Toronto Richmond Adelaide Centre: EY Tower | 188.05m | 40s | Oxford Properties | Kohn Pedersen Fox

[ADRM]

Or maybe the builder knew there would be problems with proposing a higher building due to shadowing issues, and decided to go with the present height.

I'm not sure if that was intended to be sarcastic or serious, but if the latter, there's nothing to indicate that was the case as far as I'm aware.

Really, the broader theme of slagging the city's planning process and the associated misapplication of certain principles to projects in instances where they weren't actually applied is what I'm taking exception to.

And, yeah, the 28-storey version looked squat as all hell; glad we have what we have.

 

[old boy]

No sarcasm intended ADRM.

 

[interchange42]

We were told when we toured the building a couple of weeks ago that what has been built was the highest that they were allowed to go based on the building's shadowing of Nathan Phillips Square, or more to the point, that it not shadow Nathan Phillips Square. (I asked.)

42

 

[enrigue8]

It would have been sad if it was 28 storey high.
With such a design,it would have been a mess.

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

Guess they forgot that directly behind it (as seen from nps) is an 80 storey tower (bmo)that dosent shadow the square at all. So that not entirely there reasoning. As it still towers over EY. And again no shadow touches the square.... And to that there's also that big slab building that shadows everything in the square. So.. Ya not a shadow issue. If it is then the slab building must go immediately, before some one notices... Several Years to late! And threatens to sue..lol

Wind would be more an actual issue. Not shadows.

 

[interchange42]

Yes, it was a shadowing issue, and no, it doesn't work the way you're claiming.

It's because of the shadows cast by existing buildings south of Nathan Phillips Square that it was determined that no new buildings should be allowed to add any more shadow. Shadowing policy was not there at the beginning, but the issue was identified and the policy was put in place. It has been in force for many years since and also stops new buildings from being tall enough to cast shadows in many places in town, mostly public spaces like Nathan Phillips Square, various parks, and some school grounds.

In regards to the 72-storey First Canadian Place (bmo) to the south of the EY Tower, it is far enough south of EY that despite it being taller, its shadow does not go any further into NPS than EY.

42

 

[ushahid]

^these shadows ughhhh.

 

[Ryan_T]

I actually agree with trying to not shadow public gathering spaces. It's always pleasant to stand in an open square with sun pouring into them.

 

[someMidTowner]

July 16:

 

[interchange42]

More glazing up top:

42

 

[Mongo]

I actually agree with trying to not shadow public gathering spaces. It's always pleasant to stand in an open square with sun pouring into them.

Speak for yourself. On hot days I would prefer a nice cool shadow.

 

[smably]

Speak for yourself. On hot days I would prefer a nice cool shadow.

It's a lot easier to add temporary shade to a sunny place than it is to add sunlight to a permanently shaded place, just saying!

 

[Ryan_T]

Or perhaps they should optimize for mid-day shadowing, and clear skies in the morning/late afternoon.

Essentially, maximizing the comfortable outdoor times.

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

It's a lot easier to add temporary shade to a sunny place than it is to add sunlight to a permanently shaded place, just saying!

Reflective buildings can bounce the light around

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Reflective buildings can bounce the light around

Unless you design properly for it, the impact is usually uneven and often in the form of glare - which is never that great.

AoD