Toronto The One | 308.6m | 85s | Tridel | Foster + Partners

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah, sure, give me Paris' vast swaths of classic midrise buildings and I will never complain about height again. Wanting your city to be ambitious is bragging rights? Hey maybe we should use their trick and not care about our city! Pack it up boys, there's no need for this forum anymore. We had a good run.

If there is something we should be complaining about, it is buildings that are have little to no regard for design, fit and details - with or without height. We got enough for those for two forums at full blast - I think we should start picking on those instead of a 30m reduction in one exemplar tower - and they owe no one in not breaking height records to satisfaction.

AoD

 

[zang]

Yeah, sure, give me Paris' vast swaths of classic midrise buildings and I will never complain about height again. Wanting your city to be ambitious is bragging rights? Hey maybe we should use their trick and not care about our city! Pack it up boys, there's no need for this forum anymore. We had a good run.

Paris is secure in, and accepts what it is. It seems many people here don't accept what Toronto is, and would prefer we keep whipping out our johnsons to compare to others. That's a problem for a city, because natural progression and growth won't happen if we keep thinking we're second-class. We'll keep building garbage that we don't need at the sake of what we do. Don't stop caring about this city; just stop caring what others think about this city.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Paris is secure in, and accepts what it is. It seems many people here don't accept what Toronto is, and would prefer we keep whipping out our johnsons to compare to others. That's a problem for a city, because natural progression and growth won't happen if we keep thinking we're second-class. We'll keep building garbage that we don't need at the sake of what we do. Don't stop caring about this city; just stop caring what others think about this city.

Oh I wouldn't stop thinking about what others think about the city either - but I would stop is attacking the exemplar and turning the eyes to junk, and the collective level of junkiness (Liberty Village - the bad architecture ghetto of Toronto, I am looking at you) - the latter is what kills.

AoD

 

[Big Daddy]

Think you read my post wrong. I don't think one posters has mentioned they are not a little disappointed. It's those ready to burn people at stake or compromise public space or any other community amenity for a little bit of height... pretty much only care exclusively about height ... that I wonder may not live anywhere nearby.

I think it's you that is misreading posts. I haven't read any posts that indicated anyone wanted to "burn people at stake or compromise public space or any other community amenity for a little bit of height". Some people are disappointed about the reduction in height - and they regularity with which it happens - and that's not an antisocial sentiment - it's simply disappointment, exacerbated by what seem like convenient reasons (temporary shadows). Besides we don't often get such exciting proposals, it's frustrating to see them challenged and reduced every time. If a "supertall" where to be proposed in Toronto, where should it be located if not in the centre of a high-rise area served by two subway lines? Why is it that the rest of the world is able to build supertall buildings and yet our buildings are "too tall"?

 

[maestro]

Plenty have made comments over the ratepayers and Wong-Tam. I think your, "shadows my a$$" covers compromises to public space for a little height.

What do you mean by rest of the world? It's concentrated in a few areas/countries that are attempting to establish themselves. We should be beyond that. Not to forget, these also tend to be in self contained masterplans far from existing urban areas. The king of supertalls hasn't built any in urban Deira as far as I know. As for New York, I seriously doubt the master planners ever thought there would be a market to stretch 15 FSI to 350 metres plus. There are now huge concerns with the shadows being cast on Central Park.

 

[Big Daddy]

I usually don't reply to things like this, but I feel compelled to respond to this... Big Daddy - since you care so much and are calling out others - exactly how many public meetings did you attend? How many public deputations did you make? Better yet how many units are you buying or what are you investing to make this happen?? nothing eh...

And to ksun and the endless height obsessions... you may have noticed that 553 meter tower near the lake that was the tallest freestanding structure in the world for about 30 years which apparently may have impressed a few people over the past few decades... not sure if that would have made Toronto circa 1977 one of the world's greatest cities according to you criteria, but Toronto circa 2016 seems to be doing well on lists that mater to people such as livability, economy etc

Lastly re the project itself and the 10% or so reduction in height... I'll state again that this proponent driven action likely has a lot more to do w viability of the project than the approvals process...

I am missing your point. My post has to do with my frustration that when I previously express my disappointment with the reduction of this project, I am labelled with "heighter angst" - whatever that is - and anyone who challenges the supreme wisdom of those who think cutting it is OK are immediately chastised as not being socially responsible. I believe the architecture of the whole building is important, not just the first few floors and I don't believe that a reduction such as this one is a minor change. I don't have to be an investor or make any public deputations to feel connected this project or to this part of my city. I think it's a shame this project is chopped the way it is and that stands whether it was city driven or developer driven or NIMBY driven. The cause is immaterial. I have a hard time believing "viability" is the reason as just around the corner thousands more condos are proposed, so demand isn't the problem - engineering? maybe, I don't know, but in any event, I think it's a shame.

