Toronto 83 Bloor West | 260.25m | 77s | Parallax | Arcadis

isaidso said:
As stated above, Toronto has far more 'high-rises' (12m+) than Chicago but it's also true that Chicago has more at the top end. So we still trail when looking at 100m+ buildings and 200m+ buildings. It's why their skyline still looks more imposing while our city seems to have more 'meat' to it. But yes, Toronto will zoom ahead of Chicago by those taller measures too. It's more a matter of 'when' than 'if'. City of Toronto in BLUE and the City of Chicago in RED.

Buildings 100m+
Built: 302 vs 339
U/C: 105 vs 7
Proposed: 393 vs 19
TOTAL: 800 vs 365


Buildings 200m+
Built: 24 vs 34
U/C: 10 vs 4
Proposed: 45 vs 6
TOTAL: 79 vs 44
Click to expand...
Not sure we'll ever get our Willis Tower though...unless they plan to make the CN Tower residential or something.
 
Miss J said:
Thanks for this. Yes, it's obvious it's only a matter of time till we pass Chicago. 😃
Click to expand...
Yes it's just a matter of time when it happens for the 150m. If you go to Toronto's Skyscraperpage's home page. And enter the skyscraper diagram button page. You will see illustrations of what's been built and under construction. On the bottom left hand of the page are the parameters on tweaking more buildings. Add all of them except destroyed, cancelled and fantasy. For my preference I hit just the roof height box nothing else. To eliminate spire antenna etc. To create a downward motion in height value. For those of you that never done this. you will be wickedly impressed on the total volume of tall buildings coming to the city. IT'S INSANE IN MY OPINION WOW !!! Try it.
 
cd concept said:
Yes it's just a matter of time when it happens for the 150m. If you go to Toronto's Skyscraperpage's home page. And enter the skyscraper diagram button page. You will see illustrations of what's been built and under construction. On the bottom left hand of the page are the parameters on tweaking more buildings. Add all of them except destroyed, cancelled and fantasy. For my preference I hit just the roof height box nothing else. To eliminate spire antenna etc. To create a downward motion in height value. For those of you that never done this. you will be wickedly impressed on the total volume of tall buildings coming to the city. IT'S INSANE IN MY OPINION WOW !!! Try it.
Click to expand...
Thanks, CD. I am on there and keep track, but I'll try the setting the way you've suggested them. I'm kind of new at this. Thanks for your help. 😃
 
isaidso said:
As stated above, Toronto has far more 'high-rises' (12m+) than Chicago but it's also true that Chicago has more at the top end. So we still trail when looking at 100m+ buildings and 200m+ buildings. It's why their skyline still looks more imposing while our city seems to have more 'meat' to it. But yes, Toronto will zoom ahead of Chicago by those taller measures too. It's more a matter of 'when' than 'if'. City of Toronto in BLUE and the City of Chicago in RED.
Click to expand...

300m+ is going to be another couple decades.

400m+ might actually happen first as ThyssenKrupp Multi elevators will shake-up the cost of going super-tall once certified (in progress in Canada) as it supports multiple cars per shaft. It's more of a vertical train than an elevator, and would have an up-shaft and a down-shaft. The lower floor space lost due to an increasing number of elevator shafts to support high floors is reduced quite a bit.
 
rbt said:
300m+ is going to be another couple decades.

400m+ might actually happen first as ThyssenKrupp Multi elevators will shake-up the cost of going super-tall once certified (in progress in Canada) as it supports multiple cars per shaft. It's more of a vertical train than an elevator, and would have an up-shaft and a down-shaft. The lower floor space lost due to an increasing number of elevator shafts to support high floors is reduced quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Cool! But I don't think they'll build the development close to the CN Tower for obstruction reasons . But it could be a main tower for the East Harbour development. Having a dining and observation deck on top viewing the city core and Toronto Islands etc!
 
cd concept said:
Yes it's just a matter of time when it happens for the 150m. If you go to Toronto's Skyscraperpage's home page. And enter the skyscraper diagram button page. You will see illustrations of what's been built and under construction. On the bottom left hand of the page are the parameters on tweaking more buildings. Add all of them except destroyed, cancelled and fantasy. For my preference I hit just the roof height box nothing else. To eliminate spire antenna etc. To create a downward motion in height value. For those of you that never done this. you will be wickedly impressed on the total volume of tall buildings coming to the city. IT'S INSANE IN MY OPINION WOW !!! Try it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for suggesting this ! Toronto is BOOMING !
So many projects of all shapes and sizes :)
 
