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

G.L.17 said:
It's market demand and feasibility, City Hall has nothing to do with that aspect. Buildings along the eastern edge of the Financial District however, along Yonge St, are more restricted in heights in respect to surrounding areas. Back up your argument before you say something.
Click to expand...
I'm right, no one can build a building more than 30 stories in the downtown core thanks to the city hall idiots and now all we can build are short stubby buildings that look like crap. This restriction has been well documented.
 
johnwood said:
I'm right, no one can build a building more than 30 stories in the downtown core thanks to the city hall idiots and now all we can build are short stubby buildings that look like crap. This restriction has been well documented.
Click to expand...
Oh? Enlighten me, please, with documentation.
 
condovo said:
80+ would create a perfect peak in the skyline. I think something like that will be built in the future, with the existing buildings on the block forming the base.
Click to expand...
Anything of that magnitude better be exquisitely designed and not the predictable, minimalist crud this city is notorious for.
 
johnwood said:
I remember city hall idiots implementing theses rules so if you want to see them do your own research.
Click to expand...

You are the one who said it was "well documented" - you quote it, you show it. And before you call anyone "idiots", you should review your posting record on here.

stjames2queenwest said:
Shadowing Nathan Phillips is definitely an issue.

So is the hostility.
Click to expand...

There certainly is concerns over shadowing - but it certainly wasn't nothing 30s or above in the downtown core. BA1 is 51; EY is 40. Non-factual BS statements like that the city doesn't allow anything over 30s should rightly be challenged.

AoD
 
Last edited:
An argument about limits on the heights of buildings in the "downtown core" partly depends on what you mean by that term. I would say from Yonge to University and from the tracks to Queen would be a reasonable definition.

As some posters have noted, that includes, BA East at 44 storeys, EY at 40, plus INDX at 54 storeys under construction. It also includes the first BA tower at 51 storeys and Trump at 57, both completed relatively recently. Then there is L Tower, which you might not want to include, at 57 storeys.

Two things: as we know, storeys, rather than metres or feet, are not very accurate measures of height. Any limit is likely to be expressed in metres rather than storeys. But more relevant to the argument, it's easy to name a number of towers that exceed Mr.Woods' supposed 30 storey limit. Off the top of my head, however, I can't name a single one that is 30 storeys or less. Maybe the 30 storey limit actually works the other way! In fact, that may be the case on the economic side. You may have to build something at least 30 storeys high to recoup the cost of real estate in the core. But that is just uninformed speculation on my part.
 
Last edited:
A boorish heighter. Why even respond? Beyond reason, in my opinion.

The top half of the tower can be seen unobstructed from past Sherbourne. The entire CBD can be considered out of place. In typical heighter form, even taller is the only natural conclusion.
 
Last edited:
johnwood has been banned for trolling in general, and for that last post in particular, which was an unacceptable response to a moderator. Our new software still has him labeled as an "Active Member" for some reason, but the strike-through on his name means that he is gone.

Carry on everyone else.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top