Toronto Union Centre | 298m | 54s | Westbank | Bjarke Ingels Group

[interchange42]

I dunno how big the trees are going to get—I assume that the species will be carefully chosen—but I think they're being given a fighting chance by being behind some glass and/or among trellises and/or shielded from the wind by higher floors behind them. We'll see how far above those things they'll grow…

Meanwhile, I don't think we're going to see a taller, not so wide version of this proposal. The inline elevator banks work with this particular long, narrow floor plate, and if this building were to be made shorter east-west, let's say we lose one of the five banks of elevators, then you're not going higher without a complete redesign.

Beyond elevator placement, major companies like large floor plates. It's also better for the data centre expansion on the lower floors. The shape of the building will work in its favour for attracting tenants.

In terms of the building taking up more width than usual on the skyline… I'm not convinced the City will care, or would have a valid planning case against it. The density is proposed right where density should be proposed, the building won't add shadow to parks, it covers all the separation distance requirements… what's the City going to object to?

42

 

[Northern Light]

IMO the bigger issue with the trees comes with their viability due to their exposure, and the inevitable requirement for replacement.

While there have been some comparisons made to Singapore, I have to say that those comparisons are missing some points. Rooftop vegetation works in subtropical Singapore, where the climate is warmer, the air more humid, and where trees will literally grow anywhere even if you don't ask them to- but in cold and windy Toronto? Much harder to do IMO.

There are many species of tree that would survive at that height, in our climate, subject to being given a good volume of soil, irrigation and proper drainage.

Heck, a few years ago, it took some considerable logistics and cost about half a million to replace an oak tree which had died on top of a 17-floor Vancouver condo, which I would consider a fairly temperate climate compared to Toronto. The previous tree died after a single season of drought

This means they didn't irrigate and/or had far too little soil volume. Not properly planned.

does this mean that the trees have a definitive lifespan?

Not sure what you're meaning here. Depending on species choice and proper conditions, you could plant trees that would out last the building.

A more realistic number would be 50 years.

If you're suggesting that membrane replacement may trigger the need to remove the trees early, that is certainly possible. Though I can think of a number of design solutions that would minimize the risk. It depends on a number of different choices that could be made.

Certainly, poor design choices could lead to a much shorter than optimal life for the trees.

Now think about the trees on this building- how are we going to replace them? A crane (not currently present)? Stuffing the trees into the elevators?

At roof level, the trees here are shown as being on publicly accessible terraces. Removal would likely be done the same way as on the ground, chain saw'em into managable pieces and put them in a wheeled bin and bring'em down the freight elevator.

Likewise a typical caliper size tree would fit in a freight elevator no problem.

Is there going to have to be some shelter created for trees to help them survive their first few years?

Some shelter would likely be a design feature and quite useful.

In terms of extra treatment, most deciduous trees would not require added shelter.

Conifers would likely benefit from burlap wrap or cordoning in their first winter.

It's really more trouble than it's worth- I would not be surprised if these trees disappeared in the next refinement of Union Centre (or became containerized shrubs).

Entirely possible. Do keep in mind though that a significant 'green roof' is requirement of the Toronto Green Standard. So a portion of the cost is baked in to this plan.

The cost of 60 or so caliper-sized trees is only about $30,000 installed (normally, though this job would likely be more). Peanuts on a project of this size. The cost of the entire design feature would be a good deal more (terracing/stairs/railings/illumination etc.)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I dunno how big the trees are going to get—I assume that the species will be carefully chosen—but I think they're being given a fighting chance by being behind some glass and/or among trellises and/or shielded from the wind by higher floors behind them. We'll see how far above those things they'll grow…

Meanwhile, I don't think we're going to see a taller, not so wide version of this proposal. The inline elevator banks work with this particular long, narrow floor plate, and if this building were to be made shorter east-west, let's say we lose one of the five banks of elevators, then you're not going higher without a complete redesign.

Beyond elevator placement, major companies like large floor plates. It's also better for the data centre expansion on the lower floors. The shape of the building will work in its favour for attracting tenants.

In terms of the building taking up more width than usual on the skyline… I'm not convinced the City will care, or would have a valid planning case against it. The density is proposed right where density should be proposed, the building won't add shadow to parks, it covers all the separation distance requirements… what's the City going to object to?

42

Are buildings ever rejected on aesthetic basis?

