ProjectEnd
Superstar
I'm fine with the Time's version:
![nytimesspire.jpg](http://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/nytimesspire.jpg)
It makes me wonder with every 2nd proposed office bldg. having shadowing issues in the downtown core if we will ever see an 80-90s/350/400m built??Combing through some files I came across a cool 80-storey concept plan for CC3 which was passed over in favour of the shorter tower and spire plan:
View attachment 176558
It's such a shame that city planning's extreme aversion to shadows means that even King & Bay can't support anything over 300m. My prediction is that Toronto will never see a 80-storey/350m-roof-height office building.It makes me wonder with every 2nd proposed office bldg. having shadowing issues in the downtown core if we will ever see an 80-90s/350/400m built??
I can only think of the of the area from Front to King and University to Bay![]()
Well i guess if your looking @ the 80 storey conceptheight reduction?
I feel like throwing in the fray yet again that I strongly believe that First Canadian Place is in fact not 298m tall. Google earth gives a 292m reading from King Street to the top of the mechanical penthouse, which tends to be accurate within a metre or two (it gives exactly accurate measurements of Aura, L Tower, Bay Adelaide, and a few others I tested, for example). This means that Commerce Court 3 would actually be taller than it by about 8m.
I should really go to the archives and pull the architectural plans for FCP to answer this, it's been bugging me for a while.
Maybe the supporting docs from the 2012-completed recladding would be easier to dig up?You'd need Brookfield's written permission to submit a routine disclosure application on that.
Surely you'd be able to pull up some staff reports from the time with some elevations or something?You'd need Brookfield's written permission to submit a routine disclosure application on that.