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

Although I love this city, it's really quite incredible. Toronto truly is an ultra-conservative, narrow-minded town. I would have argued with anyone that Toronto is a progressive, next-millennia city, but that just isn't true. Toronto has a very long way to go in it's determination to be an Alpha + city. Perhaps the majority of her residents simply don't want that to happen..
 
I don't but not because I'm such ultra conservative, narrow-minded individual. I'd argue that these city rankings are actually the last thing any good city should be concerned with. The best cities automatically rank at the top and shuffle about dependent more upon the parameters of the specific study than any actual changes in quality of life. Everyone else strives to become something they're not and lose any sense of individual urbanity. Plus, to meet the requirements of an Alpha+ city is just to be open to business. You could have a horrifying quality of life for anyone making less than $50-100k a year and still be super high ranked (like New York, London or Paris, just off the top of my head). Toronto isn't perfect, could definitely improve and has serious problems with political stasis but I'd be incredibly happy if we stopped trying to be a ranked city.

Also, in terms of those rankings we're already highly ranked anyway lol We're an Alpha city, no? The difference between Alpha and Alpha+ is minuscule and really not something worth worrying about if you do care about the ratings, in my opinion.
 
Is there going to be enough demand to fill these supertall high-end towers? We have the massive Mirvish + Gehry towers, plus The One, plus all the other high-end buildings that are proposed/under construction/built.
 
I have no idea what constitutes an Alpha and Alpha+ city; but what I do know is that this proposal (regardless of height) gives Toronto a building that was designed with some imagination and goes beyond the typical blue/green window-wall, spandrel laced, boxed towers that we see popping up all over the city like dandelions.

I'd gladly take this proposal at any height (even 200metres), over a Casa I, II, III, IV, X, YC Condo, Infinity 1 and 2, all the developments in Humber Bay, etc...

I could go on but I think you get the point.
 
A good number of cities in your list would have rejected - officially or by citizenry a tower like what's being proposed - Foster or otherwise. Alphaness has more to do with command and control functions of the global economy and not whether they put up supertalls.

AoD
 
wolfewood said:
I don't but not because I'm such ultra conservative, narrow-minded individual. I'd argue that these city rankings are actually the last thing any good city should be concerned with. The best cities automatically rank at the top and shuffle about dependent more upon the parameters of the specific study than any actual changes in quality of life. Everyone else strives to become something they're not and lose any sense of individual urbanity. Plus, to meet the requirements of an Alpha+ city is just to be open to business. You could have a horrifying quality of life for anyone making less than $50-100k a year and still be super high ranked (like New York, London or Paris, just off the top of my head). Toronto isn't perfect, could definitely improve and has serious problems with political stasis but I'd be incredibly happy if we stopped trying to be a ranked city.

Also, in terms of those rankings we're already highly ranked anyway lol We're an Alpha city, no? The difference between Alpha and Alpha+ is minuscule and really not something worth worrying about if you do care about the ratings, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Good points. This you'll find interesting:

image.jpg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    144 KB · Views: 845
Last edited:
DarkSideDenizen said:
Good points. This you'll find interesting:

View attachment 70067
Click to expand...

AlvinofDiaspar said:
A good number of cities in your list would have rejected - officially or by citizenry a tower like what's being proposed - Foster or otherwise. Alphaness has more to do with command and control functions of the global economy and not whether they put up supertalls.

AoD
Click to expand...

I don't see these cities rejecting their Super-tall proposals - it appears they are building them.

Those cities are such losers. Eh?
 
Big Daddy said:
Don't we?
Like you said, nothing has been promised thus far - including finishes and materials.
Click to expand...

That uncertainty didn't stop you from going gaga when it was 40m taller, so let's pretend that's the issue you're worried about when saying it might become yet another one.

And besides, F+P isn't G+C - they've got reputations to maintain.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Big Daddy said:
I don't see these cities rejecting their Super-tall proposals - it appears they are building them.

Those cities are such losers. Eh?
Click to expand...

You see Zurich allowing one anytime soon? Or Stockholm? London could barely get the Shard, which is FCP height, built and just rejected a relatively short one of late - by Piano, no less:

http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...n-skyscraper-scrapped-after-fierce-opposition

254 metres - How about Paris? Look at the crop at La Defense and tell me just how supertall they are.

Where is Dubai on the list? Or Riyadh? But let's pretend super talls are a necessary path to alphaness.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Lenser said:
Alpha, schmalpha. This alpha chatter sounds like another plaintive cry for us to somehow climb into some mythical, universally agreed-on "world class" tier. It becomes tiresome, this pretense that the only crucial thing holding us back is the height of our towers.
Click to expand...

Becoming a key city in the global network is important - but the whole notion that it's dependent or somehow relies on whether we build supertall is laughable.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Sure it's important. Who isn't happy to see this town getting some positive attention? But yes, predicating the city's success on the height of our tallest buildings is a just a bit suspect. I'd love to see more striking statements in terms of Toronto architecture but height is only one factor among many to consider. Hell, at this stage I'd be happy were The One and Mervish/Gehry to simply get built - not to mention the tall stuff we're waiting on for the foot of Yonge. Baby steps.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
You see Zurich allowing one anytime soon? Or Stockholm? London could barely get the Shard, which is FCP height, built and just rejected a relatively short one of late - by Piano, no less:

http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...n-skyscraper-scrapped-after-fierce-opposition

254 metres - How about Paris? Look at the crop at La Defense and tell me just how supertall they are.

Where is Dubai on the list? Or Riyadh? But let's pretend super talls are a necessary path to alphaness.

AoD
Click to expand...
I don't know that a comparison like that is really worth while. Each of those cities have vastly different municipal and building guidelines/strategies/legislation/histories. Each has their own rationale within their own framework. What matters, I think, is if our own rationale adds up to our own goals properly, however those goals rate height, expression, impact etc. relative to each other.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top