Toronto 100 Queens Quay at Sugar Wharf | 117.34m | 25s | Menkes | B+H

8B799656-5813-4908-9C66-EF5067C79BB3.jpeg
EC594F0A-A67F-49F4-A0CC-459877253920.jpeg
D48D3FD4-96EC-4E4C-8E43-2ED492C1C98F.jpeg
2E18A4AE-4DB6-472F-8B79-8A84EB07DB00.jpeg
 
Agreed. I used to hate this building but I've really come around to it. The strong form and dark blue/high quality glass really work well. Fits into the skyline pretty well IMO.
 
Is there anti-bird collision on the glass panes? I don't see any, but I'm not well-versed on what's out there except for the obvious ones.
 
Is there anti-bird collision on the glass panes? I don't see any, but I'm not well-versed on what's out there except for the obvious ones.

I believe the current city guides on bird collision mitigation measures only apply to the bottom 12m of the building
 
Is there anti-bird collision on the glass panes? I don't see any, but I'm not well-versed on what's out there except for the obvious ones.
Yes. All new buildings must have them as high as 12 metres, or higher if there is higher tree canopy adjacent to the building.

42
 
I'm pretty sure birds fly higher than that. (often)
The standard was worked out with FLAP Canada, a Canadian Museum of Nature award-winning program. FLAP stands for Fatal Light Awareness Program, and it's worthwhile reading through the site. The City's PDF on this is here. The City has also won a Nature Canada award for the program.

People often view everything the City does rather cynically, but in fact there is typically nearly endless consultation with experts when writing new standards.

42
 
I'm pretty sure birds fly higher than that. (often)
Some species probably do. But some also may be attuned to something is there and not fly into it.

I can't really tell the metrics on that from where I sit...but if those that know have collectively decided this is a critical height, then I'm not going to second guess that until new science is made available on it.
 

Back
Top