Toronto 1200 Bay | 326.5m | 87s | ProWinko | Herzog & de Meuron

steveve said:
That would be nice. This is an interesting site that’s very tight for two towers of these heights with adequate separation. The current plan makes 80 Bloor too large IMO. Ideally, I would have liked the block to be split down the middle, giving us a wider 1200 Bay and a slimmer 80 Bloor.
Click to expand...
I think the thinness is what wins it for this building. Again, fattening this up has the danger of it becoming just another glass box.

...I agree though, these projects should really merge.
 
trnto.com

Toronto keeps tearing down massive concrete office towers to build even higher glass ones? | TRNTO.com

Two ’60s and ’70s era office buildings may meet the wrecking ball
trnto.com trnto.com

A similar building currently occupies the space of a proposed development in Yorkville where Dutch company Kroonenberg Group and ProWink Canada Ltd. have proposed an 87-storey tower incorporating office, residential and retail space at 1200 Bay St.

The prime Yorkville site is currently home to a 12-storey office building constructed in 1968, featuring a retail component on the ground floor that is best known as the former home of Davids Footwear for close to five decades, from 1971 to 2019.

A heritage impact assessment for the site, also prepared by ERA Architects, notes the site is not on the City of Toronto’s heritage register or adjacent to recognized heritage resources. The assessment states that, although the building exhibits some modernist influences, it is not a unique or representative example of the style, of which there are better examples in the city.

Councillor Mike Layton said that the application is aggressive in terms of height.

“We spent years doing a secondary plan for the downtown core, and this kind of shoots right up in the middle of it and disrupts the plan for what the skyline was to look like,” said Layton. “It was contemplated that tall buildings would be in this area but not as tall as what they’re going for.”

Layton said it is not surprising that an application has been submitted to replace the current building.

“You see the neighbourhood going up around it, 50, 60 storeys and some 70 storeys just east. It’s no surprise that someone who owned the building would go, ‘Hey, we want what they have’ because of the value that can be created,” said Layton, who noted that the developer will have to replace any office space lost due to the destruction of the current building.

“I’m not surprised. You have minimum 30-storey buildings all around it. The fact they want to add some additional height is somewhat expected.”

There is no mention of the environmental cost of tearing down a combined 20 storeys of solid concrete.
Click to expand...
 
The Preservationist said:
I smell a rat .... I've never heard of these guys Prowinko or Kroonenberg. What have they developed before of this magnitude?
Click to expand...

urbantoronto.ca

ProWinko | UrbanToronto

ProWinko is a real estate developer. Get more info on this company, including projects, renderings, photos, maps, news, all on UrbanToronto.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
I would also think for a building that tall, thin and wide you would need two full width concrete solid cross members (internal walls) minimal to keep it from flexing due to wind loads. I'm not saying it isn't doable but sticking a mass damper at the top with a typical concrete or steel frame won't do it. I'll be very interested to see what they come up with if it goes thru without a significant height chop.
 
Last edited:
Also the Four Seasons just north had to be build on a concrete raft. If similar ground conditions are prevalent here a 320m building very difficult. Have they taken any soil samples?
 
Last edited:
Prowinko is a Dutch real estate firm. They don't have much presence in Toronto so I assume that their development efforts are going to be partnership and consultant driven with local Toronto groups, especially as this project progresses through preliminary planning stages.
 
Last edited:
Thinking about it if they have one massive north/side wide service core down the west side might be enough to avoid flexing but the renderings provided show very little heavy structure external to the core for an 87s building. As a mechanical structures guy I'm not saying they can't do it but I question the lightness of the renderings provided. Think end product will have to be more robust. My recently retired brother in law is one of the leading experts in the country for tall structure foundations. I've got a couple of questions around less than ideal ground conditions for a building of such proportions for him next time we meet up.
 
Last edited:
The Preservationist said:
Thinking about it if they have one massive north/side wide service core down the west side might be enough to avoid flexing but the renderings provided show very little heavy structure external to the core for an 87s building. As a mechanical structures guy I'm not saying they can't do it but I question the lightness of the renderings provided. Think end product will have to be more robust. My recently retired brother in law is one of the leading experts in the country for tall structure foundations. I've got a couple of questions around less than ideal ground conditions for a building of such proportions for him next time we meet up.
Click to expand...

You've likely seen this (was discussed earlier) but would love your structural take on it for geeks like me with zero understanding of the drawings.

AoD mentioned earlier the possibility of "column" dampers being used as well.

1200Bay.png

City of Toronto Information Centre
 
Undead said:
"disrupts the plan for what the skyline was to look like" lol
Click to expand...

I like Mike Layton a lot but I have no idea why he thinks the City can control this kind of thing over time — what the skyline was supposed to look like was very different in the past and it will be very different in the future.

Fast forward 20-30 years or more and the entire plan will be disrupted in new unforeseen ways, unless he thinks the city is just going to stop growing. Of course some degree of control over where density goes is good to try to do in order to plan and build the city in human-friendly and sustainable ways, but the argument that this shouldn't happen because it messes with the intended skyline peak at Yonge & Bloor, which is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from this site isn't a good argument and it distracts from and undermines the more relevant issues with this development, making it seem like opposition to the project is just superficial reactionary anti-height defensiveness. Even though I agree in a way that the skyline would be more aesthetically appealing if the height peak were at Yonge & Bloor — it's just unrealistic and counterproductive IMO to try to over-control these types of things over time.

That said, this development might not make sense for other reasons (separation distance, the environmental cost of tearing down an already large concrete structure, etc.) and opposition to the project should focus on those rather than what the skyline "should" look like. And above all else I hope it doesn't happen because the architecture currently on the site is irreplaceable, beautiful, and endangered and it should be preserved and protected.
 
Hi 3 Dementia I have not. On this diagram I'm seeing a massive amount of structural reenforcement on the East side of the building. With the west side elevator core extending 40% thru the core this is should work with torsional twisting and flexing. I based my previous statement looking at the artist illustrations provided. I'm not seeing any evidence of this structure on the east side views. Building this structure you aren't going to end up with the light airy design that the illustrations are suggesting but a heavily structured externally framed box. I'm would expect even with mass dampers significant movement in the top floors. As stated before ground conditions could significantly complicate. Lastly to be fair my relevant experience is in large scale industrial construction not supertalls.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply. Yes the renders portray a pretty transparent promise, by focusing on the west** exterior (and north or south corners).

**conveniently ignores a very tall proposed neighbour, a spit away ;)

42381-123705.jpg

UT
 
The Preservationist said:
Building this structure you aren't going to end up with the light airy design that the illustrations are suggesting but a heavily structured externally framed box.
Click to expand...

P.S. Somewhat ironically, it does seem like the east view, the view without another building glued to it, would be minimal (maybe using more opaque curtain-wall to boot).

:oops:
 
3Dementia said:
P.S. Somewhat ironically, it does seem like the east view, the view without another building glued to it, would be minimal (maybe using more opaque curtain-wall to boot).

:oops:
Click to expand...
Ah yes, marketing material often triggers me, the unrealistic promise and what you get.... besides structurally speaking I wonder how long those wooden window blinds will work over the decades. 🤔
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top