Northern Light at UT has posted: "In this morning's Toronto Star, the city has a statutory notice for an application for a 58-storey tower at Front and John (Condo)."

This would be on the NW corner.....no further details yet.........

Hmmm. Anyone have a pic of the lot?

this by Andrew3D....note its location, right next to the hydro substation....dunno if that's good or not....

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/535989867_177329ad2d_o.jpg

I bet CBC will fight this on the grounds that a building that tall and close will disrupt all those satellite dishes on the roof of CBC.

I bet CBC will fight this on the grounds that a building that tall and close will disrupt all those satellite dishes on the roof of CBC.

Well Ritz is 51 stories and right beside the CBC - even closer than this one.

Damn, I was hoping it was offices.

Like The location, Like the Height, all lights green, lets get goin!

Is the site just the shaded area, or is that bit of land to the west also included?

It's the whole parking lot I'd assume. Not just 3/4 of it. lol.

Prime spot...wish it was an office and not another point tower...but really i think we are getting spoiled when a 58 story tower is not good enough lmao. Got to love Toronto!

Based on my vast knowledge of google searching, CBRE appears to have sold the land for H & R. That's all I got.

Double Post

Damn, I was hoping it was offices.

Yes, I was keeping my fingers crossed for an office tower here too. A major office tower would expand the central CBD west and create a more vibrant street. Something on the lines of Bloor-Yorkville works very well: condos, office towers, retail.

The condo towers on Front West feature pokey little retail spaces at their bases. 20 foot ceiling heights at street level and consideration given to the possibility of attracting a Loblaws, Canadian Tire, or even a department store 30 years down the road should have been required.

We don't need more condos here if this is how they are going to be built.

I was hoping it was offices.

I had wanted office space here also, but if this proposal is Raffles, it is a lot better than an office building! I'm just concerned about whether Tridel can pull off something that big.

I actually worked on a proposal for that site a few years ago... it was nothing special and I don't think it got very far. Just some unremarkable residential towers.

I'm just concerned about whether Tridel can pull off something that big.

The largest highrise condo developer in the city that has sold more million plus dollar condos than all others combined?!?

or are you refering tobout architecture which they have been improving upon but still lag behind those at the top - I say that this partnership can only be good for Toronto (as in Raffles will set the mood)

The largest highrise condo developer in the city that has sold more million plus dollar condos than all others combined?!?

or are you refering tobout architecture which they have been improving upon but still lag behind those at the top - I say that this partnership can only be good for Toronto (as in Raffles will set the mood)

Yes, it's the quality I'm concerned about, not their resources. I'm just not sure they can pull off something great.

I knew what you meant and I'd be surprised if Tridel settles for another Burka or Rafael etc given how long its been since we first heard that they were looking for a signature project (think it was even VofE two or three years ago)

Well all signs point to this being their flagship along with Raflles! Can't wait to hear more news on this (reminds me of the ecstacy I felt when the Shangri-La rumours came about!)

Good location. 58 stories would make it higher than RoCPI and MLS.

Good location. 58 stories would make it higher than RoCPI and MLS.

Maybe not MLS, but possibly.

Here's the city planning report:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-5951.pdf

Tall and slim, just the way I like'm.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7098/300frontstreetwestlg1.jpg

I like the slim profile.

I hope its not condo green glass

that looks great

Maybe not MLS, but possibly.

Well I think it is Taller the MLS at 199.5 Meters.

Just half a meter short of 200, oh well.

Did you guys see these Wylipoon renderings?

Link at 3D Warehouse (http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=9654c9a0545d95be90f61381f93e19a8)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/wyliepoon/300f.jpg

Putting it in context... (CBC Broadcast Centre model by Lunny, CN Tower model by 3dimensia at 3D Warehouse)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/wyliepoon/300f2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/wyliepoon/300f3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/wyliepoon/300f4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/wyliepoon/300f5.jpg

wow, great renderings!

Kinda highlighted for me why they didn't just buy that parking lot beside them.... that little stub at the back is going to be an odd addition.

I would think having this building come up is going to make it harder to build a highrise in the adjacent parking lot..

That area is looking tall. It will serve as another cluster to the west.

It will look even taller with 151 Front!

whats that and whats its current state???

Holy F--k! Pics are f'in A!

And 199.5? WTF? Makes you wonder why people don't just round shit up.

whats that and whats its current state???

151 Front St is an Approved 36 storey 172.5 m telecommunications centre and thank you caltrane74 for the great 300 Front St renderings. I like the look of the 300 Front St building.

151 Front St W thread:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=199688&page=6

Render of 151 Front St W:
Here's the rendering:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/istrian/151FrontStreet.jpg

That area is looking tall. It will serve as another cluster to the west.

I always hoped for that...kinda like Chicago with three large clusters....in a few years that area will be spectacular!!!

I'll wait to see a rendering before passing judgment. It could end up plain and ugly depending on what material is used. I think at least a mixed use building would be a bit more appropriate given its location. I suppose if people are willing to live next to the Gardiner, they'll be willing to live next to a power station too.

I always hoped for that...kinda like Chicago with three large clusters....in a few years that area will be spectacular!!!

Speaking of Chi-Town, this proposal reminds me a lot of the Waterview Tower project, with its slim and tall stature. Offcourse it's much shorter but if it turns out half as nice I'll be content, but I'll wait for a more detailed rendering before I pass my final judgement.

http://img285.echo.cx/img285/263/p10001943ru.jpg

^ if only toronto could get a building like that, but i do like the rendering for 300 front st west.. or what is a guess of what it'll look like

Big difference, Water View Tower is not wrapped in balconies...

if only toronto could get a building like that

no thanks ... the tower ain't bad ... a bulimic Minto Midtown ... but the podium and streetlevel is

^ if only toronto could get a building like that, but i do like the rendering for 300 front st west.. or what is a guess of what it'll look like

that tower kind of reminds me of 1 king west actually. so in my opinion we do have a tower like that! :)

The Chicago tower is nice, but nothing special. If this is to be Tridel's signature building it might be just as good.

i didnt 100% explain what i ment but i was more thinking it would look really good in city place

Very nice, but it would look even better if that protruding section with horizontal windows were extirpated.
Edit: Chicago's Waterview is beautiful.

^^Of course it is; but because it is being built in Chicago, some Toronto forumers are pissy and jealous, and this manifests itself by those forumers criticizing it.

