Toronto 191 Bay | 301.74m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini

duper said:
Apologies if this has already been asked, but I wonder why they are not including the spire height in the official height. That counts, as far as Emporis is concerned.
Click to expand...
Yea, and Don King is 7 ft 2 if you count the hair.
 
interchange42 said:
Both phases of CIBC Square add up to the largest Toronto office complex since the TD Centre, of which phase 1 is now under construction. Is that what you mean by 'Union'?

42
Click to expand...
Dont forge
interchange42 said:
Both phases of CIBC Square add up to the largest Toronto office complex since the TD Centre, of which phase 1 is now under construction. Is that what you mean by 'Union'?
42
Click to expand...

It's amazing whats going on in Toronto with the office sector, ....CIBC SQ.-2 should break ground shortly after the 1st phase tops off, by that time The Well, and BA-3, should be very well into construction
with this (CC-3), 156 Front, Union Centre, 30 Bay, Union Park, 1 Yonge, all in the pipeline, plus dont forget all the smaller ones (12s-18s) proposed in the east and west ends of the downtown core
Great time to live in Toronto:cool:
 
Last edited:
Looks friggin awesome! Wicked tall for a fully office building anywhere outside of China these days! :) I just wonder, why did they make it virtually identical in height to First Canadian Place? I feel like this must not be coincidence, some sort of office construction bylaw perhaps?

Automation Gallery said:
Hmm? 350 meters, i wonder if that would be considered the legit height
Click to expand...

I believe the CTBUH classifies decorative/structurally significant spires (such as this, the Bank of America Tower [NYC], etc) as part of the "official height" scale, while it doesn't consider antenna (FCP, et al) to be part of this. So yes, as far as CTBUH, Wikipedia, Emporis, and the SSP diagram database go, 350 meters will be the official height of this puppy. :)
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
30 feet or 30 meters...lol
Click to expand...
UrbanWarrior said:
Looks friggin awesome! Wicked tall for a fully office building anywhere outside of China these days! :) I just wonder, why did they make it virtually identical in height to First Canadian Place? I feel like this must not be coincidence, some sort of office construction bylaw perhaps?



I believe the CTBUH classifies decorative/structurally significant spires (such as this, the Bank of America Tower [NYC], etc) as part of the "official height" scale, while it doesn't consider antenna (FCP, et al) to be part of this. So yes, as far as CTBUH, Wikipedia, Emporis, and the SSP diagram database go, 350. meters will be the official height of this puppy. :)
Click to expand...

Haha, so which category does this spire on CC-3 fall into? regarding the 298,1 feet, i think that's a Toronto thing between developers and city planning in their initial proposals,
one of the LCBO towers is also proposed at that height, 1 Yonge, and Gehry King street, as i recall were also proposed around that height and eventually ended up getting approved at supertall status
...id take this proposed height with 'a grain of salt, and expect it to be our 5th supertall
Sorry to upset some of you guys for talking supertalls...lol:p
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
Haha, so which category does this spire on CC-3 fall into? regarding the 298,1 feet, i think that's a Toronto thing between developers and city planning in their initial proposals,
one of the LCBO towers is also proposed at that height, 1 Yonge, and Gehry King street, as i recall were also proposed around that height and eventually ended up getting approved at supertall status
...id take this proposed height with 'a grain of salt, and expect it to be our 5th supertall
Sorry to upset some of you guys for talking supertalls...lol:p
Click to expand...

Oh okay cool.

The official height of this one, due to the spire, will by 350 meters as it is currently proposed. The whole spire thing is like how Trump Toronto is officially considered taller than Scotia Plaza, even though most find that notion laughable. Another example is how TD Canada Trust Tower is considered taller than The Bow, Brookfield Place, Harbour Plaza (both), ICE East, and CCW, even though its roof only comes to 227 meters. Montreal's 1250 René-Lévesque also uses a spire to jump from 199 to 230 meters. The impact of spires can be different though, with the spire on TD Canada Trust Tower being noticeable and substantial, while the two others mentioned have less noticeable of an impact than even the FCP antennas. I personally don't like spires if they look tacked on like this one, 1250, NY Times Tower, etc. and am not sure how I feel about them being the "official" height of a tower, but c'est la vie.
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
Im with you, if its not floors it shouldn't be height...a spire is a bogus overall additional height to a building
Click to expand...

Exactly. Like Tom Cruise wearing platforms to look taller.

The CBTUH is based mostly in the US though, or at least it was when the measures were created. The US has a LOT of buildings that use spires to achieve greater official height. Some nice, like Empire State, Chrysler, the Bank of America Towers in NYC and Atlanta, and many brutally, like the NY Times Tower, Wilshire Grand in LA, Trump Chicago, Comcast IT Centre in Phili. All towers mentioned use spires to push into supertall status (300+ meters/1000 feet).
 
UrbanWarrior said:
Looks friggin awesome! Wicked tall for a fully office building anywhere outside of China these days! :) I just wonder, why did they make it virtually identical in height to First Canadian Place? I feel like this must not be coincidence, some sort of office construction bylaw perhaps?



I believe the CTBUH classifies decorative/structurally significant spires (such as this, the Bank of America Tower [NYC], etc) as part of the "official height" scale, while it doesn't consider antenna (FCP, et al) to be part of this. So yes, as far as CTBUH, Wikipedia, Emporis, and the SSP diagram database go, 350 meters will be the official height of this puppy. :)
Click to expand...
Calling this a spire, as opposed to an antenna, is ridiculous. It's not architecturally integral to the design whatsoever: it's just a pointy thing sticking out of the roof. Anyone claiming this proposal as a supertall will be laughed at.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Calling this a spire, as opposed to an antenna, is ridiculous. It's not architecturally integral to the design whatsoever: it's just a pointy thing sticking out of the roof. Anyone claiming this proposal as a supertall will be laughed at.

42
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this. Like it or not, spires are considered part of the official height of a building, and since this object is not an antenna, and it's so similar to other objects that ARE officially considered spires, it will undoubtedly be considered a spire, making this building a supertall by definition.
 
Ridiculous, pathetic, unworthy.

42
 
If one has to resort to technicalities to be put into that category, it doesn't justifiably belong there. Ask yourself - do you really think this is a supertall, at 64s? No. Putting it in that category just turns it into a joke that should be laughed at.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top