News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 816     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.6K     0 

Maldive's Rendering of the Future Toronto Skyline

Although an excellent spot for a 58 story condo, we are building a skyline of buildings that sort of top out just shy of 600 feet. While this is tall by any standard, if they are all the same height it will not be particularly striking. There should be some variation in building heights in that part of downtown. With the Ritz, RBC, Shangri-La and the Cityplace towers all being flat-top buildings of roughly the same height we might end up with a Vancouveresque skyline, albeit twice as tall.
Click to expand...

I really don't see this as a problem. We don't have any existing buildings in that height range in that area. Yes the current wave of development has a number of proposals within a similar height range - I would suggest that as potential development sites become scarcer that heights/number of units per proposal will continue to increase. It seems each year condo applications are pushing the 'glass ceiling' higher and higher. Also when parking lots disappear, the costs of purchasing land that is in short supply and demolishing existing structures becomes cost prohibitave. Therefore the risk must be spread over ever increasing numbers of units to make the numbers work for developers, while attempting to keep the individual condo units affordable to consumers. Future proposals will essentially get taller and taller.

How many 40+ floor condos were actively being marketed or even in the proposal stage even just 3 or 4 years ago. Now the 40-60 range is typical in the downtown area.
 
I don't think we have to worry about a flattening out skyline. In a discussion on Rcop I mention how a building of such height still makes a striking impression in the city.
 
This is my preliminary take on the expected height of the newly-announced 58-floor condo building. Hopefully, more information will be released in the coming weeks.

A first approximation would be a total height per floor (including podium and roof elements) of 12 feet plus or minus one foot. This would give a total rooftop height range of 638 to 754 feet.

A different approach would divide the total height of the building into three parts: podium, main residential, and roof elements. If the podium is three floors high (at 20 feet per floor), leaving 55 floors at 10 feet per floor, and 80 to 100 feet for a roof element, we have a total rooftop height of 60 feet plus 550 feet plus 80-100 feet, for a total of 690-710 feet. A two-floor podium would reduce these heights by 10 feet.

So I would say that this building is probably another 700-footer, plus or minus 20 or 30 feet.

Bill

edit -- Here is a list of residential/hotel '700-footers' currently proposed or in progress:

673ft / 57 floors -- L Tower
684ft / 53 floors -- Ritz Carlton
686ft / 55 floors -- Four Seasons
704ft / 65 floors -- Shangri-La
714ft / 69 floors -- Signature Tower
732ft / 76 floors -- 1 Bloor East

edited again -- Should this project get its own thread, or is it too early yet?
 
New York seems to do fine with most of its buildings in mid-town at the same height. In the context of 'problems to worry about', buildings with similar heights has almost nothing to do with how livable or pleasing a city happens to be.
Click to expand...

Well, of course not, but if we're going to be building a skyscraper city we might as well add some variety and architectural flourish to our reconstructed landscape. With few exceptions, every new tower in this city is a glass box: MLS, Shangri La, RBC, B/A, Burano, Pure Spirit, 1BE, Shangri-La, Festival Tower...the list goes on. This city needs a landmark skyscraper in that height range and other than the L tower, nothing comes to mind.

Midtown Manhattan is full of hundreds of seemingly identical buildings that seem to simply 'disappear' but it is punctuated with buildings that offer some visual focus: the UN, Chrysler building, Citicorp, etc. There is a good smattering of internationalist buildings amidst the beaux arts and art deco spires as well as some daring new towers like the Hearst building and Arquitectonica's Westin to keep the styles varied.
 
The Ritz won't be a box, its roofline will be similar to the Citicorp Center actually, and to call 1 Bloor a box is a bit of a stretch.
 
Okay, it appears that it will top out at about 180m, or 590ft. For a 58-floor building, that's short -- 1BE short. I guess that there will be no roof element other than the necessary mechanical structures, and possibly no podium either -- either that, or there will be a 9-foot floor-to-ceiling height.

So is that what 'Toronto Style' really means... staying with 9-foot standard floor heights while the rest of the world seems to be moving to 12-floot (or higher) standard floor heights?

Bill
 
i dont see 151 front in this rendering.but it is still a beauty.good work maldive.
 
Looking at this rendering with the imagined Manulife I can't help but think that an easy way for a developer to make a square tower more attention-grabbing in the skyline would be to break the grid and rotate it 45-degrees, so the south corner faces the lake. From most traditional angles the tower would seem much larger and the inevitable logos would likely get more exposure.

However, such a move would require a larger footprint.
 
^ Canada Trust Tower sort of has that effect with its setbacks near the top of the building.

New York's Freedom Tower is the best example of that kind of rotation...

SOM_T1_34_8x10_5_RGB_wmark.jpg
 
I would much rather have had this Infinity than the one we have.

Bill
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top