mandy_CN said:
Thanks for suggesting this ! Toronto is BOOMING !
So many projects of all shapes and sizes :)
Click to expand...
Believe it or not there's alot more skyscrapers and highrise towers of over 100m. That are not mentioned and should be in proposed or vision mode. For eg.East Harbour, Scarborough Town centre, Sherway Gardens, Yorkdale Mall that I can only recall in this city at this moment. Same principles apply in Toronto's metro area cities. When you go to Toronto's Skyscraperpage's home page. And punch in some metro cities like Mississauga, Vaughan, Richmond Hill etc. To the side of the page below discussion forum to do the same thing like Toronto. Richmond Hill home page is Mind blowing on how many 80 to 60 storeys are proposed. CHECK THEM ALL OUT IT'S MIND BLOWING!!!
 
cd concept said:
Cool! But I don't think they'll build the development close to the CN Tower for obstruction reasons . But it could be a main tower for the East Harbour development. Having a dining and observation deck on top viewing the city core and Toronto Islands etc!
Click to expand...

Indeed.

My thinking is there are a limited number of places the city would approve 300m and in many cases would likely approve taller (few shadowing concerns; thinner/taller means more park contribution) so the main constraint is the developers business case. A few GTA suburbs wouldn't object to a super-tall showpiece either.

I'm hoping for more mixed office-residential spaces. In theory you could have a residential lobby off to the side but still share a shaft with the office elevators as the elevators can travel horizontally in addition to vertically. You don't need physical separation, just time and direction separation and residential elevators passenger flow fits around the higher volume office passenger flow fairly well.

Huge number of unknowns still, even basics like pricing aren't public yet let alone reliability expectations and what separations are required for safety.
 
Last edited:
Back on topic please. Any further posts with just general skyscraper talk will be deleted.

42
 
Commentary from a local rep and Councillor Mike Layton:

The proposal from developer Parallax Corp. includes 1,118 residential units with retail on the ground floor but no offices in the building.

There would be a mix of 444 studios (40%), 377 one-bedrooms (34%), 184 two-bedrooms (16%), and 113 three-bedrooms (10%), as well as 95 parking spaces over four floors of an interior garage.

The tower is the latest addition to a number of other tall projects in the area, including a 79-storey tower across the street, where the clothing store Harry Rosen currently sits.

However, that proposal for 80 Bloor St. W. included a deal for the developer to expand Yorkville Park, providing more public space in the area in exchange for height.

The application for across the street, though, does not include any public space plans.

Alan Baker, president of the Greater Yorkville Residents Association (GYRA) said the proposal has “no redeeming new features at all for the public.”

“They end up with another tall building on Bloor Street,” he said.

The plans include the preservation of the facade of one heritage-listed building, where the Georg Jensen store used to be, which dates back to the 1950s. Baker is in favour of this to avoid a wall of glass along the street.

Local councillor Mike Layton said the height of the building is a “little bit aggressive” and is concerned that the density in the area might outpace the infrastructure.

Ideally, the city would work with the developer to include amenities for the neighbourhood, but Layton said it currently does not have great bargaining power due to the developer-friendly Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT), to which developers can appeal city decisions.

Layton said developers know they might get a friendly decision there, so are not too concerned with including what the city asks for in their applications.

Nevertheless, Layton doesn’t think this application will “fundamentally change” the area, but the growing precedent of tall towers in the area could eventually cause the “dam to break,” he said.

“We can’t just keep putting buildings out without providing the appropriate services.”
Click to expand...

streetsoftoronto.com

Another 79-storey condo tower proposed for Yorkville

Another tall tower is being proposed for Toronto’s Yorkville neighbourhood to create more housing in the city, but residents are concerned
streetsoftoronto.com streetsoftoronto.com
 
AlbertC said:
Commentary from a local rep and Councillor Mike Layton:



streetsoftoronto.com

Another 79-storey condo tower proposed for Yorkville

Another tall tower is being proposed for Toronto’s Yorkville neighbourhood to create more housing in the city, but residents are concerned
streetsoftoronto.com streetsoftoronto.com
Click to expand...
Rarely do I find myself agreeing with local councillors panicking about density, however they do have a point in this case.

It literally offers nothing in return to the neighbourhood. Not even pleasing design, or added retail. We've seen this play out already in the neighbourhood in the -yet to be finished -Cumberland at Yorkville plaza. This is giving eerily similar vibes.
 
I agree with Layton insofar as this proposal happening in what seems like a vacuum and setting a precedent with little, if any, consideration of the growing pressure on our existing infrastructure. Any other words, he's saying the system is broken and stacked (by the province) against anyone (on council) trying to fix it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top