Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

Lenser said:
But aside from the notable fervour of skyscraper enthusiasts, I suspect few people care about such distinctions. A great city consists of a variety of important traits, and the height of its buildings need never enter into the equation.
Click to expand...

I agree that a great city consists of a variety of traits but it would be nice to break the 300m mark. The height of buildings shouldn't fall into the equation but it does fall into the equation when you look at skylines. It would be pretty cool to see how such a building will look and see it rise.
 
Critique,

There will be little material difference in how the skyline looks betweem a tower just under 300m and one that is slightly above it.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Critique,

There will be little material difference in how the skyline looks betweem a tower just under 300m and one that is slightly above it.

AoD
Click to expand...

So then throw in a 350 meter/1150 foot bldg....every other major world city is doing it.
..Even the town notorious for its NIMBYs (San Francisco), is ready to build a couple supertalls
 
Obviously it's not a very important determinant of urban quality or vitality but it's not completely ridiculous to want Toronto to compete in the 'world's tallest tower' game. Probably doesn't help that we've had a few generations who grew up with at least some pride in the CN tower height record.

I don't think it's totally new, either. European cities are litered with functionally useless monuments to nothing. The Brandenburg Gate is hardly a useful piece of urban infrastructure but it's still an appreciated monument. Paris is characterized by pointless monumentalism, even if none of them are particularly tall.

The criticisms of supertall-ism sometimes verge a bit into unrealistic and hypocritical function over form. A super tall probably isn't a practical use of real estate in Toronto's economic condition, but it's not like we don't applaud other structures which triumph form over function (New City Hall's windowless back half...)
 
Although I enjoy seeing tall buildings rise, I feel that for any new building, form and function override the race to the 300m status mark. I would rather see Toronto build something that is 280m tall while challenging new architectural bounds than I would another glass box that is 350m tall. Simultaneously, the structure should fit well into the existing skyline and surrounding neighborhood.
 
Last edited:
Lenser said:
In an era when megatalls are as yet still a rarity, it would be nice for Toronto to break that 1000 foot ceiling so as to at least to enter supertall status.

But aside from the notable fervour of skyscraper enthusiasts, I suspect few people care about such distinctions. A great city consists of a variety of important traits, and the height of its buildings need never enter into the equation.
Click to expand...

Agree...although most of the population could probably care less, within the world of skyscraper geeks, getting a couple of supertalls is a sort of validation of the city...I think there is nothing wrong with wanting, or getting them....and as the reinvention of Toronto continues, replacing First Canadian Place with a new tallest would seem a logical process.
 
AG:

So then throw in a 350 meter/1150 foot bldg....every other major world city is doing it.
..Even the town notorious for its NIMBYs (San Francisco), is ready to build a couple supertalls
Click to expand...

The private sector isn't doing it, and the city can't (and have no reason or basis) to compel them to do otherwise.

yyzer:

Agree...although most of the population could probably care less, within the world of skyscraper geeks, getting a couple of supertalls is a sort of validation of the city...I think there is nothing wrong with wanting, or getting them....and as the reinvention of Toronto continues, replacing First Canadian Place with a new tallest would seem a logical process.
Click to expand...

If what's being proposed is appropriate, of high (better - superb) quality, then by all means, bring it on. Otherwise - it would have been a validation of the other sort, and not in a good way.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Critique,

There will be little material difference in how the skyline looks betweem a tower just under 300m and one that is slightly above it.

AoD
Click to expand...

I agree but it will be an accomplishment on other levels. Though it wouldn't look much different in construction than other big proposals, it would definitely be more anticipated and welcomed (considering it is as functional and aesthetically pleasing as other super talls).
 
Ramako said:
I think the interest in supertall status in Toronto is partially due to the fact that, for many years, when Toronto wasn't known for being a thriving, cultural metropolis, it was known for height. There was an era when we had some of the tallest buildings in the entire world (not even including the CN Tower), and that was a point of pride. Whereas before, being tall was one of our main claims to fame, now it's more of a characteristic, but certainly still part of our identity.
Click to expand...

Except that, well, that was an era before Toronto became known for being a thriving, cultural metropolis, as you say.

Moreover, let's consider that Toronto wasn't alone in this: it was around that time that places like NYC and Chicago stopped banking on higher-and-higher as the be-all and end-all; after Sears and WTC, sobriety, so to speak. With an assist from an oil crisis, the biggest financial slump since the Depression, and the net accumulus of a decade or so of reconsidering once-holy credos of "progress", "prosperity", etc. Height in and of itself became less prized for the same reasons that urban superhighways and the like came to be rejected as emblems of "positive urbanity"--it became an emblem of discredited, and all too often (as at WTC, above all) white-elephant, excess.

In which case, it may be noted that once Toronto got past the height obsession, it became *more* internationally noted for its urbanity, not less--the Crombie-era "City That Works", the town where Jane Jacobs settled, etc. Once we got over "building tall" and "building big", we got more engaged to the elaborate warp and weft of raw, healthy urbanity. And same with NYC, Chicago, etc--which is why they largely abdicated the "quest for height" to boomburgs in Asia...
 
Funny because NYC is building 4 soopertalls right now, two of them reaching 1,400 feet up into the air. (The height if the WTC) It also has an additional 9 super talls proposed, one going over 1,500 feet.yep, they are not going the way of the midrises.

Similarly, Chicago had a 2,000 foot building under construction before the crash hit, another 1.100 footer that got cancelled, and recently completed the 1,171 foot tall trump tower. A 950 foot tall tower recently started construction as well.

Even traditionally NIMBY filled cities like San fransisco have 1,100 foot buildings in the plans, and new soopertalls are popping up across Europe. London, Moscow, Paris, they all have them or have them coming down the pipeline. I find your argument to be false, the world is increasingly embracing the skyscraper while much of Canada continues to enforce strict height limits on all but 2 of its major cities.. The world has not fallen out of love with the skyscraper, it's love for it seems to just be beginning...
 
It's completely off the mark to insinuation that interest in height is a sign of immaturity. Some may build edifices to compensate for insecurity, but there's something to be said for ambition and a competitive spirit. Cities that have that spark and fire never give up that interest in reaching for the stars. It's part of the human condition and it's been that way for as long as records have been kept. It's cities that become content just existing that bow out of the game. Alpha cities do not.

Cities like London are building taller and taller while cities like Montreal seem to have lost their mojo.
 
Last edited:
To think that New York City already had plans for a half dozen or more 1000 footers back in the late 1920's.. That's ambition, and each one a work of art. Amazing!
 
It has to be an economic factor also. Maximize return on ever increasing property values. Buildings that stand out also become known by the name world wide. No better advertising.
 
Height (at world ranking of what, 100+?) is not going to get you worldwide recognition. On the other hand exemplar architectual qualities would.

Isaidso:

Height in itself no - obsessing over whether a tower will make the magical 300m mark and ignoring all the other aspects of a project? That is the mark of insecurity.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top