Do we know of a final height? BTW Winnipeg Patriot, your right. Sorry we can't be as modest and outgoing as both of the Winnipeg forumers on here.

I believe it is 198m. Slightly shorter than the Ritz.

Toronto people like balconies, it has something to do with our short Winters, something people in Winnipeg know about all too well.

^^ Toronto is California compared to Winnipeg.

Looks good. It's such a waste having parking lots on Front St., etc.

In a way we DO actually have a right to be jealous of Chicago. They have so many gorgeous highrises going up and and real urban planners (not selfish politicians and NIMBYS) We're jealous because our city will NEVER have a supertall unlike Chicago's soon to be TEN!! Think about it: 2 500 000 people: no supertalls, 2 800 000 people: 5 supertalls and WAY more 200m + highrises. ITS EMBARASSING!:bash:

^ Oy Vey. How many supertalls does Tokyo have? How embarrassing for them!

no supertalls, 2 800 000 people: 5 supertalls and WAY more 200m + highrises. ITS EMBARASSING!

it isn't embarrassing at all. most people don't even know what a supertall is. and a lot of us just don't care. i just hope for nice buildings that are tall but it doesn't bother me if they reach this made up "SUPER" tall criteria or not.

I know this is a skyscraper forum, but super talls aren't everything. Neither are highrises. In fact, I wish Toronto had more high density medium height developments instead of all of these tall condos being built. We could fill out a lot more of our those empty lots if we did have more medium density.

They have so many gorgeous highrises going up and and real urban planners

Have you actually looked at what they're building and not just being blinded by the storied history and amazing collection of pre-war highrises? They're no different than what we are building 'cept for the taller height and poorly masked parkades for podiums. Real urban planners? What a crock! The towers in Mississauga interact with the street better than Trump Chicago

Of course it is; but because it is being built in Chicago, some Toronto forumers are pissy and jealous, and this manifests itself by those forumers criticizing it.

do you actually have a degree or just being an ass; a bright neon green ass.

^^Ugh--go back to your XBox or something....

I love highrises...and this pic is amazing...hopefully TO will build some taller towers....I don't think I should be attacked for wanting that...after all, what other city can I hope to see any built in????

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6201/1170milwaukee034yr2.jpg

i like the path toronto is going on.. many 150-250 m towers. toronto needs more highrise density before it even dreams of building 5 super talls

Ugh--go back to your XBox or something....


okay then. checks box for ass

Have you actually looked at what they're building and not just being blinded by the storied history and amazing collection of pre-war highrises? They're no different than what we are building 'cept for the taller height and poorly masked parkades for podiums. Real urban planners? What a crock! The towers in Mississauga interact with the street better than Trump Chicago

Do you mean aboveground parking?

Do you mean aboveground parking?

Yes. There seems to be tons of them in American cities.

Yes. There seems to be tons of them in American cities.


we will too as densities continue to increase but hopefully never to the tune of 60 storeys, 150 units and 475 parking spaces (although it certainly would look pretty in the skyline from the suburbs)

I love downtown Chicago - its architecture, cleanliness, and landscaping but find it quite commercial and bland to our eclectic, grungy, but highly liveable downtown

we will too as densities continue to increase but hopefully never to the tune of 60 storeys, 150 units and 475 parking spaces (although it certainly would look pretty in the skyline from the suburbs)

I love downtown Chicago - its architecture, cleanliness, and landscaping but find it quite commercial and bland to our eclectic, grungy, but highly liveable downtown

Couldn't agree more. Aboveground parking would be fine in the financial core but not in Queen West or Yorkville.
Hey, 1 Bloor isn't getting an aboveground parkade and it might nearly be 280 metres. :cheers:
:)

I love highrises...and this pic is amazing...hopefully TO will build some taller towers....I don't think I should be attacked for wanting that...after all, what other city can I hope to see any built in????



Damn straight you shouldn't be attacked. This is a SKYSCRAPER website! (That, like, needs to be in my signature). Anyone who is criticizing you really oughta take a hike.

Damn straight you shouldn't be attacked. This is a SKYSCRAPER website! (That, like, needs to be in my signature). Anyone who is criticizing you really oughta take a hike.

Perhaps you are not familiar with Patriot, but he also happens to be childish racist troll.

Also: This website is more directed at urbanity in general. And there is more to urbanity than just building the tallest shit possible everywhere.

What has he said that's racist?

What has he said that's racist?

Not going to go look it up or anything, though he has (multiple times), said quite blatantly that Natives are lazy, worthless, etc.

^^It isn't a matter of racism; it is a matter of public money being thrown at a segment of society with no sign of any improvement! Now run back to your mother's breast wimp! Walk through Winnipeg's North End at midnight...we will see how you feel afterwards...if, of course, u aren't stabbed or shot first, LOL. Get a life Monkeyboy!

You know what the funniest thing about this thread is...?

That here we are learning of another 200 Meter tower being built downtown..and our attitude is "big deal"... I guess we are getting use to nothing but 200M plus towers being annouced in Toronto now that we are becoming rather ho-hum about them now.

I wish we could give this tower to Winnipeg..so Winnipegpatriot would leave us alone.

Honestly I really, really, wish we could give this Tower to Winnipeg.

That here we are learning of another 200 Meter tower being built downtown

I do enjoy your enthusiasm however, this is still far from becoming a reality, buddy.

I do enjoy your enthusiasm however, this is still far from becoming a reality, buddy.

But the fact that it was proposed at all must suggest something, wouldn't you think?

.. .. .. . . ...

^^It isn't a matter of racism; it is a matter of public money being thrown at a segment of society with no sign of any improvement! Now run back to your mother's breast wimp! Walk through Winnipeg's North End at midnight...we will see how you feel afterwards...if, of course, u aren't stabbed or shot first, LOL. Get a life Monkeyboy!

...and, there's the childish trolling I was talking about. :lol:

Hmm...

Patriot won't be around for a few days, go nuts guys.:)

Winterpeg suks!

^^It isn't a matter of racism; it is a matter of public money being thrown at a segment of society with no sign of any improvement! Now run back to your mother's breast wimp! Walk through Winnipeg's North End at midnight...we will see how you feel afterwards...if, of course, u aren't stabbed or shot first, LOL. Get a life Monkeyboy!

