Toronto 2 Queen West | 34.44m | 7s | Cadillac Fairview | Zeidler

yyzer said:
not bad! that cut out at the base somehow reminds me a little of L Tower..
Click to expand...

I actually think the base looks a ton like the hearst tower (and also the corner at the top a little).
Considering the design is bound to change, I do hope the base looks something along the lines of what we see now, a taller, slimmer, hearst tower would be amazing! odd that they're thinking rentals though,.

0608hearsTower_lg.jpg
 
I really hope they improve on the crown. It has enormous potential to be a beacon and contribute significantly to our skyline.
 
If it hasn't mentioned, let's also keep in mind that IIRC there's some kind of historical "lease" on the site that explains why the Eaton Centre wasn't able to acquire the parcel, and may or may not even stand in the way of outright demolishing the property. So there's more than just "heritage preservation" involved here--though yes, the advent of the heritage movement as a "saleable" concept has proved to be a boon at this address...
 
"[Woolwoth’s] long presence at one of Toronto’s top retail corners was aided by a stipulation landowner Naomi Bilton included when she sold the property to McMaster University (established by her father) for a dollar in 1917. Bilton had an undisclosed beef against the Eaton family and placed a condition that the property could never be sold to the Eaton’s or their related businesses."

Source

42
 
MisterF said:
I've read that on UT before too, but there's no requirement for balconies. Not sure how that little myth got started.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the law states that windows must at least be able to open... why would balonies be neccessary? other then for enjoyment purposes.
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
Pretty sure the law states that windows must at least be able to open... why would balonies be neccessary? other then for enjoyment purposes.
Click to expand...

The Ritz Carlton and there is a few other condo buildings around that have windows that don't open, like an office building. I couldn't imagine living in a air tight box.
 
I think the building looks pretty decent. I only wish they carried up the vertical elements more prominently and reduced the prominence of the horizontals. Very happy to know it'll be rental, and thanks for that tidbit I42.
 
interchange42 said:
"[Woolwoth’s] long presence at one of Toronto’s top retail corners was aided by a stipulation landowner Naomi Bilton included when she sold the property to McMaster University (established by her father) for a dollar in 1917. Bilton had an undisclosed beef against the Eaton family and placed a condition that the property could never be sold to the Eaton’s or their related businesses."

Source

42
Click to expand...

Interesting article. An archival rendering from the 20's show how the Eaton property developed around and in spite of not owning the corner:

 
Last edited:
Looking at the rendering, for once, I actually like it, but as we all know, the chances of my hair growing back (not on my back!) is greater then this tower actually being built to the exact specifications of the original rendering! I dread to think what city council will do to this proposal. Not to be a pessimist, but despite the great amount of construction going on, it seems they are terrified to surpass any proposal past 300 meters. I'm well aware of the many criteria necessary to get approved, but I'll never, for the life of me, understand why, in an area with dozens of towers over 150 meters and up, do they worry about casting a shadow? I could understand if they were building it in a rural area, but come on, in the downtown core? Makes no sense to me at all. Off topic for a second, but they rejected the Massey tower proposal because its too tall? Huh? Didn't they notice the Pantages tower, or the Eatons centre towers. Very few live in the area, so why do they worry about shadowing? Granted, I'm the least knowledgeable on this site, can anyone enlighten me on how and why they would worry about shadowing on a site surrounded by other tall towers? It just makes no sense to me, but what do I know? I'm an X-ray Tech! :D
 
That's too simplistic a view of why Massey Tower received a refusal report… and not a good summation of it either. Read the front page story on that here. Know as well that the approvals process for it is proceeding nevertheless: there are mitigating circumstances that mean that Community Council wants to see Massey Tower get built.

In regards to this tower; yes, shadows would be a concern as Nathan Phillips Square is nearby. However, Zeidler Partnership Architects says that this plan does not increase shadows on the square. We'll see a study soon enough I suppose.

42
 
I was just about to say that they did not have any issue with how tall the Massey Tower was. I just don't understand the ranting and raving about how city hall prevents "supertalls" and "ruins" designs, when there is zero evidence of such.
 
Despite the initial rendering showing a 69-storey building, the City insists the the submission is for a 65-storey building. It's probably another week or so before we see the preliminary report.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top