alklay
Senior Member
Great article and yes, those skybridges are a reason to be very concerned.
Toronto 100 Queens Quay at Sugar Wharf | 117.34m | 25s | Menkes | B+H
- Thread starter themarc
- Start date
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
2 Supertalls?????
NorthshoreCity
Active Member
Two, at 304M 
Who would have ever thought that there'd be 5 active supertall proposals in Toronto at the same time.
Who would have ever thought that there'd be 5 active supertall proposals in Toronto at the same time.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Two, at 304M
Quantity doesn't impress me as much as quality.
AoD
ushahid
Senior Member
now someone needs to go taller than 304 m and Menkes need a redesign for these towers!!
The tall one at 1 Yonge is 307 metres. Just to keep you up-to-date.
42
42
enrigue8
Active Member
The design look poor and uninspired .
NorthshoreCity
Active Member
I agree. That being said I think Aa can produce when given the budget. I would find their 2 Bloor West vision to be a decent option for a location like this; http://www.architectsalliance.com/projects/xl/design-concept-urban-mixed-used-development
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
But let's put it out there - as much as I like aA, do we need yet another two towers by said firm along that stretch which is already overrepresented by their style of Neo-Modern? I mean, if the choice is between that or G+C spandrelism, sure - but that's a false choice.
AoD
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
Two, at 304M
Americans would disagree on the number.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Haha, a meter here and a meter there, who cares
maestro
Senior Member
True. What's a meter to an American.
cd concept
Senior Member
I think all theses under 2 foot supper tall proposals will eventually climb surpassing the1000 foot mark when they start building the towers by adding a floor or two in the end.
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
Surface parking? Seriously?
As for height and density, I suspect that they are aiming higher than what they really expect to build. This is the normal game they play, so I'm not too attached to these proposed numbers.
As for height and density, I suspect that they are aiming higher than what they really expect to build. This is the normal game they play, so I'm not too attached to these proposed numbers.
NorthshoreCity
Active Member
Don't the Americans use the CTBUH to define official building heights anyways? Their definitions are in metric.