Toronto The HUB | 258.46m | 59s | Oxford Properties | Rogers Stirk Harbour

Yeah this doesn’t seem like a neighbourhood where NIMBY’s would be out in full force, considering there has already been so much development in the area.
 
holographic plastic said:
Yeah this doesn’t seem like a neighbourhood where NIMBY’s would be out in full force, considering there has already been so much development in the area.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. People always forget that they are (usually) not the first people in their area and forget that when their building was built it affected those already there by the construction noise, the blocking of sunlight, the addition of 'more people' etc etc. NIMBYs are always present.
 
hN6zCgf.png
 
Here we go everyone !
After the exciting news about 160 Front, Oxford released A new
commercial about the HUB.
The moment is very exciting and it's one of the best time ever for Toronto.
Enjoy the files


Here is a screeshot i made from the videoo.
The photo includes CIBC Square.

Sans titre.png
 

Attachments

  • Sans titre.png
    Sans titre.png
    742.8 KB · Views: 701
  • Sans titre.png
    Sans titre.png
    742.8 KB · Views: 352
How high is each floor? If this is 60 storeys and yet towers over Ice and sun life towers. It’s also no more closer to the vantage point then any others.
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
How high is each floor? If this is 60 storeys and yet towers over Ice and sun life towers. It’s also no more closer to the vantage point then any others.
Click to expand...

The Hub is about 19 feet taller than the Scotia Tower at 902 feet . So at an average condo floor plate being ten foot . That would put The Hub at 92 storeys if it was condo or a hotel .
 
The Hub is going to be 280.7 metres tall. Ice East 234 m, Harbour Plaza 237 m.
So, each floor should be roughly 15 feet - although the first few floors and the mechanical at the top will likely be taller than the rest.

Here's a good visual Skyscraper City Diagram.
 
Last edited:
ushahid said:
they better use black or darker façade otherwise im gonna lose my sh!t.
Click to expand...

I agree, BRONZE will do it for me. Since we are loosing the sight of the Scocia Plaza, it would be nice if this building was 300 m and redish in color.
 
DSC said:
Oh, no. People always forget that they are (usually) not the first people in their area and forget that when their building was built it affected those already there by the construction noise, the blocking of sunlight, the addition of 'more people' etc etc. NIMBYs are always present.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the original concern was but a wrong committed years ago by the past builder doesn't give a new developer the right to wrong the current neighbours. Lose to the value, or enjoyment of a property should be carried by all parties involved. Of course not all complaints are considered valid. For example, Toronto has decided to protect parks and school yards from building shadows. Condo owners don't get their sunlight or views protected from new developments on the other hand. It's what the city/community has decided is fair. Of course the values of individuals, NIMBYs may not agree with the rights the community has afforded them, or a developer may feel entitled to more height because of some precedent they think is relevant. This is a vary nuanced, grey line. Please don't lump every person that complains into the same basket, NIMBY. Many NIMBYs raise valid issues and developers have built buildings that are much higher quality because of it. Think of it this way, these people volunteer their time to increase the quality of their neighbourhood, of course some do it for selfish reason but honestly most do it altruistic reasons. Go to a few of the community consult meetings for new developments and you'll find most people there live too far away to be directly impacted by shadowing, traffic or noise. They just want their community to be its best.
 
Blitz901 said:
I'm not sure what the original concern was but a wrong committed years ago by the past builder doesn't give a new developer the right to wrong the current neighbours. Lose to the value, or enjoyment of a property should be carried by all parties involved. Of course not all complaints are considered valid. For example, Toronto has decided to protect parks and school yards from building shadows. Condo owners don't get their sunlight or views protected from new developments on the other hand. It's what the city/community has decided is fair. Of course the values of individuals, NIMBYs may not agree with the rights the community has afforded them, or a developer may feel entitled to more height because of some precedent they think is relevant. This is a vary nuanced, grey line. Please don't lump every person that complains into the same basket, NIMBY. Many NIMBYs raise valid issues and developers have built buildings that are much higher quality because of it. Think of it this way, these people volunteer their time to increase the quality of their neighbourhood, of course some do it for selfish reason but honestly most do it altruistic reasons. Go to a few of the community consult meetings for new developments and you'll find most people there live too far away to be directly impacted by shadowing, traffic or noise. They just want their community to be its best.
Click to expand...

I must go to the bad meetings then. The ones where every project (whether 50 stories or a plan to sever a 60 ft lot into two 30's) bring complaints of too much noise, traffic, think of the kids etc. Most people do want their community to be its best which inevitably means no change in their minds. The density should always go over there. Doesn't matter where over there as long as it doesn't happen "here" because isn't it obvious that "here" isn't a great place for it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top