Toronto Union Centre | 298m | 54s | Westbank | Bjarke Ingels Group

[Northern Light]

Front Page Article on this:

Allied and Westbank's Skycraping Union Centre Tower Approval in Sight | UrbanToronto

A settlement worked out between the City of Toronto and the developers of the Union Centre — designed by the Bjarke Ingels Group (or BIG) for Allied Properties REIT and Westbank Corp — has now been conditionally ratified by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

urbantoronto.ca

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Or maybe Tennessee.

LOL

I didn't say one would get that tall here; I said 'ideal conditions'.

PS, that would also take well over 100 years.

View attachment 375432
taken from: https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/

The next closest in height that I'm aware of is just over 34M in Claremont, Mass.

In Ontario, I don't think we have a recorded specimen over 30M.

Though there probably is one we just haven't measured yet!

There's one over 30M at an Arboretum in Belgium too.

***

There was one in Lyme, Connecticut that reached 37.5M but it's since been cut down.

Here's a picture of that one:

View attachment 375438
from: https://patch.com/img/cdn/users/1782987/2013/03/raw/a532ffd91d2a44d51cc2302a59f1b0b0.jpg

Perhaps we should return this thread to its principal topic though. LOL

Still thinking though if ever one of these got uprooted in gale from it's 298m perch and landed on someone over on Front St W, that would be a mess...

 

[Northern Light]

Still thinking though if ever one of these got uprooted in gale from it's 298m perch and landed on someone over on Front St W, that would be a mess...

Yes, though, a healthy Sugar Maple or most other trees would not uproot in anything short of Tornado or the like.

The risk of a branch dropping (and a large hardwood branch can way several hundred pounds) is material.

So is the risk of a dead tree uprooting.

 

[officedweller]

Article about the trees on Bosco Verticale in Milan:

(PDF) Vertical greenery systems: from plants to trees with self-growing interconnections

PDF | The integration of buildings into vegetation has become a necessity in many metropolitan areas of the world today. It expands the potential of... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Tree Anchors by Fytogreen - Fytogreen Australia

Fytogreen are proud to supply an high quality, Australian made tree anchors which provides a secure way to install mature trees up to 12m

fytogreen.com.au

 

[UrbanOzz]

The massing on this one is atrocious, imo. The "building as wall" aesthetic doesn't do it for me. Halving its breadth would make the proportions more visually appealing.

that's exactly how i feel about CIBC square. it's too chunky.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Yes, though, a healthy Sugar Maple or most other trees would not uproot in anything short of Tornado or the like.

The risk of a branch dropping (and a large hardwood branch can way several hundred pounds) is material.

So is the risk of a dead tree uprooting.

I'm glad to hear that in the uproot business. Industrial type fastening mechanics as per article posted by officedweller-san above also further alleviate this concern.

Still though, as hinted in my narrative, a tree or limb falling 298m to the ground is going to cause more an issue than one only 6m off the ground. Something to do with kinetics, gravity and that nine-point-eight-meters-per-second-squared thing. Making it for more a spectacular landing and very bad day for anyone underneath it. >.<

 

[Undead]

that's exactly how i feel about CIBC square. it's too chunky.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The massing on this one is atrocious, imo. The "building as wall" aesthetic doesn't do it for me. Halving its breadth would make the proportions more visually appealing.

that's exactly how i feel about CIBC square. it's too chunky.

Office plates favour large expanses so that tenants can reduce the number of floors which their company occupies. How would that be accomplished if the floorplate were halved?

 

[Northern Light]

Office plates favour large expanses so that tenants can reduce the number of floors which their company occupies. How would that be accomplished if the floorplate were halved?

You ask the strangest questions sometimes.....

By simply saying 'No'; "you'll have to accept being on additional floors, your preferences be damned". LOL

Of course, that's not the way any landlord/developer would put it to a current/prospective client; but if the City chose not to permit larger floorplates life would go on.

To be clear, many of the clients who prefer said spaces do business in jurisdictions that would never allow such a large floorplate. Yet, they're still there; they just work with
whatever is permitted/available.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Office plates favour large expanses so that tenants can reduce the number of floors which their company occupies. How would that be accomplished if the floorplate were halved?

...making half of them work from home? >.>

 

[UrbanOzz]

Office plates favour large expanses so that tenants can reduce the number of floors which their company occupies. How would that be accomplished if the floorplate were halved?

i'm aware of that, but if you look at CIBC square, it's essentially 2 towers fused together by a line in the middle. They can easily shrink this floor plate. I don't know where I can find the data that compares the floorplates of office towers but i would be interested in seeing the size of this one compares to lets say FCP. Optically, CIBC looks much larger.

 

[ProjectEnd]

You ask strangest questions sometimes.....

By simply saying 'No'; "you'll have to accept being on additional floors, your preferences be damned". LOL

Of course, that's not the way any landlord/developer would put it to a current/prospective client; but if the City chose not to permit larger floorplates life would go on.

To be clear, many of the clients who prefer said spaces do business in jurisdictions that would never allow such a large floorplate. Yet, they're still there; they just work with
whatever is permitted/available.

Then I'll go to a different building. CIBC 2 and CC3 are almost as wide and are just as ready to lease as is this (if not more ready). It's a tenant's market now in terms of new Class A so why can't I / they be picky?

 

[Northern Light]

Then I'll go to a different building. CIBC 2 and CC3 are almost as wide and are just as ready to lease as is this (if not more ready). It's a tenant's market now in terms of new Class A so why can't I / they be picky?

In the near-term, yes, a major tenant can choose between prospective building A vs B (the latter having the larger floor plate).

But if the City chose not to allow that size/shape of floorplate on a go-forward basis, that choice would largely evaporate over time; it would only change the order in which buildings go up in the nearer term.

It's really not dis-similar to the condo market where rules on mid-rises and on point towers lead to certain shapes /sizes of interiors that aren't ideal from a would-be resident's perspective.

If, as a resident you can afford any layout at any price, you'll get just that; but for the vast majority, you can only pick from the inventory available; and the City (and developers) are making those choices irrespective of
what may work for any given resident.

The same would happen with office clients.

If most space available were limited (for argument's sake) to a 12,000ft2 floor plate; then that's what you would get; unless you were willing to pay the premium for grandfathered space in the arrangement you prefer.

* note that I'm not necessarily arguing in favour of this; merely pointing out it's very possible. It's done all over the world; and Toronto can do it too, should it wish to...... (subject to provincial say so, of course, LOL)

 

[innsertnamehere]

like all regulation it would distort the market with older space becoming more preferable for the larger floorplates, reducing new construction and limiting more affordable spaces within the core. Tenants would choose to stick in their older buildings and renovate it instead of jumping off to new product where they need twice the number of floors to hold their footprint.

Pretending any regulation comes for free is a fallacy and needs a greater amount of inclusion in the discourse.

This building is just a particularly large offender as it is narrower and wider than typical new office blocks. Other projects are closer to "square" which make the mass not as offending.

 

[Northern Light]

like all regulation it would distort the market with older space becoming more preferable for the larger floorplates, reducing new construction and limiting more affordable spaces within the core. Tenants would choose to stick in their older buildings and renovate it instead of jumping off to new product where they need twice the number of floors to hold their footprint.

I agree, it would have that effect.

Pretending any regulation comes for free is a fallacy and needs a greater amount of inclusion in the discourse.

Who was pretending that? I certainly wasn't. In fact, I expressly identified the consequence that grandfathered space would then go for a premium.

This building is just a particularly large offender as it is narrower and wider than typical new office blocks. Other projects are closer to "square" which make the mass not as offending.

Also true.

****

You really must make note that I didn't necessarily argue for the change in question, I only illustrated that it was possible; and that the market would not collapse if it was done.

Of course all regulation distorts the market; requiring indoor plumbing in new builds once distorted the market; it made all properties still using outhouses less valuable.

That distortion, unto itself, is not a reason to avoid regulation; but neither is it a reason to adopt it; it's simply a reality, nothing or less.