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

ADRM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Reduce the width by 15 to 20 percent and perhaps increase the stepping on the roof and I’ll be happy with the proposal. You’re right, it’s really just the width that’s ticking me off; the proposal as a whole is pretty good
 
To everyone wanting to redeploy the density in a taller tower with smaller plates: office buildings don't work that way. Residential buildings do because whether a unit is on 37 or 45, it's still a self-contained unit on a single floor. Conversely, office tenants want large floorplates because they can get most of, or even their entire, company in one place. This is why having a single large plate isn't the same as having two smaller ones on multiple floors. It breaks up the synergy of the office and is far less desirable.
 
interchange42 said:
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
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder where they're putting it- are we going to see a big-ass crane sitting on the roof like over at Monde?

I still don't really buy that trees are really viable long-term without being provided at least some sort of permanent wind protection like over at Shangri-la, so I still feel the design is going to be critiqued and refined a lot after the DRP, or I guess I'm stuck in the I'll-believe-when-I-see-it-a-few-years-after-completion side.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
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
Click to expand...

When future generations start cursing us it'll be for things a lot worse than putting up wide slab buildings.
 
Anyone think this site would be better suited a residential/hotel/mixed use development? I think one or two condo or hotel towers (if a pair can fit), with a 10 story base for office space would physically fit better on the site, as residential floor plates are substantially smaller. Plus Toronto desperately needs the hotel space as well
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Anyone think this site would be better suited a residential/hotel/mixed use development? I think one or two condo or hotel towers (if a pair can fit), with a 10 story base for office space would physically fit better on the site, as residential floor plates are substantially smaller. Plus Toronto desperately needs the hotel space as well
Click to expand...

No. There is no better use for this site than data centre/office.

AoD
 
Lenser said:
In a way, perhaps we should be applauding every time a sleek new office tower goes up... that's a lot of new employment and it helps ensure that the city remains vital and vibrant.
Click to expand...

Not to say there aren't issues associated with it - but it sure beats the alternatives. People must have forgotten early 90s-mid 00s when employment cratered (we finally gotten past the late 80s peak) and nothing much of note went up in the core.

AoD
 
Earlier I noted the rate of new construction (current, committed and proposed) of commercial office space in the core; and the associated, massive growth in downtown employment.

Today Steve Munro has posted an article on the cost of expanding Line 1 capacity; much of which is needed with or without an RL: some of which might be mitigated in the event of the latter.

stevemunro.ca

The Hidden Cost of Subway Capacity Relief

Two studies are underway for the so-called Relief Line: The southern segment from Osgoode Station to Pape Station, and The northern segment from Pape Station to Don Mills and Sheppard. The alignmen…
stevemunro.ca stevemunro.ca

Well in excess of $5B to raise capacity enough to handle loads that are likely in the near future. (TTC is looking towards 2030....I would suggest much sooner in terms of latent pressure).

Its a good read.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Anyone think this site would be better suited a residential/hotel/mixed use development? I think one or two condo or hotel towers (if a pair can fit), with a 10 story base for office space would physically fit better on the site, as residential floor plates are substantially smaller. Plus Toronto desperately needs the hotel space as well
Click to expand...

lol, this website is so much fun.
 
Northern Light said:
Lets take a moment to contemplate something.

Right now, this moment. Toronto has either under construction or committed (pre-leased) more than 4M sq feet of office space downtown (or downtown periphery).

The proposals in the next cluster, CC3, HUB, Union Centre plus assorted smaller towers (King East, King/Peter) etc. would represent at least the same again.

Union Park could be 2M on its own.

Not factoring in areas in Liberty or the massive Lever site.............. we have 10M sq ft (or more) in the pipeline. Now I realize a chunk of this will likely not be built in this wave.........

But here's the thing.........if we even assume 5M sq ft, at current normative calculations........ that's 50,000 jobs if that space is full.

Let that settle for a moment.....now take in that that is fairly likely to complete and be online space by 2024. Five years earlier than the most ambitious target for the Relief Line.

If even 1/3 of those jobs are filled by people who arrive by subway........that's another 16,600 and change people on Line 1, during the peak 90m or so. Or around 10,500 pph.

I'm not assuming any growth in retail, in tourists/hotels, convention space or residential.

We really have to accelerate our infrastructure spend...... (we all knew this)....... but eesh......
Click to expand...


Maybe private investors should finance and build the new subway. They get reimbursed back buy charging and extra fee on the new subway line until it is payed off. Basically the well-off and the desperate people who use the new subway line first. Will help pave the way in getting them built sooner.
 
Strange Advance said:
Sure, but this is only sleek from the east and west. From the north and south it's morbidly obese.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree! It's a slab, yes, but a very sharp-looking one. The very width of the thing shouldn't be automatically discounted against it. It's got its own thing going on, which I applaud. We want robust variety, not utter cookie-cutter clutter.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top