Toronto CIBC SQUARE | 241.39m | 50s | Hines | WilkinsonEyre

  • Thread starter Suicidal Gingerbread Man
  • Start date
^ True. I wonder if the city would allow 1,000 feet at Yonge and Bloor. If not, how much?

(Before you begin: this isn't a cue for city-bashing. Just wondering what the realistic maximum is for this node.)
I really like the look of that tower- very Chicago. I doubt that a building of that height would be approved for that area however, especially considering Telus was only approved for 30 st. Indeed I suspect there are VERY few places that a 1000 foot tower would be approved in this city.

Telus was only approved for 30 st. but that is all they required. This site has an approved density of 1.2 million square feet.

Anyway, the following from J. Will at SSP seems to indicate there is a shred of possibility for this tower.

"Mike in To says that it isn't (current tense) a proposal, then goes on to admit that his information is 4 months old. I've been shown a detailed site plan, as well as a floor plan in progress, a lot more recently than May. I also know for a fact that city planners have given feedback on the plans, and that this plan is after some of that feedback. This is NOT just an exterior rendering of a "fantasy" building. Of course that doesn't mean it will necessarily be built, or built exactly as is, but a lot of work has gone into this proposal."

I guess we'll have to wait and see.
If this does end up being a real proposal, it would be a nice signature tower for the area to draw attention away from Pinnacle, etc.
Would look nice on the skyline from the water too. Like it fine.
Question on Bay Street across from ACC

Cant remember - is there any plans (or speculation) on uses for the parking lot that sits on Bay Street (east side) south of the railroad tracks (ie behind the ACC)? I sometimes confuse this space with where the Telus tower is going - are there any plans for it? I hope so b/c it is a great location for something a little more than another condo.
Well, there was the 1000 footer "proposal" hovering around for a while. It hasn't been submitted to the City and may not be an actual project that's going to be proposed.
^ it wasn't a proposal, it was to promote the potential use/value of the land as a marketing tool to sell the land. The land in question does have significant as-of-right density.
This is a valuable piece of land, and as I stated on another thread its a prime location for a landmark tower, an Empire State-esque Building. :eek I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on this site by the skyscraper gurus about what could potentially be built here, just to the east of the ACC on Bay. It's here where Toronto could really put itself on a map to the rest of the world, much like Empire State Building speaks for New York and Roppongi Hills now for Tokyo.

Having moved to Japan a year and a half ago, and living near Tokyo, I've had a chance to see what's being built in and near Tokyo. And I like a lot of what I see.

I cited Roppongi Hills Tower here in Tokyo, which opened in 2003, as an example of what could be built on lower Bay St. Roppongi Hills is one of those rare landmark buildings, with its bold, yet sleek and curvaceous apperance announces its presence to the city. It looks absolutely courgeous at night, lit up by blue lights which cascade down the exterior of the building. You can take a look at it by linking to the Emporius site ...

But to really experience the profound impact Roppongi Hills has on the Tokyo skyline, you have walk around the city. That's when the building hits you. The photos on Emporius don't do Roppongi Hills justice.

(I didn't know but just learned that the architectural firm Kohn Pedersen Fox, which designed the Ritz on Wellington, was the lead archetectural firm which worked on this project.)

And Roppingi Hills isn't just a tower, it's an event. There's a courgeous observatory, (the best I've ever been in by far), which has made Tokyo Tower obsolete. The observatory on the (52 floor?) circles Mori Museum, which, if I remember correctly, is a wax/art museum.

The tower is set back from the sidewalk, but it's connections to the street are not lost. The lead-up to the tower and it's entrance are beautifully designed and lanscaped. It's kind of like walking through that little patch of trees and the big rock on Cumberland in Toronto, and then entering the base of this magnificent tower.

Roppongi Hills is valid point of comparison because guess what sits just north of it? Surprise, surprise, it's an elevated expressway. The first thing that popped into my head when I saw the tower was the Gardiner, which I hate; and I thought, "Hey, if they can build something so majestic, and landscape which resembles Cumberland across from an ugly elevated expressway, there's no reason why the same can't be done in Toronto."

If I were a developer (and I'm not) I'd go big, bold, and beautiful with this site. This spot is fitting of a landmark tower, not another drab waterfront condo which there are plenty of. Toronto need's an Empire State, Chrysler, or Roppingi Hills Builing of its own, and this is the place to put it.

I'm curious to know what the members of this forum would like to see done with this site.

I think we ought to build something like the Roppongi Hills Tower just east of the ACC.
the approved density is high while the max. allowable height is fairly low so a Tokyo monolith could be the best solution for the site
I don't think that this is so much of a prize location, though its actual location is indeed good. But, being south of the tracks, there is a disconnect between this location and the prime bay strip.
hard to tell from that link but from what I can see the Roppongi Hills Tower is a far cry from the Empire State Building.

Actually I think the BA site is a lost opportunitiy for a 1200 footer or so. I doubt they would allow such a tall tower close to the waterfront.
Actually I think the BA site is a lost opportunitiy for a 1200 footer or so. I doubt they would allow such a tall tower close to the waterfront.

Ummm .... BA is the height it is because 'they' wouldn't allow it to go any taller