ksun
Senior Member
50 storey? I don't think there is a single 50 storey tower between Yonge and Jarvis.
Toronto 160 Front West | 239.87m | 46s | Cadillac Fairview | AS + GG
- Thread starter Filip
- Start date
50 storey? I don't think there is a single 50 storey tower between Yonge and Jarvis.
Southcore
Active Member
If your experience though would they take up that much space without being the anchor tenant? Or do they not really care about these kinds of things?
taal
Senior Member
Very much doubt it .. they move these jobs out for a reason, I don't see why they'd move them back ... I don't think the TD airport campus jobs would really be viable (required downtown) now the large center in Markham, that I don't know, a lot of technical IT jobs there (as opposed to just say data entry or other more mundane tasks) ... so if they think they'll face problems attracting new young talent ... maybe ... but honestly there are so many tech jobs in Markham already I doubt this is an issue.
taal
Senior Member
Its funny you mention that I was thinking about just that (i.e. given they wouldn't be the anchor tenant, would they be OK with that) I think it really depends on what they plan on moving out.
My only hope is this leads to more jobs downtown (regardless of where) but a new tower would be great for sure, as opposed to jobs being lost downtown. The first short term request was for on a subway line, (though VCC does qualify for that, but in the longer term).
Time will tell !
JasonParis
Moderator
There's been chatter of Waterhouse leaving Bay & Bloor for something downtown (and thereby closer to the GO lines).
isaidso
Senior Member
I feel the exact opposite. I'd much rather have a few buildings that make one stand back and take notice than a sea of filler. The turtle wins the race. The race to fill the downtown up with forgettable buildings is a fool's game. It might get full, but to what end?
Besides, a building needs to be at least 200m these days for its height to get someone's attention. Even 200m is becoming common place these days and people are increasingly looking to 300m, 400m, 500m, etc.
Of course it's all moot if we don't have great design.
Last edited:
taal
Senior Member
Makes a ton of sense, I believe they occupy all or most of 77 Bloor West (which is about 350K) ?
Southcore
Active Member
If they care about being the anchor then, and they have a little bit of time (2017), 16 York is perfect (close to GO/Path). 156 Front and Oxford Place are too far out, and I guess Union Centre as well?
If they don't care about being the anchor then 1 York or Bremner Tower would suffice.
If they don't care about being the anchor then 1 York or Bremner Tower would suffice.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
All new builds would take roughly just as long. 2017 is probably achievable if they move fast. Union centre would maybe be a bit longer due to its complex site.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
How about the proposed 32 storey BAC-3, seems Brookfield is in a hurry to get it up and running
ksun
Senior Member
in any city, most (95%+) buildings are forgettable. Buildings are essentially for people to live or work in. The beauty is just an added benefit.
Despite the purpose of this forum, I think making better use of land (filling the vacant lots with buildings with a purpose) is more important than to have a couple of really impressive skyscrapers. The city is for people to live in, not just to look at at the end of the day.
isaidso
Senior Member
That's not even close to being true. I was born and raised in London. Even outside central London a good percentage of the buildings were built to be both functional and beautiful. In much of Europe, it's the same. And the argument that modern cities aren't capable of the same is utter rubbish and a cop out.
That's an excruciatingly Canadian mentality; one that can't die quick enough. It's also a mentality that's a result of Toronto's provincial blue collar past. As Toronto grows in wealth and sophistication that mentality will fall by the way side.
The idea that we're only bright enough to build function into our cities is primitive and depressing. Cities need to be BOTH functional AND attractive. If people didn't value beauty we'd not bother with art, design, or fashion at all. I could only live in a place like that if I were born blind.
Last edited:
arvelomcquaig
Active Member
I just got back from a few days in Manhattan and it was astonishing how ubiquitous architectural beauty is there. Being there feels like an outlandish dream. I can't fathom how so much work and care went into every detail of 90% of buildings. It was painfully beautiful. I shouldn't go there anymore because it really hurts my Torontonian pride.
It made me wonder: why is there this crass, philistinic approach to architecture/development here/now, while in the past so much more effort seems to have gone into our buildings? Why does the profit motive manifest as perfunctory expedience now when older architecture seems to have been so much more meticulously crafted?
It made me wonder: why is there this crass, philistinic approach to architecture/development here/now, while in the past so much more effort seems to have gone into our buildings? Why does the profit motive manifest as perfunctory expedience now when older architecture seems to have been so much more meticulously crafted?
Last edited:
salsa
Senior Member
^I hear ya! I was also thoroughly impressed by the urban parks in Manhattan, compared to Toronto. It hurts.
Uptowner
Active Member
Well Casa must be very close and so will Chaz and Casa II be. X2 is one storey short and Yonge and Rich will be close while 88 Scott will be well over. Then there is One Bloor East, L Tower and Massey which will technically be east of the street and sidewalk. But I take your point that there isn't much between those streets. I'm just relating that I'd like to see the changes that are happening happen even faster. The larger the footprint of very busy streets the more exciting a city is for me when comparing comparably economically developed cities (ie not Dhaka and Chicago).
I agree its nice if you can get great architecture up and down a building but the main thing is how many people it can hold and how does it meet the street. The more people the better and then excellent commercial space and an impressive podium are what makes it work for tall buildings. If in addition to that the top of the building is clean and simple then you are on your way to a successful design.
Also, I don't necessarily disagree about heights. My point was just that I care about street level and after about 200m (that is just a rough estimate based on my own experience/perception) you really have to pay attention to notice the difference when you are walking by a building.
I agree with this point very much but instead of wasting the money on beauty 195m in the air why don't we take the money spent up there and spend it down at street level? Again, podiums/street frontage and sidewalks are what counts as long as the top is simple and inoffensive.
Last edited: