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

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,319
Reaction score
48,377
Location
Toronto/EY

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
5,202
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.

View attachment 375432
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:

View attachment 375438
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
Still thinking though if ever one of these got uprooted in gale from it's 298m perch and landed on someone over on Front St W, that would be a mess... 🙀
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,319
Reaction score
48,377
Location
Toronto/EY
Still thinking though if ever one of these got uprooted in gale from it's 298m perch and landed on someone over on Front St W, that would be a mess... 🙀

Yes, though, a healthy Sugar Maple or most other trees would not uproot in anything short of Tornado or the like.

The risk of a branch dropping (and a large hardwood branch can way several hundred pounds) is material.

So is the risk of a dead tree uprooting.
 

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,035
Reaction score
1,291
Article about the trees on Bosco Verticale in Milan:

jayAWU8.png


Tree-Anchor.jpg


 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
5,202
Yes, though, a healthy Sugar Maple or most other trees would not uproot in anything short of Tornado or the like.

The risk of a branch dropping (and a large hardwood branch can way several hundred pounds) is material.

So is the risk of a dead tree uprooting.
I'm glad to hear that in the uproot business. Industrial type fastening mechanics as per article posted by officedweller-san above also further alleviate this concern.

Still though, as hinted in my narrative, a tree or limb falling 298m to the ground is going to cause more an issue than one only 6m off the ground. Something to do with kinetics, gravity and that nine-point-eight-meters-per-second-squared thing. Making it for more a spectacular landing and very bad day for anyone underneath it. >.<
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
12,290
Reaction score
25,741
The massing on this one is atrocious, imo. The "building as wall" aesthetic doesn't do it for me. Halving its breadth would make the proportions more visually appealing.
that's exactly how i feel about CIBC square. it's too chunky.
Office plates favour large expanses so that tenants can reduce the number of floors which their company occupies. How would that be accomplished if the floorplate were halved?
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,319
Reaction score
48,377
Location
Toronto/EY
Office plates favour large expanses so that tenants can reduce the number of floors which their company occupies. How would that be accomplished if the floorplate were halved?

You ask the strangest questions sometimes.....

By simply saying 'No'; "you'll have to accept being on additional floors, your preferences be damned". LOL

Of course, that's not the way any landlord/developer would put it to a current/prospective client; but if the City chose not to permit larger floorplates life would go on.

To be clear, many of the clients who prefer said spaces do business in jurisdictions that would never allow such a large floorplate. Yet, they're still there; they just work with
whatever is permitted/available.
 
Last edited:

UrbanOzz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
117
Reaction score
174
Location
Swansea, Toronto
Office plates favour large expanses so that tenants can reduce the number of floors which their company occupies. How would that be accomplished if the floorplate were halved?
i'm aware of that, but if you look at CIBC square, it's essentially 2 towers fused together by a line in the middle. They can easily shrink this floor plate. I don't know where I can find the data that compares the floorplates of office towers but i would be interested in seeing the size of this one compares to lets say FCP. Optically, CIBC looks much larger.
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
12,290
Reaction score
25,741
You ask strangest questions sometimes.....

By simply saying 'No'; "you'll have to accept being on additional floors, your preferences be damned". LOL

Of course, that's not the way any landlord/developer would put it to a current/prospective client; but if the City chose not to permit larger floorplates life would go on.

To be clear, many of the clients who prefer said spaces do business in jurisdictions that would never allow such a large floorplate. Yet, they're still there; they just work with
whatever is permitted/available.
Then I'll go to a different building. CIBC 2 and CC3 are almost as wide and are just as ready to lease as is this (if not more ready). It's a tenant's market now in terms of new Class A so why can't I / they be picky?
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,319
Reaction score
48,377
Location
Toronto/EY
Then I'll go to a different building. CIBC 2 and CC3 are almost as wide and are just as ready to lease as is this (if not more ready). It's a tenant's market now in terms of new Class A so why can't I / they be picky?

In the near-term, yes, a major tenant can choose between prospective building A vs B (the latter having the larger floor plate).

But if the City chose not to allow that size/shape of floorplate on a go-forward basis, that choice would largely evaporate over time; it would only change the order in which buildings go up in the nearer term.

It's really not dis-similar to the condo market where rules on mid-rises and on point towers lead to certain shapes /sizes of interiors that aren't ideal from a would-be resident's perspective.

If, as a resident you can afford any layout at any price, you'll get just that; but for the vast majority, you can only pick from the inventory available; and the City (and developers) are making those choices irrespective of
what may work for any given resident.

The same would happen with office clients.

If most space available were limited (for argument's sake) to a 12,000ft2 floor plate; then that's what you would get; unless you were willing to pay the premium for grandfathered space in the arrangement you prefer.

* note that I'm not necessarily arguing in favour of this; merely pointing out it's very possible. It's done all over the world; and Toronto can do it too, should it wish to...... (subject to provincial say so, of course, LOL)
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,147
Reaction score
16,067
like all regulation it would distort the market with older space becoming more preferable for the larger floorplates, reducing new construction and limiting more affordable spaces within the core. Tenants would choose to stick in their older buildings and renovate it instead of jumping off to new product where they need twice the number of floors to hold their footprint.

Pretending any regulation comes for free is a fallacy and needs a greater amount of inclusion in the discourse.

This building is just a particularly large offender as it is narrower and wider than typical new office blocks. Other projects are closer to "square" which make the mass not as offending.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,319
Reaction score
48,377
Location
Toronto/EY
like all regulation it would distort the market with older space becoming more preferable for the larger floorplates, reducing new construction and limiting more affordable spaces within the core. Tenants would choose to stick in their older buildings and renovate it instead of jumping off to new product where they need twice the number of floors to hold their footprint.

I agree, it would have that effect.

Pretending any regulation comes for free is a fallacy and needs a greater amount of inclusion in the discourse.

Who was pretending that? I certainly wasn't. In fact, I expressly identified the consequence that grandfathered space would then go for a premium.

This building is just a particularly large offender as it is narrower and wider than typical new office blocks. Other projects are closer to "square" which make the mass not as offending.

Also true.

****

You really must make note that I didn't necessarily argue for the change in question, I only illustrated that it was possible; and that the market would not collapse if it was done.

Of course all regulation distorts the market; requiring indoor plumbing in new builds once distorted the market; it made all properties still using outhouses less valuable.

That distortion, unto itself, is not a reason to avoid regulation; but neither is it a reason to adopt it; it's simply a reality, nothing or less.
 

Top