Toronto Aura at College Park | 271.87m | 78s | Canderel | Graziani + Corazza

lol! Sammo got banned from SSP!...

The height increase might take a while before its official or scrapped...we'll know so once they start actually "start" the construction...
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
I went by tonight, sans camera. Nothing to report, except that there doesn't appear to be any appreciable progress towards a temporary bridge for the access ramp. Which I suppose is a subset of nothing. Otherwise, can I interest you in some piles of dirt?
Click to expand...

Did you see any pools of water on site, such as in the south-eastern corner?
 
I haven't heard anything from the inside regarding a variance for additional height. It may still happen, but there's some challenges:

- The city may say no. The project went through a tough design review and the results may have included an informal height cap. Urban design staff were never very excited about the height of this project to begin with.
- Parking. The amount of parking is fixed, so the new units would require a variance for reduced parking plus they'd have to be marketed without parking. I think these buildings are big with investors, and investors don't like units without parking.
- time to market. Seems minor, but every addiional floor of construction delays final turnover of the building by 3 or 4 days. Turnover is when you get money from banks, so slowing down construction may not be possible if they're over-leveraged.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the extra height, I'm just not 100% sure it will happen.
 
My understanding - from an informal conversation with one of the people at the site - is that to go over 75 floors would require anti-sway compensation system to be incorporated into the top of the building, and that construction of the building, as currently designed and permitted, does not include one. The step up in time and cost to complete the building with an anti-sway system would be substantial - way more than the week or less to add incremental typical floors.

AHK
 
Good. 75 floors is plenty and the design is just fine as is.
 
AHK said:
My understanding - from an informal conversation with one of the people at the site - is that to go over 75 floors would require anti-sway compensation system to be incorporated into the top of the building, and that construction of the building, as currently designed and permitted, does not include one. The step up in time and cost to complete the building with an anti-sway system would be substantial - way more than the week or less to add incremental typical floors.

AHK
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe, that at 75 floors, it doesn't already have an anti-sway system.
 
khristopher said:
I find it hard to believe, that at 75 floors, it doesn't already have an anti-sway system.
Click to expand...

I would think that the height of a building at which an anti-sway system would be required would vary for each building, depending on its structural design. The Empire State Building (no anti-sway system) is much taller than the John Hancock building in Boston, which (to my knowledge) was the first building to have an anti-sway system installed, to resolve the problem of building flex causing the upper floor windows failing and falling out. Several buildings in Toronto are actually taller than the Aura will be, however the design of First Canadian Place (not quite as many floors, but greater slab-to-slab height) is such that at that height, sway was not material enough for an anti-sway system to be required. I think it comes down to the overal shape and profile of the building, combined with its structural rigidity, to determine at which height an anti-sway system would be required.

AHK
 
How much do these buildings normally sway at the top? I wouldn't want my PH hot tub sloshing water all over the place...
 
It also depends on the winds in the area.

As for how much they normally sway, it shouldn't be noticeable enough that your water would be sloshing around in the tub. If it was doing that, I don't think it would be safe.
 
^The literal net strikes again.
I would be curious to know the difference between a steel and concrete framed building in terms of wind sway. I would think that concrete structures are inherently more rigid than steel...I doubt you would notice much movement either way.
 
As has been mentioned, anti sway devices are required depending on the structural configuration of the building more than the materials used. They are used in both concrete and steel structures. They are used more for comfort of the occupants than anything else. The human body is very sensative to motion, even a very small amount of motion.
 
.
ora1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top