Commerce Court 3 | 302m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,038
Reaction score
496
I like the new design as well.
I thin it better fits Commerce Court.
The angles of the previous design seemed out of place.

That said, if they replaced the screens at the top of the tower with a crown (not setbacks, but texture wrapping around)
(so emulating Commerce Court North instead of Commerce Court West) that would provide some interest.

The glass pavilion still seems to be a weak point.
They should retain some of the concrete grid from Commerce Court South to ground it.

Like the top of this tower below.

 
Last edited:

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,343
Reaction score
2,818
Location
South Parkdale
Combing through some files I came across a cool 80-storey concept plan for CC3 which was passed over in favour of the shorter tower and spire plan:
View attachment 176558
It makes me wonder with every 2nd proposed office bldg. having shadowing issues in the downtown core if we will ever see an 80-90s/350/400m built??
I can only think of the of the area from Front to King and University to Bay :)
 

NeilV

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Messages
91
Reaction score
195
Location
Toronto
It makes me wonder with every 2nd proposed office bldg. having shadowing issues in the downtown core if we will ever see an 80-90s/350/400m built??
I can only think of the of the area from Front to King and University to Bay :)
It's such a shame that city planning's extreme aversion to shadows means that even King & Bay can't support anything over 300m. My prediction is that Toronto will never see a 80-storey/350m-roof-height office building. :( Inside the core I don't think there are any developable sites remaining that won't cast a shadow on either Nathan Philips Square, St. James Park, or Berczy Park. And of course outside the core, height would be restricted by the clothesline policy.
 

WislaHD

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
8,792
Reaction score
6,568
Location
Midtown Toronto
I'll take two 40-60s office towers over one 80-storey office tower.

Why concentrate everything onto one site? We aren't constrained by land (with office space at least, residential is another story). Why not continue expanding out our financial core and have everything connected underground via the Path. :)
 

TrickyRicky

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
593
I'm not specifically defending how shadowing is handled in the city; however, I think we need to consider that shadowing does matter if we are considering how to design for our specific climate. Toronto has a very specific and extreme local climate with its own advantages and challenges. That said the horse has already left the barn in terms of how the CBD considers its environmental context (it doesn't).
 

ryguy7787

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
193
Reaction score
145
As long as this is the place card and they're still tinkering with the design, I'm quite happy with the height reduction.

I agree with Cd Concept, plus we have a plethora of soon to be facad-ed 8-15 storie building on and around Bay Street to fill up the density downtown.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,550
Reaction score
9,334
I feel like throwing in the fray yet again that I strongly believe that First Canadian Place is in fact not 298m tall. Google earth gives a 292m reading from King Street to the top of the mechanical penthouse, which tends to be accurate within a metre or two (it gives exactly accurate measurements of Aura, L Tower, Bay Adelaide, and a few others I tested, for example). This means that Commerce Court 3 would actually be taller than it by about 8m.

I should really go to the archives and pull the architectural plans for FCP to answer this, it's been bugging me for a while.
 

someMidTowner

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
8,873
Reaction score
11,731
Location
(Former) Ward 16
I feel like throwing in the fray yet again that I strongly believe that First Canadian Place is in fact not 298m tall. Google earth gives a 292m reading from King Street to the top of the mechanical penthouse, which tends to be accurate within a metre or two (it gives exactly accurate measurements of Aura, L Tower, Bay Adelaide, and a few others I tested, for example). This means that Commerce Court 3 would actually be taller than it by about 8m.

I should really go to the archives and pull the architectural plans for FCP to answer this, it's been bugging me for a while.
You'd need Brookfield's written permission to submit a routine disclosure application on that.
Maybe the supporting docs from the 2012-completed recladding would be easier to dig up?
I'd still love to see the original 1970s documents
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,550
Reaction score
9,334
You'd need Brookfield's written permission to submit a routine disclosure application on that.
Surely you'd be able to pull up some staff reports from the time with some elevations or something?

I know I went and pulled the original plans for a century old building about 5 years ago (hand drawn blue prints and all). I imagined it would be similar here.

I don't believe the re-cladding work needed an SPA application, did it? I figure it would have been only permit. If so, I imagine it's routine disclosure only.
 

Top