Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

steveve said:
If X beams are added down the line
Click to expand...
In the original design, the X beams were structurally integral, and the only way that the huge open areas in the building could be produced. I think the building has to be conceived with them or without them -- they aren't just a design feature.
 
That underground map really highlights how weird it is that One Bloor doesn't have any connections.
 
Tulse said:
In the original design, the X beams were structurally integral, and the only way that the huge open areas in the building could be produced. I think the building has to be conceived with them or without them -- they aren't just a design feature.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. While X beams were definitely apart of the original design structurally, buildings with small floor plates can achieve the same, column-free floorplans with just using traditional concrete while retaining its structural strength. Take for example 432 Park Avenue which also has a column free interior but uses exterior concrete supports for structural integrity. I'm not 100% certain but I think having a steel constructed tower in this instance using x beams would financially be more costly (someone please correct me if this is incorrect).
 
At the Design Review Panel for its first appearance.

There are new exterior renderings. Not "finalized" yet, but there is a new exoskeleton design, now leaning towards a "hanger design", not exactly the same as but another take on the structural system used by Foster at the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank building in Hong Kong.

42
 
steveve said:
Yes and no. While X beams were definitely apart of the original design structurally, buildings with small floor plates can achieve the same, column-free floorplans with just using traditional concrete while retaining its structural strength. Take for example 432 Park Avenue which also has a column free interior but uses exterior concrete supports for structural integrity. I'm not 100% certain but I think having a steel constructed tower in this instance using x beams would financially be more costly (someone please correct me if this is incorrect).
Click to expand...

Tulse is correct in the sense that regardless of the approach taken, creating a building that is very clear of structural support in plan (a skeletal structure with no columns or very few columns), is going to be more expensive than a traditional approach. Showing a building design that has a very open plan with few columns and a steel structure and then swapping it out for a completely different and cheaper approach with a more traditional floorplan still feels like a huge bait and switch. It's not a matter of "removing the X beams", it's a completely different structure.

I really hope they create an interesting structure here; if Mizrahi really believes in creating something iconic and architecturally significant, a concrete-frame pancake-building with the same structure as other Toronto condos won't be enough.

TL;DR Interesting structure generally = higher cost to engineer/build. But necessary to create an iconic building with large open spaces internally.
 
No new renderings at street level yet, by the way: that's not really worked out yet.

So, obviously this is more detailed that what I did for earlier projects today, but here we go…

Comments:

Member A, architect:
- very exciting building
- if height should go anywhere, this is the spot
- exceptional architecture that should somehow be "enshrined" in any approval for a building of this height
- could there be a more celebratory entrance to PATH/subway system at the corner?

Member B, sustainability specialist:
(nothing that will effect the external expression)
- wood like to see LEED Gold

Member C, engineer:
(nothing that will effect the external expression)

Member D, architect:
- incredibly relieved to see the exoskeleton back
- concerned about blank side walls of podium, but assumes there were be more adjacent redevelopment or more detail to come
- very excited

Member E, architect:
- very happy to see the widened sidewalk on Yonge
- loves the 10th storey transfer to the residential tower, arriving at a "garden level" that creates an elevated front yard for residents

Member F, planner:
- incredible potential
- is there a way to let the public benefit from the height, not just the residents? eg. a bar on top to take advantage of the views?
- big ask for all this density, so it should give back in big ways

Member G, landscape architect:
- emphasizing the importance of finding green space near Bloor and Yonge for all the new residents
- benches along the Yonge sidewalk should not block movement from edge of the sidewalk to frontage of the building

Chair, architect:
- few of us have the pleasure to comment on such a potentially seminal structure for the city, could be the apex of the vertical city
- special moment for the panel and the city

Feedback from Foster + Partners
- thrilled by the amount of engagement with the design, and the city process
- have felt embraced by the public
- looking forward to continuing to work through the suggestions

7 to refine, 0 to redesign.

42
 
Last edited:
That's very exciting news. With the new renderings were they keeping the massing of the tower similar to the most recent renderings shown, that is a square floor plate giving a tall and slender point tower?
 
Yes, the new exteriors are based on the square floor plate from last public consultation.

42
 
interchange42 said:
At the Design Review Panel for its first appearance.

There are new exterior renderings. Not "finalized" yet, but there is a new exoskeleton design, now leaning towards a "hanger design", not exactly the same as but another take on the structural system used by Foster at the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank building in Hong Kong.

42
Click to expand...

This is even more interesting!

AoD
 
Is this the building in Hong Kong that you are talking about?

img0.jpg
 

Attachments

  • img0.jpg
    img0.jpg
    848.1 KB · Views: 2,118
yyzer:

That's the one - it's one of F+P's seminal work (and according to Foster, if the firm didn't receive that commission in the late 70s/early 80s, it could very well have went under). Congrats - you have found a pic that is relatively soon after comopletion - there are some subsequent changes that are "unfortuante".

AoD
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
Yes, the new exteriors are based on the square floor plate from last public consultation.

42
Click to expand...

Great, I'm happy they are developing that massing. I like the idea of the exoskeleton and the symmetry of it with the square floor plate. Thanks for the confirmation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top