It isn't a matter of racism. It's a matter of ignorance. An ignorance you and many others have indulged yourselves in, and preach to others as if it's fact. An ignorance you preach as wisdom. Because, of course, you did analyze the statistical information in regards to social programs across the country. Your better than them, so you make it known. Why waste money to help, when they obviously don't want it. It's not like David Miller's plan that offered Regent Park's high school students free tutoring, decreased the drop-out rate from 56% to 10% in four years time. Ah, but where's the proof?

http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1123759726144&pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/CHNResourcePageTemplate&c=CHNResource

Boston is using us as an example to keep their kids in school...

http://pathwaystoeducation.ca/boston.html

But do you know what? Fuck it, because they're just gonna kill themselves anyway.

A person's future is priceless, and even if a program that cost the taxpayers 40 million saved one youth from becoming a casualty to street crime--it was worth it. Open your eyes to see that the picture is bigger than the money being taken out of your pockets. These are people, and their lives are better due to the fact that our government cares about each and every citizen's progression. Be thankful.

Go places and see the change yourself--I did, and it's happening, happening fast.

http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v120/11/104/501187369/n501187369_116425_3103.jpg

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v120/11/104/501187369/n501187369_116426_3402.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v120/11/104/501187369/n501187369_116427_3659.jpg

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v120/11/104/501187369/n501187369_116428_3919.jpg

Patriot won't be around for a few days, go nuts guys.:)

I Heart CrazyCanuck!!!

A person's future is priceless, and even if a program that cost the taxpayers 40 million saved one youth from becoming a casualty to street crime--it was worth it.

Good post and point taken but a plan that could only save one for that cost wouldn't be worth it if it took away from better plans that could save much more for that price. I'd say rethink the plan and save a few more.

I Heart CrazyCanuck!!!

Hey--no fair, LOL

Anyhoo, no more info on this tower yet???

I just found this completely by mistake!

OMG OMG OMG:

http://cormier.bassoburo.com/project/300-front-street/

It looks like a massive variation on hte SPIRE condo-- another great building from Architects Alliance. The landscaping will be done by the same people doing the Four Seasons Hotel + Residences park.

That looks GORGEOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Andy

It's based on a Fendi Purse????

GOOD TASTE!

Ahhh!

http://cormier.bassoburo.com/photos/projets/11/27_01_img_1.jpg


http://cormier.bassoburo.com/photos/projets/11/30_01_img_5-6.jpg

The skyline going West sure is getting tall. That will make for some nice pictures from the islands.

Well the landscaping and the base look sexy ... but what about the whole building? Given these glimpses, I'm fairly optimistic. Love Architects Alliance.

Is it going to be a black tower like they show in the skyline render? That would be really nice to contrast all the glass that is there now.

No. The black is just there to add contrast and make this building stand out.

Looks almost plaid.

Was just really looking at the skyline rendering. I like that the CN tower will now have company. With the addition of city place to the west. The CN tower and these new buildings adjacent to it are developing into the new focal point of the skyline. CN and the Sky ... err ... Rogers Centre always looked so lonesome, orphaned from the CBD.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2031/2242192521_95735be1f9_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2411/2242982424_7ab022c118_o.jpg

Those official renderings?

I like the second one better.

wow the taller one looks pretty nice although not that the shorter one is bad. Too bad it was shortened however. :ohno:

original building better but i like how the park now faces john street. the top of the old building is better as well.

It's still the same height though, right? That's the most important thing! :)

original building better but i like how the park now faces john street. the top of the old building is better as well.

LOL, I like the second updated proposal because the park faces the other way.

and it is a more cohesive design without a cheat on top, but I like both of the designs. Nice and sleek looking.

LOL, I like the second updated proposal because the park faces the other way.

Just noticed that you agree with me on the park issue...:bash:

It's still the same height though, right?

Nope.

The same story repeated over and over and over again in this town: Height chopped down; shorter tower 'bulked up' to compensate for lost height; result: a stumpy (or stumpier), architecturally-compromised building. The first proposal is miles ahead of the second.:ohno:

^Yep. Can't say I'm surprised; are you?

the direction the park faces is important! Why would you want a park facing a side alley instead of facing john street. If its facing the side alley it will mainly be used by residents where if its facing john it could be used by people traveling to and from the skydome. Its not a silly comment.

The park is in a better position in the second proposal but that's not what's at issue for me. Afterall, I visit this website because of my interest in tall buildings and (their) architecture, not landscape design. The architecture of this tower, as intrinsic to it's (former) height, has been seriously harmed. Our weird, communal anxiety toward skyscrapers, as reflected in our civic leadership and 'planning department,' has affected countless projects in this town, giving rise to a whole collection of compromised buildings. Which begs the question: when are we going to start acting like the big city we've become?

I don't think the second proposal looks stumpy at all. Did the city make them lower the height or was it their choice?
Don't most cities in the world dicker with the height of proposals put before them?

I don't think the second proposal looks stumpy at all. Did the city make them lower the height or was it their choice?
Don't most cities in the world dicker with the height of proposals put before them?

The city made them lower the height because they want a "tapering down" effect from the CBD and CN Tower, going west.

I don't understand the position the city is taking, if there is any place where a tall tower is deemed appropriate, it should be here.

I actually think that the second proposal looks better, although I suspect due to the orientation we are getting a different angle on each render.

I don't see how the second building is so obviously inferior to the first, yes it is shorter but I don't think this general design is going to suffer from cutting out a few storeys.

And the orientation of the park is important IMO. It is part of the urban landscape and how the building is as ground level is often overlooked in many of the proposals in Toronto.

From a design standpoint the second one is far more cohesive... the first one seems a bit random at the top section. Certainly removing the "hat" does not, in my opinion, compromise the project. The extra height would be nice, but I don't see the project as becoming a failure simply because the original design got tweaked..to my eye it is a fine, sleek addition to that area. It looks like a slimmed down version of I.M. Pei's CIBC tower on Bay Street.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2031/2242192521_95735be1f9_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2411/2242982424_7ab022c118_o.jpg

Scrap the tacked-on section (clad in black) on the west side of the tower and re-jig or eliminate the balconies and this project will regain much of the elegance of the 1st proposal.

Scrap the tacked-on section (clad in black) on the west side of the tower and re-jig or eliminate the balconies and this project will regain much of the elegance of the 1st proposal.

As I stated earlier, I think because of the orientation difference of the two renders, the first iteration looks significantly different than the second, but in reality I don't think they are (with the exception of the top few floors and the crown).