 

[LNahid2000]

Hermitage Plaza—the tallest building in the EU—is currently being proposed for La Defense, and when it's finished in five years or so, it'll still be 20m shorter than the newly-shrunk The One.

I completely agree with the rest of your post, however, does the Shard London Bridge not count?

 

[LNahid2000]

I think it's you that is misreading posts. I haven't read any posts that indicated anyone wanted to "burn people at stake or compromise public space or any other community amenity for a little bit of height". Some people are disappointed about the reduction in height - and they regularity with which it happens - and that's not an antisocial sentiment - it's simply disappointment, exacerbated by what seem like convenient reasons (temporary shadows). Besides we don't often get such exciting proposals, it's frustrating to see them challenged and reduced every time. If a "supertall" where to be proposed in Toronto, where should it be located if not in the centre of a high-rise area served by two subway lines? Why is it that the rest of the world is able to build supertall buildings and yet our buildings are "too tall"?

You should go experience the pedestrian realm around most of the supertall buildings in your image. I wouldn't want to walk near most of those buildings, because the pedestrian experience around them is so bad.

 

[zang]

I completely agree with the rest of your post, however, does the Shard London Bridge not count?

The Shard is already built and 310m. Hermitage Plaza hasn't broken ground yet, but will be 320m.

 

[LNahid2000]

The Shard is already built and 310m. Hermitage Plaza hasn't broken ground yet, but will be 320m.

Ah, that's why I was confused. You said Hermitage Plaza would be 20m shorter than the newly shrunk The One, so I assumed it would be around 285m.

 

[zang]

Some people are disappointed about the reduction in height - and they regularity with which it happens - and that's not an antisocial sentiment - it's simply disappointment, exacerbated by what seem like convenient reasons (temporary shadows). Besides we don't often get such exciting proposals, it's frustrating to see them challenged and reduced every time.

I doubt there's a developer in this city who believes they'll actually get the height they propose. But I think that's the point. More often than not, the reduction is part of a bargaining process. They want a height bigger than the local restrictions, so they propose something 10-20% bigger than what they want and make a whole bunch of section 37 promises to ensure their desired non-inflated height.

It's the public who seems to actually believe proposed height will be final height.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I doubt there's a developer in this city who believes they'll actually get the height they propose. But I think that's the point. More often than not, the reduction is part of a bargaining process. They want a height bigger than the local restrictions, so they propose something 10-20% bigger than what they want and make a whole bunch of section 37 promises to ensure their desired non-inflated height.

It's the public who seems to actually believe proposed height will be final height.

And let's not forget the experience of Mirvish + Gehry either - where it ended up taller than originally proposed.

AoD

 

[Lenser]

But that runs counter to the defeatist "Toronto sucks" theme that seems to haunt us every time we see a height reduction or some kind of similar scaling back.

 

[zang]

Ah, that's why I was confused. You said Hermitage Plaza would be 20m shorter than the newly shrunk The One, so I assumed it would be around 285m.

Sorry, my bad. I thought the forum topic had been updated to the current height proposal. Hermitage still hasn't broken ground though, so who knows.

 

[Gido]

Like had mentioned before- I feel the reduction is sad not nessisarily for this building but for the future buildings that are 5-10 years away.

One day Toronto will have to get past its fear of FCP, immovable 9:30am shadows, and organizing a funded DRP that has teeth, and able to hit every development proposed- too much shit is allowed through(G+P/PoS)and the Foster, Gehry's and I fear BIG/ODA are put through the wringer many times over.
I think having Toronto's center tent pole that is FCP around for nearly 41 years, I too would say Toronto has lost some of its chutzpah.
In 41 years and three massive building cycles although builders have proposed a handful at taller(some fantastic top to bottom, others terrible), we still remain scared of anything taller than our white center tent pole.

I shouldn't be throwing up a quote from Wiki-
"First Canadian Place was the 6th tallest building in the world to structural top (currently 103rd) and the tallest building overall outside of Chicago and New York when built in 1975. It was also the tallest building in the Commonwealth of Nations until the completion of the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in 1998. The Bank of Montreal "M-bar" logo at the top of the building was the highest sign in the world from 1975 until overtaken by the sign atop CITIC Plaza in 1997."

6th to 103rd, all we have done in that time is swatted down and shown our city has an appetite for status quo and bellow.
Had the approvals for FCP been given with a "don't you even think about trying anything more" clause a considerable amount of time could be saved

We all come to UT for different reasons, being a fan boy or accused of heighter angst is petty bickering.
As kids I would assume most of us could rattle off the list of tallest buildings in the world when we all were 4.
Some here, like myself who grew up in a one horse town with the tallest building being 3 stories-Will always look up because we've been doing it forever.