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

Proper overall design, architecture, engineering, contextual elements at grade, building materials, and landscaping features matter far more than height.

You should all be more concerned with this rookie developer's lack of experience in regards to those factors than a digitized render of a fantasy.

This location is the edge of midtown. There's really no reason to aim for the stars here on height or density other than to justify an insane land cost.

I'd argue that mega height works better at say Yonge and Wellesley than here as its really downtown.
 
Mizrahi is now the representative of a development group with a ton of experience. It was his vision. He doesn't own it though.
 
Last edited:
Gido said:
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.
Click to expand...


Of course people come here for different reasons. That doesn't mean your personal opinion isn't up for debate. The average person couldn't name the tallest tower in the world now that it's no longer in North America and. more importantly, changes every few years. They couldn't care less that FCP is now 106th in the world or no longer the tallest in the commonwealth. Height really means nothing.

It was easy spouting off a list of the tallest towers in the world when I was a kid as it didn't change throughout my entire childhood. No reason to assume the supertall craze led mainly by a few governments won't come to an end and we'll revert back to those 1980s.

Far more likely that, one day ,Toronto will adopt DC Zoning and development permits that exceed what is currently allowed will be rejected immediately. No more negotiating or so called height reductions. Changes to land use in order to apply for more density, etc. in a DP will be swift.
 
Last edited:
LNahid2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You've personally been to these buildings? Not one of the got it right?

I wasn't aware height and streetscape are mutually exclusive.

So, if these towers had received the Toronto treatment and been chopped by say 50%, then they would have addressed the street better?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
800px-30_St_Mary_Axe_from_Leadenhall_Street.jpg

30 St. Mary Axe - 41 stories, 180 metres

800px-The_Turning_Torso%2C_Malmo.JPG

Turning Torso - 54s, 190 metres

800px-Aura_building_Toronto_388_Yonge_St.jpg

Aura - 78 stories, 272 meters.

The former examples is by far more iconic, more memorable even though they are far shorter - both to this local example and what's being proposed for The One. I am afraid the outstanding and memorable requires good taste and willingness to push envelopes - it does not require height. Anyone who claim that the current height-reduced design is merely "another one" have no idea what they're talking about - perhaps fleas just like spandrel.

AoD
Click to expand...

At no time did I state that the height of "The Another One" was it's only attribute. I said It's a shame this building was cut down in height to a much less interesting height - consistent with most of Toronto's buildings (yes, let's keep it all vanilla). I did say I was disappointed by the giant chorus of "oh well", to be followed by virulent attacks on anyone who doesn’t also chime in with “oh well” – because apparently to state that you like tall buildings or are disappointed by the chop is a sin of some kind - rather an odd reflex on a forum that talks about the latest and greatest in Toronto architecture.

The height reduction, (although at this point we don't know what that will actually be or why it will be) seems to have been arranged to placate the local NIMBY group and/or a local dog squat. I don't think either is valid in the given high rise environment. I also said the building may well look OK, but it will no longer be the spectacular addition to Toronto's skyline it could have been.
 
Big Daddy said:
At no time did I state that the height of "The Another One" was it's only attribute. I said It's a shame this building was cut down in height to a much less interesting height - consistent with most of Toronto's buildings (yes, let's keep it all vanilla). I did say I was disappointed by the giant chorus of "oh well", to be followed by virulent attacks on anyone who doesn’t also chime in with “oh well” – because apparently to state that you like tall buildings or are disappointed by the chop is a sin of some kind - rather an odd reflex on a forum that talks about the latest and greatest in Toronto architecture.

The height reduction, (although at this point we don't know what that will actually be or why it will be) seems to have been arranged to placate the local NIMBY group and/or a local dog squat. I don't think either is valid in the given high rise environment. I also said the building may well look OK, but it will no longer be the spectacular addition to Toronto's skyline it could have been.
Click to expand...

Let's not be revisionist - here is what you've said in the original post:


Big Daddy said:
This building may look fine when it is done, but like the rest of this city's architecture, it will be neither outstanding or nor memorable - not "The One" but just Another One.
Click to expand...

You are not referring to the skyline - you are referring specifically to the architecture. I ask again - just how would any height reduction in and on itself affect the architecture in such a way that it would compare badly to projects extant and proposed in the city?

AoD
 
Big Daddy said:
You've personally been to these buildings? Not one of the got it right?

I wasn't aware height and streetscape are mutually exclusive.

So, if these towers had received the Toronto treatment and been chopped by say 50%, then they would have addressed the street better?
Click to expand...
I did say most, not all. Half of the buildings in your diagram haven't even been built yet. I have been to the areas of most that have been built, and found that all of these buildings had large footprints at the ground level, which resulted in a crappy pedestrian experience. I doubt it would be economically feasible to build a 600m building on the same plot of land as The One, and it is the large footprint of these tall buildings and also the shadows that result in an inferior pedestrian experience.
 
Lenser said:
For that matter, do fleas dream? .
Click to expand...

You'll have to let me know.
AlvinofDiaspar said:
And let's not forget the experience of Mirvish + Gehry either - where it ended up taller than originally proposed.

AoD
Click to expand...

But you don't get it, it's not all about height. Yes, I like tall buildings, but there is more to some developments. "Another One" was promising us great height and will now failed to deliver - so now it's just another apartment building. If "the One" was special for some reason, it was its potential status as the tallest building in Canada - there is nothing else special about this development. The taller Mirvish tower will be 304 m and the taller One Yonge will be 303 m.

At 340.6 m "the One" would have been special, now it's an also ran.

Mirvish was proposing an outstanding development including amazing public amenities. The Mirvish/Gehry project was chopped badly - in exchange they gave him a few more floors on one building - big deal - BUT we lost much of the public amenities that were originally proposed. I'd give up half the height of this project and more to get back the outstanding public space Mirvish originally offered.
 
Big Daddy said:
But you don't get it, it's not all about height. Yes, I like tall buildings, but there is more to some developments. "Another One" was promising us great height and will now failed to deliver - so now it's just another apartment building. If "the One" was special for some reason, it was its potential status as the tallest building in Canada - there is nothing else special about this development. The taller Mirvish tower will be 304 m and the taller One Yonge will be 303 m.

At 340.6 m "the One" would have been special, now it's an also ran.
Click to expand...

Promised us? It's a private project - they don't promise anything other than what they legally had to with the city and those who will purchase at the project. And how is this "just another apartment building"? Does the architecture exemplified by the firm meant nothing? The structural expression? The expected quality of exterior finishes? The details? I mean, at the end of the day you have every right to be disappointed by it not being "the one" for you on the basis of height alone, but let's not put it down and call it "just another apartment building" because that's clearly not what the proponent is suggesting and reducing the only measure of a project to height is kind of off.

AoD
 
Big Daddy said:
But you don't get it, it's not all about height. Yes, I like tall buildings, but there is more to some developments. "Another One" was promising us great height and will now failed to deliver - so now it's just another apartment building. If "the One" was special for some reason, it was it's potential status as the tallest building in Canada - there is nothing else special about this development. The taller Mirvish tower will be 304 m and the taller One Yonge will be 303 m.
Click to expand...
The reduced height of 304.3 metres still makes it the tallest building in Canada. Unless the taller Mirvish tower is 304.4 metres. Not that a few centimetres really matter.
 
Mirvish + Gehry is set to be 304.9m, or 1000 ft, so as it stands, it's to be the tallest building in Canada.

In regards to changing the dataBase file on this one, we're waiting for their response to the DRP (where the top was called stumpy, so there could be another minor redesign yet).

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top