Scrapping the balconies is sort of ignoring the basic purpose of the building. This is a condominium, not an office tower. Not many people nowadays are interested in a hermetically sealed condo with no access to the outdoors, especially when a lake view is involved. First and foremost, good design must consider the needs of the users. I think both proposals are handsome and would be happy with either, but the first one really does look like the white balcony wrap arounds were just added on as an afterthought. The second one is more unified as a whole. The extra floors would have been great, but the proportions of the second one are really nice.

I don't think the second proposal looks stumpy at all. Did the city make them lower the height or was it their choice?
Don't most cities in the world dicker with the height of proposals put before them?

Um...Hmmm...ever hear of Chicago? New York? Dubai? So the answer is NO! Toronto is too affraid of height!

Um...Hmmm...ever hear of Chicago? New York? Dubai? So the answer is NO! Toronto is too affraid of height!

Uhmmm...yeah! That's right, Winnipeg. You sure read us. Toronto is terrified of height and that is why nothing tall ever gets built. We should be like Dubai and let practically anything a developer proposes be built exactly as they want. Look at our sad little city of low buildings.... :cry:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/Autumn%202007/winter%202007/torontobymaldivedec07.jpg


Anyhow, please continue your weeping about Chicago and NYC and if you need a Kleenex, just ask.

Wow--The skyline sure has changed overnight....

Aside from 1 Bloor, nothing else is worthy enough to write home about! You need to remember that not all of us have the low standards you do Taller;) Everything is pretty much at the 50+ storey range...WHOOPEE! With Toronto's might (economy, population growth, etc), there is absolutely no excuse for the lack of supertalls.

Wow--The skyline sure has changed overnight....

Aside from 1 Bloor, nothing else is worthy enough to write home about!



"home" being, of course, Winnipeg. :sleepy:



It is disgraceful that Toronto, a city of 6,000,000 is not more built up than Chicago which has only 11,000,000 citizens, or New York, which has 19,000,000 people.
Now, maybe you have gotten it all out of your system, and will allow the thread to get back to 300 Front Street West? Please and thank you.

Fine--I think it is disgusting that the city made the developer reduce the height.

Sorry to jump in here, but who cares about supertalls? Sure they look good in some cities and would be welcome in Toronto, but it does NOT make a city. I've walked around Toronto and Chicago - both very nice cities and both have advantages and disadvantages - but Toronto is busier on street level and, to me, more interesting and dynamic.

Winniper Patriot, you do seem to like to spam Toronto threads with Chicago comparisons...if you like Chicago so much then go to their threads - simple as that - and let Toronto issues be discussed here without insulting the city.

Too bad they chopped the height. I liked the first render more than the second, minus the kitschy roof treatment and I prefer the placement of the park in the second render.

The second render looks a bit long along the length of the building and the addition and treatment of the balconies seems the pull the building much further into the distance. Giving the building that 'bulky' look many have complained about. Taller you could be right in that is it a slightly different angle and that is what is causing the difference in appearance.

I hope they aren't increasing the dimensions of the building to compensate for the height that the city made them chop off.

Also what is the city thinking, wanting a tapering effect of the cluster. With the completion of Cityplace the cluster will already be extending towards Bathurst from it's current Spadina drop off. In the future nearly that entire area is likely to be filled in with towers and this chopped down condo is going to look dwarfed.

Um...Hmmm...ever hear of Chicago? New York? Dubai? So the answer is NO! Toronto is too affraid of height!

Three cities out of hundreds and the irony is one of them is indeed very height sensitive or at least has been up until fairly recently. Neither would I trade underground parking garages for additional height which is common in cities with laxed height limits (Sun Belt, Chicago, DUBAI) It's just so much cheaper above ground and, if you have the wiggle room, be stupid not to put it above ground. Of course, the parking is not always so easily recognizable like the first tier of Trump Chicago.

As I stated earlier, I think because of the orientation difference of the two renders, the first iteration looks significantly different than the second, but in reality I don't think they are

I don't think so as the blue cladding (and balconies) appear wider in the first iteration

I think it is disgusting that the city made the developer reduce the height.

Disgusted?!? I hope you make money to cover all of your families' elective procedures.

id rather have density then a super tall. Ive changed my mind recently and feel that infil at the moment is of more need then one random tower amounst lil towers ala dubai. Anyways a super tall isnt likely to happen anyways unless it happens arround yorkville or maybe college park because they dont want anything to take away the importance or lustre of the CN tower. And part of me deff agrees with that. I simply wish we had more 260 -300m towers. I whole bunch of those would be crazy.

The problem with most of you on this site is you get ovely excited for new projects, and seem to care more about density rather than aesthetics. How many times do we here "it's nice, could have been better. At least they developed that lot"...type of remarks.

"home" being, of course, Winnipeg. :sleepy:



It is disgraceful that Toronto, a city of 6,000,000 is not more built up than Chicago which has only 11,000,000 citizens, or New York, which has 19,000,000 people.
Now, maybe you have gotten it all out of your system, and will allow the thread to get back to 300 Front Street West? Please and thank you.

The actual city has no where near 6 million people. The outer regions are's apart of Toronto.

id rather have density then a super tall. Ive changed my mind recently and feel that infil at the moment is of more need then one random tower amounst lil towers ala dubai. Anyways a super tall isnt likely to happen anyways unless it happens arround yorkville or maybe college park because they dont want anything to take away the importance or lustre of the CN tower. And part of me deff agrees with that. I simply wish we had more 260 -300m towers. I whole bunch of those would be crazy.

Who cares about infil if the quality isn't great? That's just making less room for improvement in the skyline. And nothing would have overshadow the CN Tower. We're not expecting an 1800 foot tower to be built but there could easily be a 1200 footer in this city somewhere and it wouldn't overwhelm the presence of the CN Tower.

theres tons of room for infil. And if it was all filled in Im sure some creative ppl would find places to build new towers that we havent thought of. An example is the tower that is being built in new york on such a narrow piece of land beside the Museum of modern ... whatever the museum was called in NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. The only thing Im against is certain parking lots being built for residental use not business use. The parking lots in the core should be used for businesses not residential. If theres not enough business they should save the lot until theres enough to justify a building. Other wise well eat up all the land with residential use and the office towers will have to be built somewhere else causeing ppl to go elsewhere for business.

The city needs to stop building so many condos downtown. Condos in general aren't the nicest looking buildings. They're more fit for North York, Scarborough, etc...

If you want my two cents, I would rather this space instead be a classic reconstruction infill in Yorkville. Sure I favour Yorkville but this area would be best 3:2 ratio of office development to condos.

