Toronto Concord Sky | 300.2m | 85s | Concord Adex | Kohn Pedersen Fox

UrbanAffair said:
OT, but that's actually really interesting. So, they counted the spires on top of the Willis tower and J.Hancock, but not on say something like FCP? I will admit the Chicago spires appear cleaner and more permanent.

I had no idea that CTBUH had Chicago origins. I did always feel like it was a semi-official organization, but I never gave it much weight on the topics on which it aimed to set the standard. It's approach always felt arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Rascacielo said:
I think the spires of the Chicago towers were an integral part of the building's architectural plans (the same goes for Burj Khalifa, Empire State Building, etc), whereas the FCP antennas were probably not part of the original design. I know it's kinda cheating to boost height with spires even if they are part of the design, but if they include antennas, cellphone towers and such (especially those added after the towers are occupied), developers may try to outdo each other by adding such structures to already completed towers.
Click to expand...
Correct, @Rascacielo. This video lays it out pretty well:

 
Rascacielo said:
I think the spires of the Chicago towers were an integral part of the building's architectural plans (the same goes for Burj Khalifa, Empire State Building, etc), whereas the FCP antennas were probably not part of the original design. I know it's kinda cheating to boost height with spires even if they are part of the design, but if they include antennas, cellphone towers and such (especially those added after the towers are occupied), developers may try to outdo each other by adding such structures to already completed towers.
Click to expand...
Personally, I absolutely hate the antennas on FCP. Totally cheapens the building. At least Chicago's look like part of the architecture, much cleaner than the mess on top of our tallest office building.
 
Civdis said:
Personally, I absolutely hate the antennas on FCP. Totally cheapens the building. At least Chicago's look like part of the architecture, much cleaner than the mess on top of our tallest office building.
Click to expand...
They’re about as attractive as the poles and cables that adorn many of our streets. Some would no doubt say they add character 🙄
 
Civdis said:
Personally, I absolutely hate the antennas on FCP. Totally cheapens the building. At least Chicago's look like part of the architecture, much cleaner than the mess on top of our tallest office building.
Click to expand...
Rascacielo said:
They’re about as attractive as the poles and cables that adorn many of our streets. Some would no doubt say they add character 🙄
Click to expand...
I love 'em! FCP would feel naked with out the assorted antennae up there.
 
Toronto Model 01-23-25 Concord Sky.png
 
It's a messy sight. I dislike the antennae with a passion. Now, if they replaced them with one or two or even four symmetrical spires, like the Chicago towers, I would be back on board. Replace them with anything that is uniquely us, and I would also be on board. What about a spire that looked like a mini-CN Tower. Ok, maybe not.
 
OpenClosed said:
I will never understand why the antennas on FCP weren’t counted, they’re one of the most defining features of the tower, imagine it without them 🤷‍♂️
Same logic applies for the mentioned skyscrapers in Chicago, if they count. Why dosent FCP?
Click to expand...
CTBUH has the same standard for all towers. Tip, Architectural Height, and Occupied Height.

Definition - https://cloud.ctbuh.org/CTBUH_HeightCriteria.pdf
Willis Tower based on CTBUH - https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/willis-tower/169
First Canadian Place based on CTBUH - https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/first-canadian-place/543

Screenshot 2025-01-23 at 7.44.01 AM.png


Screenshot 2025-01-23 at 7.44.12 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-01-23 at 7.49.06 AM.png


CTBUH typically uses Architectural Height to determine the builiding's category.

FCP's height is definitely based on architectural height without the antenna (altho there are some disagreement on FCP architectural height based on my understanding - 298 vs 293).

Sidenote - I just realized that CTBUH did not count the small broadcasting add-on structure at the top of FCP. I wonder if this is something that can be raised and to bring FCP up to super tall status?

1737637057765.png


Edit - emailed the question to CTBUH, we will see if they will answer.
 
Last edited:
Antennas should never be including in a final height of any given tower because they are a utility added after the fact that's really unrelated to the tower itself. And thusly, should be given its own measurement separately. While spires on the other hand are part of the architecture of the tower even if they are vestige...

...although in my opinion counting spires is still cheating and a tower's height for the record should be from the roof down. But I am not the CTBUH. /sigh
 

Tyrang said:
CTBUH has the same standard for all towers. Tip, Architectural Height, and Occupied Height.

Definition - https://cloud.ctbuh.org/CTBUH_HeightCriteria.pdf
Willis Tower based on CTBUH - https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/willis-tower/169
First Canadian Place based on CTBUH - https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/first-canadian-place/543

View attachment 627110

View attachment 627109 View attachment 627111

CTBUH typically uses Architectural Height to determine the builiding's category.

FCP's height is definitely based on architectural height without the antenna (altho there are some disagreement on FCP architectural height based on my understanding - 298 vs 293).

Granted, I just realized that CTBUH did not count the small broadcasting add-on structure at the top of FCP. I wonder if this is something that can be raised and to bring FCP up to super tall status?

View attachment 627112

Edit - emailed the question to CTBUH, we will see if they will answer.
Click to expand...

skycandy said:
View attachment 627348

View attachment 627349
Click to expand...
What a strange first couple of floors..
 
I much preferred the initial KPF design for this site. I’m a fan of tall, slim designs and this is going to be quite a beast. The One is an example of a style I like and will look great even at the reduced height. Hopefully the developers here will use curtain wall glass as depicted in the first renders of the latest version, which will help. The north/south profile should be interesting and I like the proposed roofline. I live two blocks from here and my view is going to change dramatically with the addition of this tower and 8 Elm, which promises to be a lovely addition to the area. Not a fan of the architects-Alliance plan for the Chelsea hotel property. Regardless, this area will be dramatically transformed in the coming years.
 
Last edited:
Tarazet said:
I much preferred the initial KPF design for this site. I’m a fan of tall, slim designs and this is going to be quite a beast. The One is an example of a style I like and will look great even at the reduced height. Hopefully the developers here will use curtain wall glass as depicted in the first renders of the latest version, which will help. The north/south profile should be interesting and I like the proposed roofline. I live two blocks from here and my view is going to change dramatically with the addition of this tower and 8 Elm, which promises to be a lovely addition to the area. Not a fan of the architects-Alliance plan for the Chelsea hotel property. Regardless, this area will be dramatically transformed in the coming years.
Click to expand...
What’s the difference between the new and old design aside from the height obviously?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top