunications tower with an over priced restaurant, and secondly, I said it would be nice to have the tallest skyscraper in the Americas, I never said, in any way, that we did at one time. Please, read carefully before you comment. I agree, we should expect quality, but, can we not build tall and have quality? As you may have guessed by now, I would love to see Toronto get at least one supertall. I work and live in the heart of downtown, and although we have some pretty tall towers, I think, if done tastefully and in the right area, a supertall would greatly add to our core towers, as long as its not built by Concord. A few of the towers are not bad, but all I see is cheap looking green glass on both sides as I'm driving along the Gardiner! A dear friend was unfortunate enough to be one of the few who's balcony glass came smashing down, so I know, and agree, what you're saying and quality. Perhaps it's merely a pipe dream, and over all, I do love our skyline as is, but considering the speed at which we are growing, I had foolishly hoped they'd create a new tower to over take First Canadian Place. I have no doubt that one day, it will happen, but not for a very long time. It will be interesting to see how, once completed, One Bloor, Aura and, if it's built, 50 Bloor West will change the look of our skyline. By the way, I, like many, never knew First Canadian Place was meant to be twin towers, does anyone know why one one was built?

 

[planning2plan]

Even though The Tall Buildings Guidelines aren't approved they sure don't contemplate 100 storeys anywhere in that area... not that policy has ever stopped anyone.


Sorry just realized I made a pretty big typo there. As far as I know they are not approved, but are close to being approved. Not that it matters. In my experience as soon as a document like this is created a city uses it moving forward approved or not because it is part of the vision and direction of the city.

 

[Hanlansboy]

Even though The Tall Buildings Guidelines are approved they sure don't contemplate 100 storeys anywhere in that area... not that policy has ever stopped anyone.

So true, from what I've read here, if the local by-laws need to be revised to allow the construction of a taller then allowed tower, all the developer needs to do is "donate" a large chunk of cash to help beautify the neighborhood, and presto, amendment approved! Seems pretty unfair, look at One Bloor, to have those additional 5 floors, they gave the city $300 000, and it was approved, sounds like bribery to me, what do you think?

 

[someMidTowner]

So true, from what I've read here, if the local by-laws need to be revised to allow the construction of a taller then allowed tower, all the developer needs to do is "donate" a large chunk of cash to help beautify the neighborhood, and presto, amendment approved! Seems pretty unfair, look at One Bloor, to have those additional 5 floors, they gave the city $300 000, and it was approved, sounds like bribery to me, what do you think?

It would be bribery if the city was pocketing the money or if members of city counsel were paid off. These funds are almost always used to improve the public spaces adjacent to the developments. Who are you suggesting this is unfair to? The developers??? 300K is the price of a single (cheap) condo. 5 extra floors will generate massive revenues for Great Gulf. It will also put that tiny bit extra strain on local infrastructure (city streets, sidewalks, increased vehicular traffic in a rapidly densifying neighbourhood, increased water and electricity use).
Section 37 funds being called bribery....really?

 

[Hanlansboy]

It would be bribery if the city was pocketing the money or if members of city counsel were paid off. These funds are almost always used to improve the public spaces adjacent to the developments. Who are you suggesting this is unfair to? The developers??? 300K is the price of a single (cheap) condo. 5 extra floors will generate massive revenues for Great Gulf. It will also put that tiny bit extra strain on local infrastructure (city streets, sidewalks, increased vehicular traffic in a rapidly densifying neighbourhood, increased water and electricity use).
Section 37 funds being called bribery....really?

Does everyone on this site feel the need to tear apart everything I say? If you know of "section 37" then you're obviously a professional in the field. Well, as I've stated, more then once, I am a complete amature, I'm a medical professional with a passion for skyscrapers, who doesn't appreciate being torn apart every time I post something. Do you have a problem accepting the fact that not everyone agrees with you? And, I said it seems like bribery, I never said it was. I am by no means stupid as you imply, I know exactly where this extra money goes, and in reality, it's a good thing, it really does help beautify the area. I was suggesting that it "seemed" unfair to the builders, I never said it was. And frankly, aside from city planners and yourself, who else would know what section of the bylaws this refers to?, not many I imagine. You have to remember that not everyone on this site is a professional in this field, please, try to remember that before you tear apart someone's response. You seem to enjoy showing off your knowledge, must be frustrating for you to deal with members like myself who are mere amatures, perhaps, with all that knowledge you should start up your own site, or join another one, strictly dedicated to professionals. Until then, if your arrogance is all you have to offer, then keep it to yourself, I for one, do not want to hear it. I joined this wonderful site to learn more, keep updated on all the exciting projects, and perhaps make a friend or to, I'm off to one heck of a start!

 

[someMidTowner]

If you know of "section 37" then you're obviously a professional in the field. Well, as I've stated, more then once, I am a complete amature, I'm a medical professional with a passion for skyscrapers

I'm not a professional in the field, I'm a 24 year old with nothing but a high school diploma, also with a passion for skyscrapers...So being a medical professional you have a much better education than I. All this info is easily found online. As I said before, I'm not trying to be a dick. Nothing you say is being torn apart, you are simply saying ridiculous things which require rational rebuttal.