Wow--The skyline sure has changed overnight....

Aside from 1 Bloor, nothing else is worthy enough to write home about! You need to remember that not all of us have the low standards you do Taller;) Everything is pretty much at the 50+ storey range...WHOOPEE! With Toronto's might (economy, population growth, etc), there is absolutely no excuse for the lack of supertalls.

I agree 1000%
...instead of adding some floors, they are [again ?!?] cutting 8 floors.
I would cry for the lost opportunity. We could have had yet one more 200
m. tower. And, then again, if you cann't erect such a building in the financial
district, where else you can ???

Its not the financial district and if it was Id be more worried that it wasnt a office then concerned about the height.

The city needs to stop building so many condos downtown. Condos in general aren't the nicest looking buildings. They're more fit for North York, Scarborough, etc...

So...you are saying that people should not live downtown? Or should they live in office buildings?

Yes, they are a good fit with NYCC, or Scarborough. Another thing that is somewhat unique about Toronto (in case your are wondering: people actually live downtown, and people live in high density in the suburbs -- oh, the horror!).

So...you are saying that people should not live downtown? Or should they live in office buildings?

Yes, they are a good fit with NYCC, or Scarborough. Another thing that is somewhat unique about Toronto (in case your are wondering: people actually live downtown, and people live in high density in the suburbs -- oh, the horror!).

So then downtown condos should be built to look more classy instead of looking like something from the suburbs.

So then downtown condos should be built to look more classy instead of looking like something from the suburbs.

So our standards should be higher for downtown, or lower for the suburbs?

This doesn't jive with your earlier preachings.

While I think you are serious, it can be difficult to take you seriously (even when you are making a good point).

Who cares about infil if the quality isn't great? That's just making less room for improvement in the skyline. And nothing would have overshadow the CN Tower. We're not expecting an 1800 foot tower to be built but there could easily be a 1200 footer in this city somewhere and it wouldn't overwhelm the presence of the CN Tower.

Two Words: Yonge/ Bloor:cheers:

The actual city has no where near 6 million people. The outer regions are's apart of Toronto.

Well, yes, thats what would be called a "metropolitan region". :)

Um...Hmmm...ever hear of Chicago? New York? Dubai? So the answer is NO! Toronto is too affraid of height!

Actually, New York has issues with height too. And Dubai isn't a real city, comparing it with Toronto is obscene.

hmmmmm... More Classy Condos.


The mind boggles.

The city needs to stop building so many condos downtown. Condos in general aren't the nicest looking buildings. They're more fit for North York, Scarborough, etc...

The CITY doesn't build condos, developers do. The city can only control certain aspects of the process, or not grant permission to the developers.

This condo boom won't last forever though, and soon people like you will be back to bitching about how nothing gets built anymore. The building market ebs and flows, the city itself has very little control over that.

with all the condos being built downtown tho it def makes the chances good that there will eventually be more office buildings located here to. The fact that ppl want to live downtown shows the companies that it is prestigeous to build down here plus it makes getting to work alot easier.

Actually, New York has issues with height too. And Dubai isn't a real city, comparing it with Toronto is obscene.

Of course...NOTHING in New York is over 1000 feet...there are no issues with height there, and if any do in fact exist, they DO NOT impede development of supertalls, as seen in the numerous developments there...

Dubai exists, therefore it is...call it a district, province, city, emirate, whatever....

Who the F wants our city to be like Dubai? Are people THAT obsessed with height that nothing else matters?

Honestly I wouldnt mind a couple super talls. The only reason I like the height is that it allows ppl to see the city from much further away. Forinstance if you get off at downsview it looks like our city has three buildings FCP Scotia and CN. All the shorter towers kinda disappear the farther you get away from them so a lil extra height would be nice. But I want OFFICE height not residential height.

Who the F wants our city to be like Dubai? Are people THAT obsessed with height that nothing else matters?

EXACTLY what I was thinking.

Comparing us to New York is one thing, but comapring us to a city that has no idea of what design or urban planning (imo) is, is stupid.

OR A HUGE CASINO/Hotel. With the casino and bars on the top floors:) that way everyone can get a great view of the city.

We all like tall buildings, but to obsess about "Supertall" height to the exclusion of everything else seems a bit bizarre. Proportion, aesthetics, and suitability to the neighbourhood are all more important than sheer height. Every tower that goes up is not going to match the ideal expectations of everyone on this board- the main thing is that people are flocking to downtown Toronto to live and work. This is a VERY good thing and a sign of a healthy city so we have no need to hang our head in disgusted shame because a few theoretical storeys were lopped off a very preliminary proposal for a tower.

Of course, but a few taller towers would be great! Certainly not every development can be 1100 feet, but I would love to see a few!

We all would! And it will happen. My only point is we shouldn't obsess too much on the elusive
1000 foot number.. it is very arbitrary.

Actually, New York has issues with height too. And Dubai isn't a real city, comparing it with Toronto is obscene.

How does New York have issues with height? They have several 1000 footers in the works.

Of course...NOTHING in New York is over 1000 feet...there are no issues with height there, and if any do in fact exist, they DO NOT impede development of supertalls, as seen in the numerous developments there...

Dubai exists, therefore it is...call it a district, province, city, emirate, whatever....

1. Yes they do.

2. Misses point.

Conclusion: Fail.

How does New York have issues with height? They have several 1000 footers in the works.


Lots of New York projects have been altered on the issue of height, depending on the location of the building. Most cities in the world do work with developers to massage proposals so that they fit the needs of the neighbourhood they are going into. Perhaps there are cities somewhere that just rubber stamp every proposal, and cash the cheque, but dickering with the height is quite common in most cities.
I think there seems to be a belief in these forums that since the city turned down Sapphire, that no 1000 footers will ever be allowed. Not sure where that myth came from... we need powerful companies with deep pockets to give us some proposals- we are awaiting some company like Manulife, to do so. New York has many more of these companies than we do. Fact of life.

How does New York have issues with height? They have several 1000 footers in the works.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. TO has issues with height and also has several towers close to 1000ft in the works. The two can clearly coexist.

Who is capable of a 1000ft er in this city?

manulife

At the snail's pace of progress in Toronto, by the time this city finally gets that mythical "supertall", we will all be old and more concerned with incontinence than skyscrapers.

It's only a matter of time.

Look what happened at Canada's Wonderland for example. Decades of painful waiting for a supercoaster and finally it's come! (Behemoth)

A supertall will eventually come. And if it doesn't, why stress over it, we have the CN Tower.

