Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | a—A

D-W said:
Anyone else want to jump in on what I clearly stated was unconfirmed (and just a rumor). Damn lol
Click to expand...

Without knowing the credibility of your source alongside the plethora of reasons others have given on why this seems unlikely, why are you surprised that you're getting a bit of heat for your post? You haven't provided us with much more than "rumour has it"… feel like until we see a bit of evidence or even an updated application it's just making noise for noises sake.
 
daptive said:
Without knowing the credibility of your source alongside the plethora of reasons others have given on why this seems unlikely, why are you surprised that you're getting a bit of heat for your post? You haven't provided us with much more than "rumour has it"… feel like until we see a bit of evidence or even an updated application it's just making noise for noises sake.
Click to expand...
We are 191 pages in on basically a hole in the ground so probably not the first to post something not confirmed?
Really was just posting to see if anyone heard anything regarding applications or things that would confirm if anything was actually happening. Which looks like a resounding no.
 
D-W said:
We are 191 pages in on basically a hole in the ground so probably not the first to post something not confirmed?
Really was just posting to see if anyone heard anything regarding applications or things that would confirm if anything was actually happening. Which looks like a resounding no.
Click to expand...

Understandable. I really wish there was a feature in online forums that summarizes threads with over-arching discussion points and key updates and photos in a glanceable timeline. I find it daunting to join an old thread and trying to figure out where the discussion has/has not gone—so I usually just don't ask questions.
 
Northern Light said:
To add to @ProjectEnd 's most pertinent question.

The latest Arch. Plans on this site were submitted in January '23 as part of the SPA process.

They still show 85 storeys.

There have been some minor revisions, mostly to do with how the amenity areas are organized and a modest increase in unit total.

From the Jan '23 Cover Letter:

View attachment 460479View attachment 460480

Current Renders: (Jan '23 plans)

View attachment 460481

View attachment 460482
Click to expand...
Moving from height debate to render promise debate for one second (oopsie). ;)

Are graphic artists recycling old KPF stuff for Concord with some make-overs?

I think it's interesting that those January 2023 submission renderings you attached, which include an east elevation of a blue tower with a wall of balconies ... and a west elevation of a blue tower without any(?) balconies... look very little like the 4 recent UT database renderings to me... other than the shape.

In particular, the second submission image you attached looks somewhat closer to my eye to KPF's 3rd version when it was still "YSL" (same street scene as well) than the building I see below.

Database renderings
15840-137648.jpg

UT
P.S. The podium in the second 2023 submission image looks very different (to my eye) than this:
15840-137647.jpg

UT
 
I agree it's very odd to attach something to architectural plans that is clearly not what this thing looks like. Pretty sure submissions to planning don't require meaningless and misleading eye candy page-turners... that sorta stuff is for us.

When in doubt... go with the model I guess (which presumably they paid for ;-).

It looks like the UT renders...

AcW9aOWnCO.jpeg

AlbertC
 
I mean, why speculate? The SPA is posted online and has all the materials spec’d out. It’s hard to post on mobile, but here are some of the material palettes (podium first two, tower second two). The tower seems to be all curtain wall save for where there are balconies window wall is used. I guess that’s not surprising as with the green standards I’m not sure this could even get approved with so much glass if it wasn’t curtain wall.

There’s also the question of if the SPA even matters as Nobu’s drawings also painted a picture that was very different than reality 🤷‍♂️
6591795B-B5DE-433A-AB73-BC7B7BA9F0E3.png
9BE4239C-69E8-488D-966B-3E841134B7E0.png
2EFD0B8B-EB0B-41A3-9DAD-7390E0E77EAA.png
3EBB6F0A-B7AC-4D8C-A5D3-5E6A354081C4.png
 
interchange42 said:
It does not matter what the rumours are if they are not true. There is no height increase here, it's simply a case of Concord not using true numbers for the floors. Pandering to superstition, they skip over the 4th, 13th, 14th, 24th, 34th, 44th, 54th, 64th, 74th, and 84th floors. Skip over all of those and suddenly you can dish out the hype and pretend that you have a 95-storey building, even though you only really have an 85-storey building. We don't truck in hype.

42
Click to expand...
Ugh. This is the 21st century. You’d think we’d be past the superstitious numerology by now.
 
zang said:
Ugh. This is the 21st century. You’d think we’d be past the superstitious numerology by now.
Click to expand...
It feels like they're gaslighting physical reality when they do that... /sigh
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
It feels like they're gaslighting physical reality when they do that... /sigh
Click to expand...
Oh, it's ridiculous. I live in a building "without" a 13th floor, but with a "mezzanine" floor (it's not really, in the technical sense) with amenities on the floor above L. Above that MZ floor is floor 2. So, everything from 2-12 is not the actual and proper floor name, but everything from 14 and up is. I can imagine it'd seriously mess with a ladder truck fire rescue if you as a firefighter are told there's someone trapped on floor X. Or are they gonna waste precious seconds to get proper floor layout from building management first?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top