 

[Hanlansboy]

I'm not a professional in the field, I'm a 24 year old with nothing but a high school diploma, also with a passion for skyscrapers...So being a medical professional you have a much better education than I. All this info is easily found online. As I said before, I'm not trying to be a dick. Nothing you say is being torn apart, you are simply saying ridiculous things which require rational rebuttal.

whom, exactly, made you the judge of what is or is not ridiculous? Are you the site's admin? Or who told you to respond with, as you put it "rational rebuttal?" in my career, and my life, I've encountered many people, but seldom do I come accross one so full of themselves. If I wanted sarcasm, I'd ask for it. Not to age myself, but with that mentality, you're in for a rude awakening one day my young friend. No one with a brain will put up with it. In the future, kindly ignore anything I post, I do not require, nor want, you, nor anyone else's insufferable know it all inane babble, thank you.

 

[someMidTowner]

There wasn't a shred of sarcasm in anything I said.
On the other hand....

who told you to respond with, as you put it "rational rebuttal?" in my career, and my life, I've encountered many people, but seldom do I come accross one so full of themselves. If I wanted sarcasm, I'd ask for it.

Disengaging from this ridiculous argument.

Edit***
AoD:

I don't believe we have ever had anything close to the tallest skyscraper in North America

FCP was 6th tallest in the world to structural top upon completion according to wikipedia

First Canadian Place was the 6th tallest building in the world to structural top (currently 76th) and the tallest building overall outside of Chicago and New York when built in 1975

 

[zedman]

Have not seen all the posts in this thread, but The Holt Renfrew tower development has been announced. Supposed to be 83 storeys from the application of re-zoing placard at the site. It is under 300m though.

 

[Southcore]

Have not seen all the posts in this thread, but The Holt Renfrew tower development has been announced. Supposed to be 83 storeys from the application of re-zoing placard at the site. It is under 300m though.

277m to be exact. UT was all over this as soon as it was announced:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/06/details-emerge-83-storey-50-bloor-street-west-proposal

 

[zedman]

Have not been on here for some time. Missed the news that day too. Saw the placard though.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Actually, the parking lot at Church and Bloor, as far as I know, is part of the little hospital there, Toronto Grace Hospital. Back in the 90's I was hired after finishing my clinical there. Back then I worked as Lab tech, we were told that the hospital would be closed, so they layed me and half the staff off. It's only 118 beds, all palliative care, quite outdated, and in desperate need of a make over. Well, nearly 20 years later it's still in operation, however, if they were to finally follow through with the original decision to sell, the hospital combined with the parking lot, would make a huge chunk of land to build pretty much what ever you wanted to. I don't like going on rumors, but a friend of mine is still a nurse there. They have been told to expect massive lay offs this year or next, with the prospects of demolishing the hospital, and, thanks to an apparently over egar builder, create, what she's been told, a massive tower. She swears that's all she knows, I suspect she knows more since her hubby is an architect that may be working on this project that doesn't really exsist! Haven't talked to her in ages, think I'll give her a call. If I hear anything, I promise you, you'll be the first to know! (fingers crossed, it's an ideal location, on the Bloor subway line, far enough away from other tall towers except One Bloor, and if they attempt a supertall, the intersection already has towers on all corners, with condos on both sides of Bloor all the way to Yonge, so they can't use shadowing as an excuse not to build it! I've always felt that to be a pathetic excuse not to build tall, if it was in the burbs I could understand, but in the downtown core? This is the same city council that allowed condos to literally block our views of the lake, right up to the shore, but won't allow 50 Bloor to move forward because of "shadowing" in an area surrounded by tall towers? I just don't understand the logic, or lack thereof! Ill keep you posted, but please, if you hear anything about the Church and Bloor lot, let us know, thanks!

This is a huge site, the same size or larger than the land that was assembled for One Bloor East. If Toronto Grace does go (which would be a shame) this property could support two buildings, plus town homes along Hayden Street because Toronto Grace continues on a little further west in behind 121 Bloor E. on Hayden.

 

[MisterF]

Does everyone on this site feel the need to tear apart everything I say? If you know of "section 37" then you're obviously a professional in the field. Well, as I've stated, more then once, I am a complete amature, I'm a medical professional with a passion for skyscrapers, who doesn't appreciate being torn apart every time I post something. Do you have a problem accepting the fact that not everyone agrees with you? And, I said it seems like bribery, I never said it was. I am by no means stupid as you imply, I know exactly where this extra money goes, and in reality, it's a good thing, it really does help beautify the area. I was suggesting that it "seemed" unfair to the builders, I never said it was. And frankly, aside from city planners and yourself, who else would know what section of the bylaws this refers to?, not many I imagine. You have to remember that not everyone on this site is a professional in this field, please, try to remember that before you tear apart someone's response. You seem to enjoy showing off your knowledge, must be frustrating for you to deal with members like myself who are mere amatures, perhaps, with all that knowledge you should start up your own site, or join another one, strictly dedicated to professionals. Until then, if your arrogance is all you have to offer, then keep it to yourself, I for one, do not want to hear it. I joined this wonderful site to learn more, keep updated on all the exciting projects, and perhaps make a friend or to, I'm off to one heck of a start!

Section 37 refers to Section 37 of the Planning Act, which governs the planning process in Ontario. It states that a municipality may authorize increases in height and density that would otherwise be permitted in return for the developer contributing towards community services and facilities. It usually goes towards parks, community centres, streetscaping, affordable housing, etc.