At the snail's pace of progress in Toronto

I hope, for your sake, you're only foolin'

We have more 500 footers under construction than built ... does that not mean anything?!?

Why do some of you sound like you haven't lost your virginity?

1000ft? Who about 998ft? Would that suck?

At the snail's pace of progress in Toronto, by the time this city finally gets that mythical "supertall", we will all be old and more concerned with incontinence than skyscrapers.

Exactly.

At the snail's pace of progress in Toronto, by the time this city finally gets that mythical "supertall", we will all be old and more concerned with incontinence than skyscrapers.

WTF are you talking about? The 'pace of progress' over the past 5 years has been the biggest boom in the city's history.....

Are you from out of town, or something?

and as for dream brother, has he ever contributed anything to the forum? Ever? :ohno:

Loser...

I hope, for your sake, you're only foolin'
That's how I see it, but with the caveat that I'm a chronically glass-half-empty kind of guy.

For how many decades has there been talk, talk, talk of expanding the subway, of creating a rail link to the airport (the rail infrastructure already exists, for goodness sake!), of overhauling the waterfront, and more recently, of growing the urban canopy? The only changes we get are incremental, not radical, because there's a paucity of visionaries...and money. In the 10 years it took to build the Sheppard subway, Madrid famously built 150 kms of subway. That kind of haste and productivity would never happen in Toronto. As for buildings, look how fast Trump Chicago has risen, and it's much larger than anything struggling to get aloft here (save Bay-Adelaide, which is going up with truly refreshing, unexpected speed). Sure there's a lot going on here, but, given the boom, so much more could be happening. Toronto is more about obstruction than construction ("Let's hold an official inquiry into whether we can actually do that. Judge so-and-so will release his findings three years from now. Then we'll have a two-year environmental assessment"). That's not to say I'm in favour of rampant, irresponsible development, but once this opportunity has faded, it may not come again for a while. Remember the long salad days of the last recession?

By the way, I'm very fond of this city and living here, but it's exasperating to see it fall on its face repeatedly because of various debilitating factors.

WTF are you talking about? The 'pace of progress' over the past 5 years has been the biggest boom in the city's history.....

Are you from out of town, or something?
So you try to paint me as the "other" because I have negative things to say. Very mature. I have lived here virtually my whole life (32 years).

So you try to paint me as the "other" because I have negative things to say. Very mature. I have lived here virtually my whole life (32 years).

I wouldn't call you "other", but how about: "not to aware of what's happening around you"

Did you notice all the construction that's happening here?

We are in the midst of one of the greatest building booms this city has ever seen in any era. We'd be fools to say development in this city is moving at a snails pace. - The fact we don't have a supertall will not diminish the fact that when the dust settles (if ever??) this city will be altered drastically than from it's previous incarnation.

That's how I see it, but with the caveat that I'm a chronically glass-half-empty kind of guy.
.

No offence, but I have never encountered a city in my life with as many citizens that share your outlook about the city they have chosen to live... in a way it can be good as it pushes for constant improvement, but in another way it leads to widespread insecurity and low self esteem that can defeat progress just as quickly and surely as economic setbacks. Personally I think there is a happy medium of recognizing achievements by occasionally giving ourselves a pat on the back, and being ever vigilant to improve our built environment. If we don't recognize and applaud success, there is little inspiration for people to excel...

Madrid famously built 150 kms of subway. That kind of haste and productivity would never happen in Toronto. As for buildings, look how fast Trump Chicago has risen, and it's much larger than anything struggling to get aloft here (save Bay-Adelaide, which is going up with truly refreshing, unexpected speed). Sure there's a lot going on here, but, given the boom, so much more could be happening. Toronto is more about obstruction than construction ("Let's hold an official inquiry into whether we can actually do that. Judge so-and-so will release his findings three years from now. Then we'll have a two-year environmental assessment"). That's not to say I'm in favour of rampant, irresponsible development, but once this opportunity has faded, it may not come again for a while. Remember the long salad days of the last recession?



I don't find your comparison particularly fair. Unfortunately, Toronto doesn't have the luxury to build 150 kms of subway on other EU member's money or home to nation wide corporations in a country of 300 million strong. Also, Chicago's built form is far more centralized than Torontos which generally leads to taller buildings. We'd probably have our own share of 1000 footers if the density from just 1000 suburban highrises (I believe there are at least 1500 out there) was instead built in the downtown core which in itself was contained by an industrialized rust belt. Apples and oranges, I say.

manulife

Ya fine , who else?

I wouldn't call you "other", but how about: "not to aware of what's happening around you"
I am completely aware of what's happening around me. I have eyes, ears, and, most importantly, an, intellectually at least, well-functioning brain. I readily submit that my outlook is inherently overly negative, but there is at least a kernel of truth to it. Anyway, reason tells me it is asinine to get so up in arms over something as inconsequential as a skyscraper, and anyone yearning for a building to surpass FCP in Toronto, after 35 years, is just wasting his time. It's an arbitrary yardstick, I fully concede.
No offence, but I have never encountered a city in my life with as many citizens that share your outlook about the city they have chosen to live... in a way it can be good as it pushes for constant improvement, but in another way it leads to widespread insecurity and low self esteem that can defeat progress just as quickly and surely as economic setbacks. Personally I think there is a happy medium of recognizing achievements by occasionally giving ourselves a pat on the back, and being ever vigilant to improve our built environment. If we don't recognize and applaud success, there is little inspiration for people to excel...
Because of your reasonable tone, Taller, I'm not offended at all, and I agree completely with what you wrote. Most of the others here seem to demand that this forum become an echo chamber of mindless Toronto boosterism that doesn't brook the slightest opposing thought. Kinda like a cult of slobbering worshippers. Maybe it's time for me and others who don't fall into lockstep with the "pro" consensus to say "ta-ta" so the googly-eyed high-fiving and back-patting can resume without our pesky presence.

You live in a city where in the year 2005 there were 10 buildings over 500 feet. This week we had 5 buildings proposed in one day over that height. Talk about ungrateful.

Is the funding for the expansion for Madrid's massive subway project collected from regional/state governments or as one poster indicated, from EU money pumped Spain into from outside? Just curious to know.