I feel like 20 years from now, there’s a decent chance that future Torontonians will curse us for allowing such a wide slab to rise in our skyline. The building needs to be slimmed down. If it results in a net loss in square footage, so be it

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Are buildings ever rejected on aesthetic basis?

I feel like 20 years from now, there’s a decent chance that future Torontonians will curse us for allowing such a wide slab to rise in our skyline. The building needs to be slimmed down. If it results in a net loss in square footage, so be it

This slab is not that much wider than Simcoe Place, TD1, FCP.

AoD

 

[interchange42]

Are buildings ever rejected on aesthetic basis?

I feel like 20 years from now, there’s a decent chance that future Torontonians will curse us for allowing such a wide slab to rise in our skyline. The building needs to be slimmed down. If it results in a net loss in square footage, so be it

If the City rejected it (Councillors can vote down anything for any reason), then the decision could be appealed to LPAT by the developer. If the only leg the City had to stand on was an aesthetic basis, LPAT would certainly overturn the decision. Decisions have to make sense based on planning principles., or they can be undone. There may be a principle that I have forgotten that might apply here, but "it looks too wide" is not one.

Personally, yes, it looks wide, but I'm not convinced that it looks too wide.

42

 

[Miscreant]

This is really going to add to the nice terminus at the foot of University when looking south. It's already a nice cluster, too. Toronto doesn't have many termini (oh yes, I just did) that cluster this way, since the city is such a grid. So it's a nice touch.

 

[interchange42]

Now think about the trees on this building- how are we going to replace them? A crane (not currently present)? Stuffing the trees into the elevators?

Likewise a typical caliper size tree would fit in a freight elevator no problem.

I have to imagine that the Building Maintenance Unit that will be built into the top of Union Centre would be capable of hoisting a new tree into place. The BMUs we are seeing lately are getting ever more complex and robust as they have to lift cleaning and maintenance platforms over multiple stepbacks and terraced rooftops, so I cannot imagine them installing something here that couldn't have the platform unhooked and in its place, lift a tree.

42

 

[someMidTowner]

This is really going to add to the nice terminus at the foot of University when looking south. It's already a nice cluster, too. Toronto doesn't have many termini (oh yes, I just did) that cluster this way, since the city is such a grid. So it's a nice touch.

As mentioned previously, the rendering is a bit misleading. 160 Front will be blocking most of that view

 

[interchange42]

As mentioned previously, the rendering is a bit misleading. 160 Front will be blocking most of that view

Not quite. 160 Front will block the view seen in the rendering looking down Simcoe, but everything else will be blocking most of the view looking down University. That one's been fudged, with Union Centre having been moved east, and Citibank Place having been totally munched.

Here's where the building is located in context with everything else:

42

 

[Automation Gallery]

Hmm? haha in reality i wonder when CitiBank Place gets completely munched by Oxford Properties for a taller tower

 

[ProjectEnd]

In the distant future it may but that's not in even a 25 year plan.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Oxford is going to be focusing on the MTCC first.. They have a lot more room to work with there to put up a lot more office space.

The amount of office space already proposed in the core in general is nuts - we don't need to be tearing down existing large office buildings on top of it all.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This slab is not that much wider than Simcoe Place, TD1, FCP.

AoD

Yea, but those buildings are also of far higher architectural quality.

The width of this building gives it a prominence in the skyline that this mediocre design doesn’t deserve (and yea I know the trees are nice, but this building will be standing forever, and I don’t trust property owners to maintain any non-essential architectural features forever)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yea, but those buildings are also of far higher architectural quality

Huh, Ott's Simcoe Place? (nevermind the mediocre FCP)

AoD

 

[ADRM]

Yea, but those buildings are also of far higher architectural quality.

The width of this building gives it a prominence in the skyline that this mediocre design doesn’t deserve (and yea I know the trees are nice, but this building will be standing forever, and I don’t trust property owners to maintain any non-essential architectural features forever)

I vastly prefer this design to both FCP and certainly Simcoe Place, and that's before even getting into what seems like a genuinely neat grade experience (which none of those towers really offer) and the amendments slated for the Skywalk.

Setting aside the aesthetic subjectivity, I feel like some folks are getting hung up on one particular vantage on one portion of the tower that lacks a more intricate expression than other portions, and refusing to assess the building as proposed as a whole.