Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

condovo said:
Well, it's always the same posters making any kind of "argument" possible, which just ends up being about wanting height. They don't come right out and say it because they know they'll be called out for wanting height anywhere, anytime and at all costs, regardless of design, planning, context, economics, etc. This time it happens to be about wanting more shade and shadow, which is ridiculous given our wintry climate. Other times it's about jumping at any tall proposal no matter how inappropriate it is, like the ridiculous scheme at Yonge/Carlton. Or defending Aura. Or trashing the Design Review Panel. Or bitching about the planning department because a given building's been reduced to 299 m. Or having a tapered skyline is bad. Or having a table-top skyline is bad. Or wind studies are stupid. Or heritage preservation is dumb. It's always something and it's always about wanting height, height, height. There's a definite pattern and it's annoying.
Click to expand...
Name me more than 3 people on this forum who like aura?

I honestly dont think it's that bad but I think it's unfair to say that people are merely pro shadows cuz they like tall buildings.

I think it's fair for height enthusiasts to be sad when a building is chopped to a single meter below supertall status no. I dont think you can blame people who like height for being a little disappointed about something like that.

Also idk who is arguing heritage preservation is dumb because it means we cant have height. There are countless buildings in this city, including the one in this thread, that have heritage components. They are in no way an impediment to height and heritage should be incredibly prioritized even more than it is now (this is coming from a height enthusiast)

Also have a table top skyline is awful, that has nothing to do with height, build shorter if you must table top skylines make the city looking boring and unappealing and samey. One can also be against tapered skylines without wanting more height. Theres more reason than one to dislike both tabletop and tapered skylines.

Of course there are some people who cant look past anything other than the height, but I think it's fair to say there are many others who both love tall buildings and understand other elements of planning.

And many of the arguments you mentioned above are not exclusive to people who like tall buildings either. In fact it almost comes across as though you are opposed to tall buildings and doing exactly what you blame height enthusiasts for doing only in the opposite manner.
 
Heritage preservation is a term used too loosely, and much too frequently in North America. Facadism is alive and well in this city, but is in no way Heritage preservation. It looks nice at the street level from the outside, but
that's where it ends. It makes some people happy they are preserving the past but in reality, just the outer skin. The One appears to be saving the entire building, as few others have done, but that is a rare thing anymore.
 
Bjays92 said:
Name me more than 3 people on this forum who like aura?

I honestly dont think it's that bad but I think it's unfair to say that people are merely pro shadows cuz they like tall buildings.

I think it's fair for height enthusiasts to be sad when a building is chopped to a single meter below supertall status no. I dont think you can blame people who like height for being a little disappointed about something like that.

Also idk who is arguing heritage preservation is dumb because it means we cant have height. There are countless buildings in this city, including the one in this thread, that have heritage components. They are in no way an impediment to height and heritage should be incredibly prioritized even more than it is now (this is coming from a height enthusiast)

Also have a table top skyline is awful, that has nothing to do with height, build shorter if you must table top skylines make the city looking boring and unappealing and samey. One can also be against tapered skylines without wanting more height. Theres more reason than one to dislike both tabletop and tapered skylines.

Of course there are some people who cant look past anything other than the height, but I think it's fair to say there are many others who both love tall buildings and understand other elements of planning.

And many of the arguments you mentioned above are not exclusive to people who like tall buildings either. In fact it almost comes across as though you are opposed to tall buildings and doing exactly what you blame height enthusiasts for doing only in the opposite manner.
Click to expand...
I like tall buildings when and where they make sense. Tall buildings are one solution. They're not the only solution, just as height's not the only metric for measuring a building's worth...nor is the quantity and magnitude of tall buildings the only measure of a city's success.
 
Last edited:
The original discussion was about whether sunlight would reach the surrounding streets once The One was completed or not. It had nothing really to do about advocating/dissing its planned height...so I am not sure where this conversation is coming from.
 
Today.
3CFE58EC-CD54-4704-8507-854F61296E88.jpeg
0AEB8317-9C34-4006-AA19-BD71798EFF51.jpeg
5692D654-D8B0-4993-BFEA-D16ACE880D55.jpeg
A2B95ED6-448A-4861-B585-2FAEDC30EA01.jpeg
4D45B3FD-B3F9-4112-9549-0E5455747155.jpeg
C4C847B6-1291-4E53-8317-D0201DA41D83.jpeg
848F3C50-61BA-41EC-BBE1-7F990406904D.jpeg
D356ADEE-23AA-4E24-BFAE-8AA097A92BB6.jpeg
 
Distilled said:
Sorry if I haven’t been paying attention but is the tower’s floor plate essentially the area rising above those four steel pillars?
Click to expand...
Slight correction. The tower floorplate is only the area above the 8 steel pillars. There are 2 steel pillars (super-columns) on each side of the building which transfers most of the weight of the building through to the foundation. The intricate steelwork that you currently see is to facilitate the load transfer from the upper levels into the super-columns.

The building does have internal load-bearing walls but far fewer than a typical building of this height. For example, the ground floor has no internal pillars, allowing for a wide-open space that is rumored to be home to a flagship "fruit" company!

To give you a sense of scale, the actual floorplate is roughly equal to the CIBC building across the street. It's going to be a tall, skinny tower! You can see better in the overhead pictures by @Benito. He arguably has the best seats in the city for viewing the construction of this building.
 
fanoftoronto said:
The building does have internal load-bearing walls but far fewer than a typical building of this height. For example, the ground floor has no internal pillars, allowing for a wide-open space that is rumored to be home to a flagship "fruit" company!
Click to expand...
It will have a large selection of men's, women's and children's underwear...

...wait, not that "fruit" company! >.<
 
fanoftoronto said:
Slight correction. The tower floorplate is only the area above the 8 steel pillars. There are 2 steel pillars (super-columns) on each side of the building which transfers most of the weight of the building through to the foundation. The intricate steelwork that you currently see is to facilitate the load transfer from the upper levels into the super-columns.

The building does have internal load-bearing walls but far fewer than a typical building of this height. For example, the ground floor has no internal pillars, allowing for a wide-open space that is rumored to be home to a flagship "fruit" company!

To give you a sense of scale, the actual floorplate is roughly equal to the CIBC building across the street. It's going to be a tall, skinny tower! You can see better in the overhead pictures by @Benito. He arguably has the best seats in the city for viewing the construction of this building.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed reply!
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
The original discussion was about whether sunlight would reach the surrounding streets once The One was completed or not. It had nothing really to do about advocating/dissing its planned height...so I am not sure where this conversation is coming from.
Click to expand...
Well, some posters were downplaying the importance of sunlight as a backdoor strategy of "up-playing" their obsession with height, ie, shade is great, sunlight sucks, yay supertalls.
 
condovo said:
Well, some posters were downplaying the importance of sunlight as a backdoor strategy of "up-playing" their obsession with height, ie, shade is great, sunlight sucks, yay supertalls.
Click to expand...
Some may in fact feel that. Maybe a few are really vampires...

That said, and to be clear, I was certainly not advocating that angle in the shadowing exercise.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top