Toronto Bay Adelaide Centre | 217.92m | 51s | Brookfield | KPMB

[someMidTowner]

Jan 1
Surprised they haven't added anymore steel since I last shot it a few weeks ago

This is where people will probably start making Stump 2.0 jokes.

 

[Edward Skira]

Holidays and weather are the reason.

 

[FAC33]

This is where people will probably start making Stump 2.0 jokes.

I was worried I was the only person who had that thought going through my mind.

 

[chriskayTO]

I was also thinking this exact thing. It's a bit of a disorienting deja vu right now, because the stump is about the same size, however in the wrong spot and a bit of a different shape.

 

[Automation Gallery]

It's a bit of a disorienting deja vu right now, because the stump is about the same size, however in the wrong spot and a bit of a different shape.

Forget that....today its a different economy, and Toronto office space demand has never been better

 

[chriskayTO]

This is no commentary on the economics of commercial real estate development - purely from a visual perspective, emerging from Scotia Plaza onto Adelaide.

 

[drum118]

Holidays and weather are the reason.

True, but they was enough time to put the tie beams in from the columns to the core.

 

[Automation Gallery]

This is no commentary on the economics of commercial real estate development - purely from a visual perspective, emerging from Scotia Plaza onto Adelaide.

Hmmm....stump = on hold = economics

 

[TrickyRicky]

"Forget that....today its a different economy, and Toronto office space demand has never been better"

"It's different this time" references and "stump" references are in the same working group

 

[DtTO]

Hmmm....stump = on hold = economics

Visual similarities =/= context. One stump was there due to abandonment (low demand), while the other is there due to construction (high demand). Obviously, I'm referring to the original stump after construction had stopped abruptly, not while it was still under construction.

 

[raptor]

2nd crane erection continues this morning.

 

[Tuscani01]

We can't deny that shadowing needs to be done strategically. A landowner has no inherent right to impact the enjoyment of a space that is used by vast quantities of people. That said, these guidelines and restrictions need to make sense and respond to real human need.

Actually, a landowner does have a right to impact the enjoyment of another land owners property. There is no right to sunlight, and many cases that have gone before the courts in Ontario have shown that there is no right to sunlight when it comes to property rights. There are, however, some cases that have won, but legally, there are no rights protecting the enjoyment of neighbouring land.

 

[Edward Skira]

Except I presume in the case like this where the city can using zoning and height restrictions to protect what they want to protect?

 

[Tuscani01]

Except I presume in the case like this where the city can using zoning and height restrictions to protect what they want to protect?

Correct, though using zoning and height restrictions to preserve light penetration could still be argued in court as being illegal, if that was the intent of the zoning and height restrictions to begin with. Majority of the time, these issues are settled through mediation instead of going through the legal system though.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Oh, I don't think so - if the city has made a zoning by-law, it's legal. You'd have to argue that it was either outside the city's powers to make it at all, or that it was made for some improper purpose.