Because of your reasonable tone, Taller, I'm not offended at all, and I agree completely with what you wrote. Most of the others here seem to demand that this forum become an echo chamber of mindless Toronto boosterism that doesn't brook the slightest opposing thought. Kinda like a cult of slobbering worshippers. Maybe it's time for me and others who don't fall into lockstep with the "pro" consensus to say "ta-ta" so the googly-eyed high-fiving and back-patting can resume without our pesky presence.

I think a balanced view toward the city would be an admirable goal for many- neither a steady diet of slobbering, high fivin' back-patting, nor a constant Pavlovian barrage of how bleak and failed this city is compared with the rich tapestry that we imagine our own personal life experience to be.

Is the funding for the expansion for Madrid's massive subway project collected from regional/state governments or as one poster indicated, from EU money pumped Spain into from outside? Just curious to know.


Before the EU, Spain, Greece, Portugal and to a certain degree Italy were considered poorer countries. Anyone who visited Spain in the early 70's will know precisely what I am talking about. Massive funding was pumped into the poorer countries to raise the standards of living. This is not, and never shall be, an option for Toronto - sadly we have to pay for everything the old fashioned way.

Grey, it is clear you truly have no idea of exactly what it means to have near no projects under construction/no interesting proposals. It's comical actually.

Chicagco has much taller buildings for the simple fact that almost all of its highrises are in a certain area.

In Toronto you can build a high rise in North York or in some random area in Scarborough..
Then you can build high rises near downtown extending the downtown further in all directions.

So the need of super duper high buildings in Toronto is not great enough for 1000 footers.

I agree with all of you who have been civil, and admit that complaining about development in a city that is so teeming with it at the moment is more than a little absurd.
It's less a matter of thinking how "bleak and failed" the city is (it's wonderful in most respects), than it is one of terminal disappointment. If this were a backwater, or a city in a state of growth limbo, the expectations would not be so lofty. This is a city that, for lack of money and/or imagination, or because of NIMBYism or small-mindedness, is usually forced to settle for something less than what was promised. Hopes being dashed is a common frame of mind. Can't afford to expand the subway? Let's settle for widespread dedicated bus lanes and so forth. Can't cut through the red tape to do something revolutionary with the waterfront posthaste? Let's settle for doing it in dribs and drabs. What about Downsview Park, which was touted as our answer, size-wise, to Central Park? A decade after the earth-turning it is still predominantly a giant car lot. And on and on.
And the building of this thread is yet another example of something whose initial size and ambition have been circumscribed. Oh well, maybe next time.

1. Yes they do.

2. Misses point.

Conclusion: Fail.

You really need to do better than this!

the thing is in Canada, we like to screw each other over because we can't become better then each other. That is our fatal flaw in Canada.

You here this about Canadian businesses too.

And the building of this thread is yet another example of something whose initial size and ambition have been circumscribed. Oh well, maybe next time.

yes........ but, is it really such a foregone conclusion that the loss of a few storeys, and the tightening up of a rather slap-dash last-year style random top design (replete with a 2004-era cheat hat on top) really indicative of something we should be terminally disappointed with? Is it possible that "Disappointment" is just the default setting?
I'm a firm believer that size is important in some matters..... but is height really the measuring stick or our architectural (and civic..... ) appreciation? ;)

if anything has told us, big buildings does not equal great livable city...

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. TO has issues with height and also has several towers close to 1000ft in the works. The two can clearly coexist.

Towers either u/c or proposed in both cities are clearly not balanced; NY's are far more interesting, and innovative...and TALLER! The only towers in TO's future that deserve accolades are 1 Bloor and Aura!

Freedom Tower, WTC 2 & 3
The GiraSole
Bank of America Tower
54th Street tower
New York Tower
Beekman Place Tower
53 West 53rd street

And of course, a shitload of towers slightly shorter....more appropriate to compare to Toronto's list.

Hopefully one day some company will forge ahead with plans for a supertall!

if anything has told us, big buildings does not equal great livable city...

Right, but damn they are impressive, and enhance a city's image!

Toronto is not New York. They are two different cities

Phew..... now that we have that cleared up, can we scoot back to the topic?! :)

NY has no space, so they must build big...

we can extend our urban core along Queen or to queen east or we can just fill in Yonge and Bloor some more.

You really need to do better than this!

That's better than you deserve, troll.

I agree with all of you who have been civil, and admit that complaining about development in a city that is so teeming with it at the moment is more than a little absurd.
It's less a matter of thinking how "bleak and failed" the city is (it's wonderful in most respects), than it is one of terminal disappointment. If this were a backwater, or a city in a state of growth limbo, the expectations would not be so lofty. This is a city that, for lack of money and/or imagination, or because of NIMBYism or small-mindedness, is usually forced to settle for something less than what was promised. Hopes being dashed is a common frame of mind. Can't afford to expand the subway? Let's settle for widespread dedicated bus lanes and so forth. Can't cut through the red tape to do something revolutionary with the waterfront posthaste? Let's settle for doing it in dribs and drabs. What about Downsview Park, which was touted as our answer, size-wise, to Central Park? A decade after the earth-turning it is still predominantly a giant car lot. And on and on.
And the building of this thread is yet another example of something whose initial size and ambition have been circumscribed. Oh well, maybe next time.

In total, 100% agreement!

That's better than you deserve, troll.

LOL...you must expand your repertoire; "troll"? Come on...

NY has no space, so they must build big...

we can extend our urban core along Queen or to queen east or we can just fill in Yonge and Bloor some more.

I was just thinking that during this recent spat of city vs city talk. Isn't most of the CBD and density built up along and in Manhatten and Long Island? When they ran out of land they had to build higher and denser or build on the other side of bridges across the Hudson etc.

Toronto generally didn't have these types of constraints (The Don Valley might have tried but didn't cause to much trouble), allow us to build in a more spread out fashion. If you took for example Yonge and Eglinton, NYCC and numerous other pockets of density built up outside the Downtown core, I bet you could double the size and overall height of downtown. Good or bad, what we have instead is a sort of pendulum effect where the high density tall downtown gives way to lower density around it before building up to these secondary/shopping districts and on and on.

the thing about Yonge we can just expand that.

For mid rises we have gone far along on King Street and Queen Street.

Now they can go along run down Dundas Street and Queen Street East.

Then you smaller streets like Richmond, Wellington, Adeliade, Gerard, college, Carlton and such.


For North and South. University Avenue can easily get some more bigger towers.
Jarvis can more buildings and then you get York street as well.

So in Toronto we are not at a stage where building 1000 footers is really worthwhile. Developers can easily just keep building mid rises and 30-60 story buildings.

