Concord Sky | 298.99m | 85s | Concord Adex | a—A

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
1,316
And the hecklers who stated that this tower wouldn't become a supertall lol! The same thing will happen to the 90 storey Sugar Wharf B Tower that's at 299m!
 

Koops65

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
6,270
Location
Quarks Bar
UrbanToronto won't be supertalling this in the database file until we see the proof.

42
Of course... I look forward to seeing the proof myself. Just so you all know, it wasn't me who made the change ... somebody else at SSP did it. I don't know who.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,673
Reaction score
17,685
I believe the "proof" here is that the 299m is measured from the ground floor level, which generally aligns with the Gerrard St Elevation. However, Yonge St slopes downwards towards the lake, resulting in the southwest corner of the building being at a lower elevation. The plans do not appear to dimension this difference, however the survey plans illustrate a grade change of approximately 1.5 metres between Gerrard and the south side of the site (95.2m ASL vs. 93.7 ASL)

So yes, this would be 300 metres tall if measured from the south side of the building, or 299 metres tall if measured from the north side.

The architectural plans choose to measure from the ground floor of the building, which visually appears to sit just below the Gerrard St grade, likely around 95m ASL, so I imagine the building height measured from the southwest corner of the building to the top would be right about 300m.
 
Last edited:

M Anonymous

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 12, 2021
Messages
205
Reaction score
430
Location
Toronto
I believe the "proof" here is that the 299m is measured from the ground floor level, which generally aligns with the Gerrard St Elevation. However, Yonge St slopes downwards towards the lake, resulting in the southwest corner of the building being at a lower elevation. The plans do not appear to dimension this difference, however the survey plans illustrate a grade change of approximately 1.5 metres between Gerrard and the south side of the site (95.2m ASL vs. 93.7 ASL)

So yes, this would be 300 metres tall if measured from the south side of the building, or 299 metres tall if measured from the north side.

The architectural plans choose to measure from the ground floor of the building, which visually appears to site just below the Gerrard St grade, likely around 95m ASL, so I imagine the building height measured from the southwest corner of the building to the top would be right about 300m.
Hi, thanks for the helpful information. So will skyscraper fans, sites, CTBUH, and those who like to keep track of these things be expected to say the tower is only 299 metres? Or can it be officially called a SuperTall? It's great that it's 300 metres on the south side of the building, but if it's not officially acknowledged as a SuperTall, then that's too bad. 🤨
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
2,372
It's in the architectural plans. The ground floor has multiple planes according to the section diagram
 

Attachments

  • concord sky.png
    concord sky.png
    134.7 KB · Views: 25

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
3,154
Reaction score
3,812
Location
Leslieville
Apart from the cloistered chambers of UT, most Torontonians wouldn't care if this is a supertall or not; it's tall, period. Worrying about it being just shy of supertall status just seems like a tempest in a teapot. It's not as if there aren't supertalls being built right now in the city, with more planned. I find myself wishing we had credible bragging rights to a better street presence, for example, or worked harder to establish and maintain high standards for our urban infrastructure.
 

old boy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
791
Apart from the cloistered chambers of UT, most Torontonians wouldn't care if this is a supertall or not; it's tall, period. Worrying about it being just shy of supertall status just seems like a tempest in a teapot. It's not as if there aren't supertalls being built right now in the city, with more planned. I find myself wishing we had credible bragging rights to a better street presence, for example, or worked harder to establish and maintain high standards for our urban infrastructure.
I agree. This is just another tall building in the core which gives very little to the city in terms of attractive architecture. It's been all said before, time to move on, I reckon.
 

Top