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

interchange42 said:
The plans on file are for a 298 metre-tall building, not a 300-metre tall one. The bylaw allows them to go as high as 300. It's a contingency for twiddling with it as they create the working drawings, but at this point the uppermost parapet wall around the roof at the northeast peak rises to 298 metres. If future plans show any upward extension of the building, we will change the database file then.

42
Click to expand...
...but if you round off every building to it's 100th place, we would have a lot more towers at 300 m though. >.>
 
If this proposal is now at 300m . Shouldn't the top of this blog's hieght statis be that number instead of 298? 300m number has a nice ring to it lol!
 
cd concept said:
If this proposal is now at 300m . Shouldn't the top of this blog's hieght statis be that number instead of 298? 300m number has a nice ring to it lol!
Click to expand...
interchange42 said:
The plans on file are for a 298 metre-tall building, not a 300-metre tall one. The bylaw allows them to go as high as 300. It's a contingency for twiddling with it as they create the working drawings, but at this point the uppermost parapet wall around the roof at the northeast peak rises to 298 metres. If future plans show any upward extension of the building, we will change the database file then.

42
Click to expand...
As mentioned by Interchange42 above, the drawings still indicate that the building will be 298M tall with the option to build up to 300M if needed.
 
cd concept said:
I can see them using that option to climb up to 300m somewhere down the line when topping up lol!
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe they'll put a sugar shack on top and tap the sugar maples growing on the roof.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Yeah, maybe they'll put a sugar shack on top and tap the sugar maples growing on the roof.

42
Click to expand...

Hmmm, an ideal specimen, would add up to 40m/120ft to the building height.

Of course, it would also add ~30,000lbs + of weight, per tree.

so 16 mature Sugar Maples, plus a sugar shack would add 500,000lbs of load, give or take. *(does not include leaf mass/snow load factor)

🤣
 
In many ways a tree is a kind of naturally grown spire and a building with a tree on top is one that changes and grows in height over time.

Raises the interesting potential thought about what would be done if a building proposal near Jesse Ketchum Park planted trees on top that caused increased shadowing on the park. 😅
 
Northern Light said:
Hmmm, an ideal specimen, would add up to 40m/120ft to the building height.

Of course, it would also add ~30,000lbs + of weight, per tree.

so 16 mature Sugar Maples, plus a sugar shack would add 500,000lbs of load, give or take. *(does not include leaf mass/snow load factor)

🤣
Click to expand...
Wait, a 40m sugar maple?! In the heart of Elvendom maybe, but this ain't Lothlorien. 10m high more like it in 20 years if we're lucky, growing behind glass screens to mitigate for the winds. I mean, we're 6a at ground level, but behind the screens it'd be more like a 4b up top, which should still keep the sap flowing to the 3-metre high supertall sugar shack. The trees would be on the lower levels of the stepped roof of course, tapping bags probably better than unsightly lines. I can hardly wait for the 2055 taffy pull!

42
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
With only 54 levels it's almost if they could have a basket ball court on every floor...
Click to expand...
That is surprising in a way that there are so few floors for a tower this high. I wonder if they'll go to exactly 300 metres now? 😃
ProjectEnd said:
Don't hold your breath.

Look at the section. There are several floors devoted to different data centre uses in the lower fifth, then there's 16m of mechanical halfway up and 26m from the top of office / amenity to the roof. Regular office floors (4m) start on the 11th floor.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's very helpful. 😃
 
interchange42 said:
Wait, a 40m sugar maple?! In the heart of Elvendom maybe, but this ain't Lothlorien. 10m high more like it in 20 years if we're lucky, growing behind glass screens to mitigate for the winds. I mean, we're 6a at ground level, but behind the screens it'd be more like a 4b up top, which should still keep the sap flowing to the 3-metre high supertall sugar shack. The trees would be on the lower levels of the stepped roof of course, tapping bags probably better than unsightly lines. I can hardly wait for the 2055 taffy pull!

42
Click to expand...

Or maybe Tennessee.

LOL

I didn't say one would get that tall here; I said 'ideal conditions'.

PS, that would also take well over 100 years.

1642543499753.png

taken from: https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/

The next closest in height that I'm aware of is just over 34M in Claremont, Mass.

In Ontario, I don't think we have a recorded specimen over 30M.

Though there probably is one we just haven't measured yet!

There's one over 30M at an Arboretum in Belgium too.

***

There was one in Lyme, Connecticut that reached 37.5M but it's since been cut down.

Here's a picture of that one:

1642544057415.png

from: https://patch.com/img/cdn/users/1782987/2013/03/raw/a532ffd91d2a44d51cc2302a59f1b0b0.jpg

Perhaps we should return this thread to its principal topic though. LOL
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top