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

androiduk said:
Anyone know what this type of app. usually refers to?

Application: Zoning Review Status: Not Started

Location: 388 YONGE ST
TORONTO ON

Ward 27: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 11 293741 ZPR 00 ZR Accepted Date: Oct 17, 2011

Project: Apartment Building Other Proposal

Description: Request for comments from Transportation Services (ROW Management)
Click to expand...

ROW Management would mean Right-of-way Management as this is Transportation Services after all. This must refer to some encroachment on a Right-of-way on some side of the building for construction purposes, could be any of them. It may also not concern a new encroachment, but may concern extending the period of an existing one.

42
 
Tulse said:
Spires are cheating.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but everyone else is doing it. The New York Times building in New York (227m roof, 319m spire) is considered a supertall, while FCP (298m roof, 355m antenna) is not. Not to mention the argument of Scotia vs Trump. I say go ahead, as long as it complements the structure.
 
reaperexpress said:
Yeah, but everyone else is doing it. The New York Times building in New York (227m roof, 319m spire) is considered a supertall, while FCP (298m roof, 355m antenna) is not. Not to mention the argument of Scotia vs Trump. I say go ahead, as long as it complements the structure.
Click to expand...

i think spires are fine, so long as they are of a certain thickness to be noticeable, and so long as they don't occupy too much of a %age of the buildings total height (something like over 10-15%). i think that is a fair law.
 
interchange42 said:
ROW Management would mean Right-of-way Management as this is Transportation Services after all. This must refer to some encroachment on a Right-of-way on some side of the building for construction purposes, could be any of them. It may also not concern a new encroachment, but may concern extending the period of an existing one.

42
Click to expand...

That would be a fair guess. Longer construction period than initially applied for may mean that they have to extend the existing permit to cover the sidewalks (seeing as how they are technically in the road ROW). That would be my guess.
 
interchange42 said:
ROW Management would mean Right-of-way Management as this is Transportation Services after all. This must refer to some encroachment on a Right-of-way on some side of the building for construction purposes, could be any of them. It may also not concern a new encroachment, but may concern extending the period of an existing one. 42
Click to expand...

I suspect it is to do with driveways (too close to corners, only allowed to turn west etc etc) as I have never seen a permit application of this type for a temporary encroachment for construction.
 
steveve said:
i think spires are fine, so long as they are of a certain thickness to be noticeable, and so long as they don't occupy too much of a %age of the buildings total height (something like over 10-15%). i think that is a fair law.
Click to expand...

But its not a 'law'.
Its just an arbitrary standard that the CTBUH set.
 
I can actually see the forming walking on Yonge Street, when I'm on the eastside of the street.

Another 2 or 3 weeks, it will be clearly visible above the podium.
 
Fifth floor rising.

photo-970.jpg
 
vegeta_skyline said:
But its not a 'law'.
Its just an arbitrary standard that the CTBUH set.
Click to expand...

that was steveve's law, i don't really know the official percentage or whatever that they have in place or if there it is even part of that rule for spires cheating,

as of now, ground level isn't very exciting at Aura (since the setback makes the top floor barely visible... at least the cladding can keep us occupied..
 
I just absolutely hate that standard.

As I noted on UT's newspage here;
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/10/trump-tower-climbs-upwards-questions-height-measurement-arise

Instead of having 3 different standards with the most weight given to height to architectural top. I feel there should only be two categories and equal weight given to both;

One for 'Roof Height'
Which would height to the roof or ceiling of the highest floor (occupied or mechanical floor)

And one for 'Pinnacle Height'
Which would be to the absolute highest point on a building. The type of structure; antenna, spire, fins, etc. that provides any additional height above the roof height could be noted.

Toronto Buildings would be ranked as follows (including u/c buildings);

Roof Height standard;
1. 978ft - FCP
2. 902ft - Scotia
3. 874ft - Aura
4. 784ft - Commerce Court West
5. 776ft - Trump
6. 768ft - ICE East
7. 745ft - TD Canada Trust Tower
8. 731ft - TD Center
9. 704ft - Bay Adelaide Center West
10. 702ft - Shangri-la

Pinnacle Height standard;
1. 1,165ft - FCP (antenna)
2. 942ft - Commerce Court West (antenna)
3. 909ft - Trump (spire)
4. 902ft - Scotia
5. 874ft - Aura
6. 856ft - TD Canada Trust Tower (spire)
7. 768ft - ICE East
8. 731ft - TD Center
9. 715ft - Bay Adelaide Center West (glass fins)
10. 702ft - Shangri-la

source;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Canada
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top