In total, 100% agreement!
Hallelujah, I'm thrilled someone has the courage to buck the tide of disapproval. WinnipegPatriot and Dream Brother seem to be of the same mind too, but they are, fairly or unfairly, dismissed as trolls. I don't know if they are just shit-disturbers or not, but I am not. I love this city and want what's best for it, which puts me on the same page as everyone else here.
I think all of us are aware, upon sober reflection, that something like the admiration of skyscrapers is an adolescent pursuit (even antithetical to some of my beliefs). Yet we are all in some form or another excited by them, or, as I have said in the past, we wouldn't patronize a forum called skyscrapercity. Taller, Better, the very moniker you adopted indicates your stance towards buildings (ie. the taller, the better), yet you are always one of the critics - however temperate - of those who complain.
Toronto is getting a flood of new buildings, and we aficionados should rightly be excited. And we are. But, despite a condo market that is arguably (or inarguably) hotter than anywhere on the continent, few of the projects stand out as anything special (Not to mention that they seem to take forever to get off the ground). Almost all conform to the "play it safe" Toronto credo. Maybe Mandeep has a point with the contention that, as opposed to here, in cities such as Chicago tall buildings are confined to the downtown area, which necessitates greater height. I have no idea if that is true.

"Taller, Better, the very moniker you adopted indicates your stance towards buildings (ie. the taller, the better), yet you are always one of the critics - however temperate - of those who complain".

I don't guage the value of architecture with a tape measure, Grey Towers.. sorry! I believe there is much more to "criticism" (in the true sense of the word....so many people only understand "criticism" to mean negativity) of the design and function of a building than how tall it is, and much more to a city than how many SuperTalls there are. My moniker? it means less than nothing.. I made it up on the spur of the bored moment with the Olympic credo Faster, Higher Stronger (“Citius, Altius, Fortius”) being read behind me on the television set. I made what I considered was a temporary profile simply to check out Skybar, which you cannot view without a profile, and had absolutely no intention of staying in these forums (an intention I should have kept). Am I a critic, however temperate of those who complain? Not always..I frequently disagree with designs myself... but perhaps you only notice what I say when it disagrees with what you say.. Debate goes two ways.... does it not, and the habitually dissatisfied (whose ranks swell much larger than you seem to imagine) certainly don't mind saying their point of view.. shouldn't I be extended the same courtesy?

Now, if everyone has gotten all such matters off their chest, perhaps this thread might finally get back to 300 Front Street!

I frequently disagree with designs myself... but perhaps you only notice what I [I]say when it disagrees with what you say.. Debate goes two ways.... does it not, and the habitually dissatisfied (whose ranks swell much larger than you seem to imagine) certainly don't mind saying their point of view.. shouldn't I be extended the same courtesy?


That is so true.

I hate how I have to sort through pages and pages of bickering and mostly useless commentary to find any sort of information about the project the thread is named after. :bash:

^^ agreed, circuitboy. These threads are not the place for all the drama. Hopefully now it will finally get back to 300 Front West.

lets bring this thread back!

That was some serious Shakespeare shit.

where is this again...

Front and Simco???

Front & John.

Pretty sure they are putting a Wal-Mart around there...somewhere.

can we stop talking about walmart:| like fuck its everywhere..

its not downtown

No I mean the topic of walmart is all over the forum

The park is in a better position in the second proposal but that's not what's at issue for me.


Agree. The first proposal is a much sexier design. Once you start dealing with the OMB, design has to start taking cues from things that shouldn't effect design. Invariably, design suffers to accommodate height restrictions, shadow police, wind tunnels, and other criteria.

Regardless of who decided upon a shorter building, the original proportion and detail was sacrificed for some other consideration. That's disappointing to anyone who appreciates design and beauty first. We're first presented with something elegant with a definite wow factor, and then frustrated by the alterations. To some, these changes are slight, but it has the effect of stripping away most of what made it appealing.

Ok, I am completely confused now... this is a brand new proposal. Why would they be dealing with OMB at this initial stage? Isn't it just the City they deal with at this point?

My mistake. I was under the impression that it had gone through that process already. The same holds true of the City as it does the OMB as far as design issues go though. From an architects point of view, the City can't be considered a contributor to good design, but a constraint. That doesn't negate the occurrence of improvements on occasion.

The Notice of Public Meeting for this was in the Star today. It is to be 52 storeys and 156 metres.

I'm actually kind of excited for this one.. and it will look good in the area where it is going. I had to wade back through about ten pages of squabbling to find the rendering, so for convenience here it is again:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/Autumn%202007/winter%202007/300frontst.jpg

Any news on this one?

http://cormier.bassoburo.com/photos/projets/11/27_01_img_1.jpg
http://cormier.bassoburo.com/photos/projets/11/27_01_img_1.jpg
http://cormier.bassoburo.com/photos/projets/11/28_01_img_2-3.jpg
http://cormier.bassoburo.com/photos/projets/11/28_01_img_2-3.jpg
http://cormier.bassoburo.com/photos/projets/11/29_01_img_4.jpg
http://cormier.bassoburo.com/photos/projets/11/29_01_img_4.jpg
http://cormier.bassoburo.com/photos/projets/11/30_01_img_5-6.jpg
http://cormier.bassoburo.com/photos/projets/11/30_01_img_5-6.jpg

^registration

Any news on this one?


City planning staff recommended approval of the revised proposal: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-12324.pdf

The diagrams in your post are of the old proposal, Taller, Better's diagram is the current one (with the park at the corner, east of the tower).

The tower is planned to be 52 storeys, 156 Metres (reduced from the original proposal of 58 storeys, 183 metres).

^^ Thank you. In the link you gave, the park is to the west of the main block as in the diagram I posted in one section, but on the corner of John and Front in another section. Which is correct?

If you look in the north and south elevations in your link, they are have the park on the western border of the lot, not the eastern border, but then at the end they have it reversed. Even if the elevation diagrams are mis-labelled, that would mean that the main tower is on the wrong side of the lot. Someone's has screwed up the elevations diagrams.

^^ Thank you. In the link you gave, the park is to the west of the main block as in the diagram I posted in one section, but on the corner of John and Front in another section. Which is correct?

If you look in the north and south elevations in your link, they are have the park on the western border of the lot, not the eastern border, but then at the end they have it reversed. Even if the elevation diagrams are mis-labelled, that would mean that the main tower is on the wrong side of the lot. