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

[Mongo]

That's 45 Bay. There's been an office proposal out there for a while around 244 metres.

According to this 2010 report, pre-leasing was scheduled to start in 2011. I would not be surprised to see an even bigger proposal for this site, given the recent trends in the area.

In any case, this is a huge site, about the same size as the MLS / Ice / 120 Harbour sites, and I would not be surprised to see a pair of 200m+ residential towers plus the standard 30s Southcore office brick go up there. But it certainly could support a pair of supertalls, maybe one residential and one office.

 

[Northern Magus]

I am becoming increasingly convinced that the Toronto Star lands will be home to Synergy. This development is described as "100+ stories", and its own website states that it is "coming this fall to Yonge Street in downtown Toronto".

For something aiming to be that tall, there are very few other potential sites. With 1 Yonge, the odds of NIMBY backlashes against that kind of height are probably the lowest in the entire city.

It'll be interesting to see how tall the developer will get permission for, and even then it'll be interesting to see what the market will permit. Something iconic would more than likely help sell units.

So if Greece and Italy don't take the euro down over the next four or five months and the US doesn't go into a serious recession, we shouldn't see any letdown in our condo market -- and a project like this may actually get rolling within the next three or so years.

 

[Automation Gallery]

How exactly is this the ideal spot for a supertall nevermind the availability and size of the property? I just don't see it. This isn't Bay or York Street and a block and a half away is a planned waterfront community comprised mainly of medium to moderate high rises. It's a reason why the Pinnacle Centre towers facing Yonge are a good 10 to 20 storeys shorter than the Bay towers..

Well this is the foot of Yonge street, where we now know that a couple proposed major projects of 70 stories and up are proposed for the neighbourhood (90 Harbour, 2x70s and 120-130 Harbour, 1x75s)..
Like it or not maestro, we most likely will see a couple of good size (70-80s) towers planned for this iconic location, again the only reason that the Pinnacale Centre has buildings 20 stories shorter at aprox. 50s is because when they were planned 8 years ago the norm for the area was 40 storeys...times have changed since then.
The height transition into that waterfront community will most likely take place gently east of Cooper street towards Cherry, where we already know that by Sherbourne we will be seeing MONDE at 43 storeys/140 meters.

 

[kd86]

does anyone have any updates on the snynergy proposal. wasnt there a sign saying it would come this fall?

 

[Big Daddy]

You know, with all this "boom" going on, why can't we get a 1,000 footer?

There are 6 supertalls underway or proposed for NYC and check out these supertalls planned or underway around he world.

We have great sites, opportunities and a pretty good economy so wassup?

 

[CITY_LOVER]

You know, with all this "boom" going on, why can't we get a 1,000 footer?

There are 6 supertalls underway or proposed for NYC and check out these supertalls planned or underway around he world.

We have great sites, opportunities and a pretty good economy so wassup?

Hi there, I know I'm going to get in trouble for saying this from many on the forum but here's why:

1) Developers will take too long to propose something really tall and in turn may miss the chance to build something because by the time they get to it, the economics might have soured or there will be few to no sites to develop such tall buildings (of course they can justify that by citing US, Ireland and Spain as examples of what goes wrong when you're too ambitious, and that's true but if not in these market conditions - Toronto's conditions are great, so if not now, then when???). And the developers will be too conservative in other ways - focusing on maximizing the bottom line by having projects that are simple boxes they know will sell. It's the downside of a strong market.

2) Toronto's silly laws/regulations/policies, etc. will continue to ensure that we always remain less-than-optimal in virtually all contexts. Case in point - the Tridel 75 storey tower where a city official said that building has to be in line with its surroundings (i.e. boxes), forcing Rudy Wallman to change the design, so even when there's a chance we can get a different looking tall building (i.e. flatiron), we won't be able to utilize that potential.

3) The tall buildings study, which I think is mostly - not completely - unfortunate, and NIMBYism will also affect other sites in the greater downtown area, which will result in shorter than potential (and probably boring looking buildings).

At the end of the day, Toronto is like a B+ city...it'll remain strong, healthy, diversified, energetic, etc. but it'll continue to have this underlying tone of not meeting its potential and therefore the pessimists will continue to say oh I wish Toronto was like this or that city and the Toronto-blind-defenders will come back and personally attack those people by saying things like "if you don't like it here, why don't you move to city XXX" without realizing that it's not always possible to literally move to another city in another country so easily. And while constructive-criticism is fair, it won't be accepted by many on this forum.

How's that for a candid explanation on why........

 

[UrbanAffair]

"You know, with all this "boom" going on, why can't we get a 1,000 footer?

There are 6 supertalls underway or proposed for NYC and check out these supertalls planned or underway around he world.

We have great sites, opportunities and a pretty good economy so wassup? "

^We are a little more conservative and careful about how over leveraged we get it seems when it comes to these types of large financing jobs. (Not speaking to consumer overleveraging however, as we lead in personal debt of the G8) As well, Manhatten is way more dense, and the only optiion in many parts is to built very very tall. Much less land there to work with...I mean they have to stack their cars in parking lots...

 

[Minus Smile]

Hi there, I know I'm going to get in trouble for saying this from many on the forum but here's why:

1) Developers will take too long to propose something really tall and in turn may miss the chance to build something because by the time they get to it, the economics might have soured or there will be few to no sites to develop such tall buildings (of course they can justify that by citing US, Ireland and Spain as examples of what goes wrong when you're too ambitious, and that's true but if not in these market conditions - Toronto's conditions are great, so if not now, then when???). And the developers will be too conservative in other ways - focusing on maximizing the bottom line by having projects that are simple boxes they know will sell. It's the downside of a strong market.

2) Toronto's silly laws/regulations/policies, etc. will continue to ensure that we always remain less-than-optimal in virtually all contexts. Case in point - the Tridel 75 storey tower where a city official said that building has to be in line with its surroundings (i.e. boxes), forcing Rudy Wallman to change the design, so even when there's a chance we can get a different looking tall building (i.e. flatiron), we won't be able to utilize that potential.

3) The tall buildings study, which I think is mostly - not completely - unfortunate, and NIMBYism will also affect other sites in the greater downtown area, which will result in shorter than potential (and probably boring looking buildings).

At the end of the day, Toronto is like a B+ city...it'll remain strong, healthy, diversified, energetic, etc. but it'll continue to have this underlying tone of not meeting its potential and therefore the pessimists will continue to say oh I wish Toronto was like this or that city and the Toronto-blind-defenders will come back and personally attack those people by saying things like "if you don't like it here, why don't you move to city XXX" without realizing that it's not always possible to literally move to another city in another country so easily. And while constructive-criticism is fair, it won't be accepted by many on this forum.

How's that for a candid explanation on why........

You're spot on.

 

[bmiller]

I expect a lot of it comes down to dollars. If you can sell out a 70 story boring glass box for x return on your money, there is no reason to spend money on more expensive materials, and fancier, more aesthetically pleasing taller buildings. There is no competition between companies and billionaires like there is in places like Dubai. That is pure vanity. I'm sure there are more reasons as stated above, but this one stands out for Toronto. It's a supply and demand scenario, and there ain't enough people with the cash to buy million dollar units in fancy 100 story condos.

 

[Edward]

There are 6 supertalls underway or proposed for NYC and check out these supertalls planned or underway around he world.

New York has exactly 2 1000 foot towers under construction right now one of which is the WTC. Two proposed but being stumped are also WTC. Government projects that would not be built if there were not political reasons involved. We're doing quite well in comparison.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I take such rumours as like on of the four horsemen of the apocolypse. If a 1000 foot building is proposed and announced in Toronto you know that a massive market correction will occur within 6 months

 

[kkgg7]

At the end of the day, Toronto is like a B+ city...it'll remain strong, healthy, diversified, energetic, etc. but it'll continue to have this underlying tone of not meeting its potential and therefore the pessimists will continue to say oh I wish Toronto was like this or that city and the Toronto-blind-defenders will come back and personally attack those people by saying things like "if you don't like it here, why don't you move to city XXX" without realizing that it's not always possible to literally move to another city in another country so easily. And while constructive-criticism is fair, it won't be accepted by many on this forum.

How's that for a candid explanation on why........

so well said.
I got "why not move to XXX" for like a thousand times.
Totally agree with you that Toronto probably hasn't lived up to half of its potential. Being a relatively big ciy, we don't even have one single real super tall buildings, our downtown core and its perepheral is filled with large surface parking lots and old low rise characterless cookie cut houses, yet many are already worry so much about "height". What height? Toronto has few tall buildings so far. Downtown can be a lot taller and can easily accomodate twice the number of high rise buildings and people.

For those who ask others to move to XXX, may I ask if you like "tree lined streets with all the low density victorian houses", which you think are so charming, why don't yourself move to Hamilton, Barrie, Oshawa etc, seems those places are perfect for you and will have no chance to turning into a NYC or Chicago you loathe so much.

Toronto is truly a B+ city at present from a global perspective, and because of the inertia and backwardness mentioned, probably will never become a A city despite its strength. Too many are always satisfied with how things are and are fearful any changes. The Gardiner should stay, our Harbourfront Center is fantastic, the Redpath Refinery is an icon, don't build a bridge to the Islands (which needs no improvement either), our streetcar system works (even the tokens are nice!), all those hideous rundown houses on Dundas, Queen, Spadina and Yonge are "historic" and should never be replaced, so on and so forth.

A 300 or 400 meter building is not gonna ruin Toronto, folks. If you can't handle that, it is still not too late to move to Barrie!

 

[Dilla]

Downtown can be a lot taller and can easily accomodate twice the number of high rise buildings and people.

How do you figure? Our subways are almost at capacity as it is. I don't think water and sewage has been upgraded enough to carry twice the load expected of it now. So how is it you came up with the twice as many figure? The current lack of investment along with our growing population is already a worry, and we won't be doubling our numbers anytime soon.

 

[ReThink]

so well said.
I got "why not move to XXX" for like a thousand times.
Totally agree with you that Toronto probably hasn't lived up to half of its potential. Being a relatively big ciy, we don't even have one single real super tall buildings, our downtown core and its perepheral is filled with large surface parking lots and old low rise characterless cookie cut houses, yet many are already worry so much about "height". What height? Toronto has few tall buildings so far. Downtown can be a lot taller and can easily accomodate twice the number of high rise buildings and people.

For those who ask others to move to XXX, may I ask if you like "tree lined streets with all the low density victorian houses", which you think are so charming, why don't yourself move to Hamilton, Barrie, Oshawa etc, seems those places are perfect for you and will have no chance to turning into a NYC or Chicago you loathe so much.

Toronto is truly a B+ city at present from a global perspective, and because of the inertia and backwardness mentioned, probably will never become a A city despite its strength. Too many are always satisfied with how things are and are fearful any changes. The Gardiner should stay, our Harbourfront Center is fantastic, the Redpath Refinery is an icon, don't build a bridge to the Islands (which needs no improvement either), our streetcar system works (even the tokens are nice!), all those hideous rundown houses on Dundas, Queen, Spadina and Yonge are "historic" and should never be replaced, so on and so forth.

A 300 or 400 meter building is not gonna ruin Toronto, folks. If you can't handle that, it is still not too late to move to Barrie!

What exactly do you propose the city of Toronto does with Redpath? Force a private business operating with legal non-conforming status to move? I imagine you probably hope that that land gets expropriated so that Toronto can build that ever fabled 400 meter super-tall. Well gee, that Toronto would sure be an 'A' city!

 

[RC8]

Don't take another thread off-topic, troll (kkgg7). You tend to like polluted cities with disgusting architecture where the quality of life is miserable, or places that were built in a different century. Vancouver, Sydney, and a handful of cities like Santiago de Chile, are the only ones outside of Europe who have managed to transform and build livable walk-able spaces that foment psychological well-being with any consistency over the past 20 years. None of those cities have needed super-talls.

You forget about the CN Tower. If it weren't for what was the highest man-made structure in the world for decades, people would have been more anxious to build high.

I don't think Toronto should even allow a supertall. The CN Tower observatory should be kept as the highest point in the city. This will also mean that development will be spread more horizontally, taking over remaining surface parking lots, etc.

The new residential buildings going up in Asia are the definition of cheap, opportunistic, and cookie-cutter.