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

[ADRM]

Yes it would have been expensive.What i would like is that the city give a tax break ,when a building will have special feature.
The tax break can be an incentive to have a better architecture.Or another way could be a special fund for architecture.

Let's clear our $29 billion capital project backlog before we start giving developers parapet tax breaks, please.

 

[interchange42]

Huh. Lots to ponder in this thread—including some strange speculation—since I last had time to read through it.

I just noticed that this one's become a fair bit stubbier in the latest revision. I'm not a fan of the changes.

Old:
View attachment 88448

vs. new:
View attachment 88449

Waterfront Toronto and the City wanted it shorter, mostly to reduce, AFAIK, the height pressure on the LCBO lands redevelopment.

A fairly incremental change. Agreed that the older design is sleeker but it's not that big a deal. More interested in the materials and cladding. Still not enamoured of what I've seen of the design.

Agreed re: materials. In regards to the design, it's certainly a unique melange of volumes and gestures, with few similar buildings to compare it to, if any. That's a recipe for you'll-never-get-unanimity-on-it-however-it-turns-out.

The change is not that dramatic and it still pretty.
The 2 week hearing will start October 24 and this time i hope it will pass.
Good luck Pinnacle international.

City Council voted to send representation to the OMB to support the application…
but its last revision—for technical reasons which sprung up during HPA's design work—brought increased heights to the towers, adding about 3 to 4 metres each. As far as I'm concerned, the City shouldn't object (the City could ask for a one storey reduction to compensate, but there's no density increase based on the height increase, so Pinnacle won't want to give up the density they negotiated for) but there's no guarantee in advance of the hearing that the City will accept the height increase nevertheless.

Unfortunate. The old one was over the top but, not in a garish sort of way. We could use more of that topping out our skyscrapers.

You right ,it rare that form of topping out here.
It futuristic and make like science fiction building.

It'll still stand out from the crowd.

I guess that's what happens when something is cut from 320m to 307m. The developer still wants the same number of units. So the more decorative elements suffer.

The earlier design was certainly more optimistically expressive, but things do change during negotiations. Everything on this development has been negotiated to death, and I don't blame the developer for sticking to the max density they were able to negotiate.

Ya the new slope is kinda generic. Looks like most of the new buildings that have that angle... Or pathetic attempt at it. Original slope parapet please... Go big and bold or don't bother taking up the land.

It doesn't look generic at all. What other developments are anything like this?

It very common here. The more there is unit,the bigger will be the cashflow and profit.
So very often,the quality will suffer.But i think it will still be a landmark.

Again, what's common about this development? This is one of the biggest and most idiosyncratic developments ever planned for Toronto.

Agreed. I think it will look good regardless. I'm sure if they were allowed the height they would keep the slope. But what do I know. Until it's a done deal who knows what will happen

If it's approved at 307.05 metres, it will be the tallest building in the country. Taller than Mirvish+Gehry, taller than The One. For those stuck in the era of the imperial system, and who care about Supertalls being higher than 1,000' (as opposed to just 300m), at 1,011', this will be our only 1,000+ footer. (Mirvish+Gehry is heading for 1,000' even, The One is heading for 998'.)

Is it confirm the height was a planning issue or is it Pinnacle slashing their budget by millions of dollars and construction time? The city hasn't been too concerned over parapet heights before.

Regarding that parapet, the image shown above has one fin higher than 307.05m, but other images show that fin top off at 307.05m exactly, no parapet beyond that.

I do not know, but it is unfortunate if it is an unnecessary decision.

Personally I think the City/Waterfront Toronto have been nitpicking the height, but at the same time I don't really care that it's come down a bit. Big deal.

It all boils down to $$$, as the roofline is something that can't be monetized.

The first roof I think would have been fairly expensive due to the structure needed to hold up a 10-storey decorative element.

Impossible to say if the earlier plan would have made the difference between a landmark and not a landmark, but landmark quality is worth something.

Yes it would have been expensive.What i would like is that the city give a tax break ,when a building will have special feature.
The tax break can be an incentive to have a better architecture.Or another way could be a special fund for architecture.

