Toronto One Bloor East | 257.24m | 76s | Great Gulf | Hariri Pontarini

Size of the apartments being built have little to do with allowable density or height limits. It's entirely consumer driven. Also, developer don't build huge for the sake of building huge. In their minds, the smaller, the quicker to get in and out and the less overall risk. They esssentially build huge to recoup the cost of the land and more allowable density usually amounts to a higher land cost. Less planning restrictions likely won't lower costs significantly.

I also fail to see how building 40 storey towers is the only way to increase density as does not replacing a 2 storey structure with a 6 storey structure do the same? Wouldn't building intermediary midrises over finite skyscrapers also represent more organic growth? It's all well and good to talk about transit but no one is willing to provide the tens of billions needed to build a capable sysytem to replace cars (if one such exists). Our downtown road infrastructure is pretty much built at it's maximum and neither is it an island with $6 toll bridges connecting it to the rest of the city. Traffic is seriously consideration.
 
Last edited:
^ Big Daddy, some people are just simply anti-height - period. That attitude mystifies me.

I think a dash of real height here and there would spice up downtown a lot, especially if the buildings are well done. I love the idea of slender and tall, not slab-like and tall.

Reading this has brought to mind something I overheard as I was leaving a concert downtown last night. A fellow was spouting off about Toronto's buildings being too tall.

-- Purely anti-height .. some people are just like that. I don't believe the majority are like that -- the anti-heights are very vocal, that's all.
 
Last edited:
Typical response. Someone that isn't totally obsessed with height is therefore anti-height. I guess that height isn't such a big deal when it comes to design & scale is above most height enthusiasts comprehension
 
The question was, what is the reason for this 'hunger for height," such as in your post saying that you loved the idea of "slender and tall." People could be anti height because of the congestion of public transit, and the blocking out of the sun to all that are at a lower height, but what are the positive things that height, such as buildings of 80 or so stories brings? As was pointed out, density could be achieved by other means.

No one has said anything positive about such height.
 
One of the good things about a tall building is tourism! The CN tower attracts 2 million visitors every year! It's one of the reasons the CN tower was actually built to 553 m.
Also, pride. I have pride in telling people that the tallest freestanding structure used to be in our city!! Imagine how the people of Dubai feel because of Burj Khalifa at 828m.
 
fanoftoronto said:
The CN tower attracts 2 million visitors every year! It's one of the reasons the CN tower was actually built to 553 m.
Click to expand...

Not true. They weren't even expecting it to be a tourist attraction... the height was simply created so that it would be taller than anything else in the financial district, so it could more effectively transmit TV/radio signals.
 
I don't see any real positives or negatives in what the height of an 80 storey tower means for Toronto. Design is what matters and there's only room for the best at those heights ... an unrealistic expectation from the residential side of the industry.
 
I have to agree with the skyscraper geeks to a certain extent. A height limit in the financial district is ludicrous. What possible difference does it make whether a building is 70 stories or 90 stories? Human scale is very important but it has a lot more to do with the design of the base than the height of the building, at least once you get past a certain point. Sure, a 3 floor building is more human scaled than a 20 floor building, but I really don't think a 60 floor building is significantly less human scaled than a 20 floor one.
 
So this building is 65 stories and there are people complaining that its not high enough? And they bring out the old arguments about 'density' and 'transit nodes'?

The Yonge and Bloor subway station is plenty crowded as it is. And 5 more stories is not going to mean anything in the larger density of the city. You need better arguments or you just come off as a geek with nothing better to get worked up about.

;)
 
maestro said:
Size of the apartments being built have little to do with allowable density or height limits. It's entirely consumer driven. Also, developer don't build huge for the sake of building huge. In their minds, the smaller, the quicker to get in and out and the less overall risk. They esssentially build huge to recoup the cost of the land and more allowable density usually amounts to a higher land cost. Less planning restrictions likely won't lower costs significantly.

I also fail to see how building 40 storey towers is the only way to increase density as does not replacing a 2 storey structure with a 6 storey structure do the same? Wouldn't building intermediary midrises over finite skyscrapers also represent more organic growth? It's all well and good to talk about transit but no one is willing to provide the tens of billions needed to build a capable sysytem to replace cars (if one such exists). Our downtown road infrastructure is pretty much built at it's maximum and neither is it an island with $6 toll bridges connecting it to the rest of the city. Traffic is seriously consideration.
Click to expand...


I actually agree with most of what you are saying, I believe it is our city's best interest to get as many people as possible to live downtown. Less car traffic, more affordable transit (increased ridership), more people doing more walking etc etc. However, I do believe that certain sites lend themselves to increased density. 65 stories on this site is a cop out. Two blocks from here – 40 stories makes more sense.

However, it’s not entirely consumer driven. Great Gulf has decided to build a smaller much less flamboyant building not because its consumer driven, but because it wants to limit its risks, reduce costs and move on. They don’t care about what’s right for the city or the consumer. They know this site will sell – it already did once – no brainer – but rather than build something more suited to the site, they are again building a very conservative box, employing balconies to make it appear as if they tried to design something. It happens all the time here. Maybe some didn’t like the 81 story building Bazis proposed but it was at least daring and more appropriate density for the site.
This site should be employed to greater density – it’s the best place for it – quite arguably better than Gerrard and Yonge – although it makes sense there as well – centre of the core, subway etc..
 
Last edited:
alklay said:
So this building is 65 stories and there are people complaining that its not high enough? And they bring out the old arguments about 'density' and 'transit nodes'?

The Yonge and Bloor subway station is plenty crowded as it is. And 5 more stories is not going to mean anything in the larger density of the city. You need better arguments or you just come off as a geek with nothing better to get worked up about.

;)
Click to expand...

What I am saying is this site is zoned for and located for a much higher building - and “transit nodes†is not an old argument, it’s a fact. Two subway lines move more people that an expressway with far less impact on the environment. And while the platforms are crowded at rush hour, there are solutions to that as well, more trains, less time between trains etc. - not to mention there is another subway station just two blocks west on Bay street and another just south of the ROM (3 blocks away)

4371594122_6b0cabe44f_o.jpg
 
What about the notions of symbolism, hierarchy, ordering of building on the city grid. Yonge and Bloor is the most recognizable address in Canada. I think the thirst for height is coming from the unrealized potential, and missed opportunity to truly define the intersection as something of significance....Aura, a few blocks down is 10 stories higher. Does not seem right....
 
The Condo Observer:

I don't call putting a 85s condo on the site a "realization of potential" when far more intensive and lucrative potential uses (e.g. Class A office) exists. I have said this before - and will said it again - if you bring out the density and accessibility arguments, then why shouldn't we actually consider the implications of zoning the site for residential use - i.e. it is actually inferior? Also, however "revolutionary" the design of a condo maybe, it is still far below what office buildings can potentially offer in terms of material quality, etc?

AoD
 
Last edited:
^^^ perhaps true and by pure logic then 65s is even less a realization of potential. Whats the point in arguing zoning / usage at this point? Critiquing the design makes sense because there is atleast some chance that it may be changed / refined. Clearly the demand for condos is high, while we would likely have to wait 10-20 years for demand for office space to equate to a new tower here and even then it likely wouldnt be more than 30 storeys.

I'd still like to see someone crunch the numbers on this one. Unless the floorplate of this thing fills the entire property I cant see how this single tower is going to be profitable for GG. Well unless they charge $1000/sf. I know somebody had done some calculations back when Bazis was forced to sell the property, but cant recall who it was.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top