Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

Big Daddy said:
Apparently the taller tower will be 998.41 feet tall. Oops, no super tall here.
Click to expand...

Posted really as an observation, it makes me wonder why they would stop just short of thousand feet if indeed that is a super tall target. Does the city have a rule against thousand feet? It just seems odd they would stop 19 inches shy.
 
Big Daddy said:
Posted really as an observation, it makes me wonder why they would stop just short of thousand feet if indeed that is a super tall target. Does the city have a rule against thousand feet? It just seems odd they would stop 19 inches shy.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware these developers were considering that particular Imperial-based target as a priority when formulating the project's blueprints. Meeting "supertall" specs may not have really been part of their determination process, by in large.

It certainly wasn't for their three-tower proposal.
 
Maybe thats just the height it is meant to be given the floors and mechanical. Seriously why would anyone try to change the design/specs over 19 inches that are completely arbitrary.
 
Did you folks bother to read the report? The taller tower is 305m in height.

I'm not a fan of the parking be doubled from the original proposal.
 
RyeJay said:
I wasn't aware these developers were considering that particular Imperial-based target as a priority when formulating the project's blueprints. Meeting "supertall" specs may not have really been part of their determination process, by in large.

It certainly wasn't for their three-tower proposal.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was their target, but 1,000 feet has always been a goal for those building very tall buildings and it does seem odd to stop so close. It would be easy to tweak the roof element for example to reach the 1,000 foot (yes, nice catch RyeJay, you're right, that's imperial) mark.

I personally hope they do.
 
There was a third revision, submitted to the city on June 11, 2014, which made a few minor revisions including the height. The 998.41 feet number sounds like the second reiteration of the tower. Look at AoD's post.
 
An article in the Globe and Mail, dated May 27, 2014, which cites the taller tower as 304.3 metres (998.41ft).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...in-scaled-down-condo-project/article18872927/
With the concessions to the city, Mr. Mirvish is hoping to receive approval to smash through height restrictions. One of the towers is designed to stretch 92 storeys into the sky, six more than first proposed. The tower would be 304.3 metres high, making it about six metres taller than First Canadian Place, the country’s tallest building outside of structures such as the CN Tower.
Click to expand...

The June 11, 2014 revision to the city, as mentioned in the various planning documents and correspondence, cite the height as 305 metres.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-71353.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-70050.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/te/comm/communicationfile-48162.pdf

Interesting that Josh Matlow, Kristyn Wong-Tam, and Rob Ford were the 3 votes against approval.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2014.TE33.8
 
According to the latest report...

8FF7567C-0002-4F80-B168-3917B08B5ABE.jpg
 
fedplanner said:
*sigh* That's the old elevation drawings and not representative of the June 11, 2014 revision.
Click to expand...
Well, that was from the link you provided. If anyone has anything more current, I'd love to see it. Even the "old" report speaks of 305 metres even while the attached drawing shows 304.31 metres.

I'd love to see something more recent.

06F3A6CE-A30C-4547-BCD4-8BCFA3B1725E.png
 
Big Daddy said:
I didn't say it was their target, but 1,000 feet has always been a goal for those building very tall buildings and it does seem odd to stop so close. It would be easy to tweak the roof element for example to reach the 1,000 foot (yes, nice catch RyeJay, you're right, that's imperial) mark.

I personally hope they do.
Click to expand...

I suspect the economics of the endeavour would be more moving than the achievement of a relatively arbitrary title -- which fluctuates between metric and imperial, and between those who do and do not care. As far as I know, there are no tax incentives for developers to seek such prestige.

I've chosen not to criticise the Mirvish-Gehry towers based on whether they are supertalls or not; rather, I judge the Mirvish-Gehry towers as being an excellent compromise in balancing heritage preservation with high-density real estate investments.
And this also brings me to consider the City of Toronto... because you see, this construction surge has apparently been the strongest, most long-lived (and still living) real estate boom in the history of Canadian Confederation. Thus far, Toronto seems to be proving itself a model for sustainability. The contributing factors, of course, are debatable. :) Nevertheless: It's kind of a big deal that, Toronto is approving the magnitude that is this Mirvish-Gehry proposal, even after approaching two decades of crane-filled skies due to continuous developments.

If Toronto's construction industry has been progressing this long without the implementation of supertalls, perhaps lower-density buildings are what helps drive this longevity.
 
In my years in the industry I've never once heard the term "super-tall". It is an arbitrary figure that only seems to be discussed on Internet forums. I would hazard a guess that most people in the architecture, design, building, planning professions have never heard of super-talls or mega-talls or whatever other terms there are out there... and I'd hazard a further guess that Mirvish has never heard nor would care about the arbitrary figure and maybe even Gehry May not be familiar with this imaginary line that internet skyscraper enthusiasts seem to think matters - for them the fact that the project surpasses FCP as Canada's tallest is likely the only line that they care about and for the planning department that shadow not hitting the Queen sidewalk is a line that they care about. These are two real lines that exist in the Toronto context.... 1000 feet doesn't really mean anything...
 
Mike in TO said:
In my years in the industry I've never once heard the term "super-tall". It is an arbitrary figure that only seems to be discussed on Internet forums. I would hazard a guess that most people in the architecture, design, building, planning professions have never heard of super-talls or mega-talls or whatever other terms there are out there...
Click to expand...

That may have been true in years past, but come on... unless they've been living under a rock by now I'd imagine most people in the industry would of at least heard of the term "supertall". That's not to say they actually care about such a designation, I agree with you completely there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top