It would be next to impossible to put a value on "better architecture", but…

Let's clear our $29 billion capital project backlog before we start giving developers parapet tax breaks, please.

@ADRM is right: that would be a waste of our financial resources anyway.

Meanwhile, there are other interesting things about the revised plans, including that a 115-suite hotel has been worked into the podium of the tallest tower, and that there will be a sizeable affordable housing component in the podium of the other two residential towers—224 units, out of a total of 2,858 units on the site.

There will also be 3,362 long term bicycle stalls in the development, another 643 short term stalls, and 100 surface spots for bikes. That's like, UUUUUUUUUUGE.

They're also going for an 8-storey deep parking garage. Could this be the largest excavation in Toronto since City Hall?

It's going to be an amazing development, all in all.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The proponents' Planning Addendum Letter (on the dev app site) also detailed other changes (eg. reduction in podium floors - addition of one floor to each of the towers to compensate w increase in height) - see table below:

(1 Yonge Planning Addendum Letter - Sept 20, 2016)

AoD

 

[adHominem]

They're also going for an 8-storey deep parking garage.

That would be challenging, going that deep this close to the lake, wouldn't it?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That would be challenging, going that deep this close to the lake, wouldn't it?

Challenging but it can be done - for perspective the WTC "Bathtub" in NYC in reclaimed land is 7s deep. Wonder if this will go to the shale - excavating through it is apparently a lot costlier than digging through fill.

AoD

 

[maestro]

That would be challenging, going that deep this close to the lake, wouldn't it?

The depth is probably challenging. I don't see the depth in proximity to the lake being any different from other excavations including the 4 storey deep George Brown Campus within metres of the harbour.

 

[interchange42]

Wonder if this will go to the shale - excavating through it is apparently a lot costlier than digging through fill.

AoD

Yes, it will be going into the shale. It's only around 10 metres down here.

42

 

[enrigue8]

It will be very hard to be realized.
It will take a lot of money,time and energy .
But it one of the greatest project in Toronto,so the waiting time will be worth it.

 

[maestro]

Pinnacle International, Onni and Amacon were all started by brothers in the DeCotiis family. They are all here competing in Toronto. I don't see this as a big hurdle for Pinnacle. It's comes down to whether Pinnacle chooses to build it as proposed or not.

 

[jdoh]

I was at the CTBUH conference in Shenzhen earlier this week where David Pontarini presented One Yonge and a couple renderings I hadn't seen before. He emphasized that Toronto's skyline is developing with not just one height peak, but multiple height peaks. This argument allowed them to pursue supertalls at the foot of Yonge. Its intriguing to see the project with the rest of the skyline.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

Looks pretty great.

 

[biospherian]

Here's a better pic of the last rendering that jdoh posted.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Given the developer in question, should we expect someone from TF presenting the next time?

AoD

 

[steveve]

He emphasized that Toronto's skyline is developing with not just one height peak, but multiple height peaks. This argument allowed them to pursue supertalls at the foot of Yonge. Its intriguing to see the project with the rest of the skyline

And it's nice that our skyline is headed in this direction, with multiple peaks, even if they all aren't visible from the Lake. Since it was built, the CN Tower has been the centrepiece and focal point of the skyline, but in many ways, I feel like had unintentionally induced a height barrier over the rest of city, where no structure could eclipse even its main observation level without being offensive, or looking 'off'.
However, if you look at a city like Shanghai, where its own tower (Oriental Pearl) is now dwarfed by one mega-tall and contended by two super-talls, the skyline is completely redefined while still retaining its original charm. Visually, the Shanghai skyline still looks right, which I believe is achieved by great design and planning.
While I don't suggest the full 553m of the CN Tower's height be eclipsed (nor do I think it will ever happen), if well designed super-talls start grazing the skyline in the right places, I have no problem with that. 1 Yonge is the perfect place to start.

 

[enrigue8]

It will be a great addition to our skyline.
Go pinnacle !