Mongo
Senior Member
Here is the image. If the towers are in fact cruciform, they must be barely so.
Toronto Concord Canada House | 231.97m | 74s | Concord Adex | Arcadis
- Thread starter yyzer
- Start date
Here is the image. If the towers are in fact cruciform, they must be barely so.
Elevations are totally flat, with all perspective removed. You cannot tell anything about the building's form from them.
42
42
modernizt
Senior Member
A building with a cruciform plan will appear "rectangular" in an elevation because an elevation is a vertical 2D projection.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Tuscani01
Senior Member
This is correct, and the elevations shown on the sign so far look like the renderings I saw. The design is really nothing special. A lot of people are going to be disappointed here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramako
Moderator
We were already disappointed once we'd read the words "Page+Steele".
Mongo
Senior Member
I wonder what it will be called? As far as I know, it was never going to be called "Signature Tower", that was a widely spread misunderstanding of it being the final, signature (as in showcase) tower of the CityPlace development.
maestro
Senior Member
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Indeed - going from Busby to aA to P+S is like being promised filet mignon and getting served McDonalds Happy Meal.
Make that 2 Happy Meals.
AoD
Mongo
Senior Member
They've been supersized, though.
I've never had a Happy Meal though, can they even be supersized? Would a supersized Happy Meal be called an Orgasmic Meal?
Probably the wrong question to ask in a forum about giant erections.
Last edited:
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Based on CityPlace's building design evolution, they reached "Happy Meals" with Parade, with the skybridge and Approaching Red being the toys. Spectra/Quartz/FWD are Taco Bell territory. I shudder to think what these Signature towers will look like.
adHominem
Senior Member
Continuing the metaphor, I suspect we'll wind up with day-old poutine.
The thread title for these towers has been altered to reflect that the penthouse levels of these two towers are the 75th and 64th floors. The 79 and 68-storey counts reflected mechanical levels above (along with a lounge sandwiched in amongst them on each tower) which we do not count for our total number of floors.
With the elimination of the -4s and the 13th from the floor numbering system, I expect we will see the towers quoted as 83 and 71 storeys tall.
The shorter tower is 215.43 m tall, or 706 feet, while the taller one is 247.23 m, or 811 feet tall.
42
With the elimination of the -4s and the 13th from the floor numbering system, I expect we will see the towers quoted as 83 and 71 storeys tall.
The shorter tower is 215.43 m tall, or 706 feet, while the taller one is 247.23 m, or 811 feet tall.
42
Last edited:
travis3000
Active Member
Great thanks for the info. Not bad heights overall. Another two 200m+ proposals for the city. Hopefully they won't get chopped down in height because any further height loss will really ruin the "signature" tall tower effect they are going for. You wouldn't want these to blend in with the other Cityplace towers.
DtTO
Active Member
Depending on how mediocre their design is, that might be ideal.