Toronto CIBC SQUARE | 241.39m | 50s | Hines | WilkinsonEyre

  • Thread starter Suicidal Gingerbread Man
  • Start date
Something to stay tuned too?

108B941A-1D2F-4015-B485-DA508DF0B331.jpeg


5F501EAD-E786-48F1-8D33-C666EBB86D19.jpeg


AE655DE4-9145-4471-BBEE-FBCA8BCFA4E8.jpeg


66B8028D-BA44-4610-B211-26BA2BD8CD6D.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 5A9E6642-CC35-4BF3-893B-626F197FBD26.jpeg
    5A9E6642-CC35-4BF3-893B-626F197FBD26.jpeg
    448.8 KB · Views: 147
  • BC420CAA-EF6C-45DA-976F-6178FD0ACE7D.jpeg
    BC420CAA-EF6C-45DA-976F-6178FD0ACE7D.jpeg
    384.6 KB · Views: 158
I believe they are...just not the same shape. :)
They were not originally proposed as the same shape, but that changed as the design evolved: they will be the same shape.

42
 
Such a tight sight! Exciting to see them dig but then you realize it's gonna be another year or so until this actually starts rising above ground. At least we have the first tower to admire while we wait.
 
Such a tight sight! Exciting to see them dig but then you realize it's gonna be another year or so until this actually starts rising above ground. At least we have the first tower to admire while we wait.

You think it will be that long? I would think it will be well above ground in 6 months. All depends I guess, because 160 Front seemed to take a year to get where it's at now after shovels first went in the ground.
 
They were not originally proposed as the same shape, but that changed as the design evolved: they will be the same shape.

42
Oh...almost missed this.

So to clarify, are we talking about the area of the construction site or the footprint of the building itself?

Different shape for the former; the same shape for the latter as I understand it. Unless I got that wrong.
 

Back
Top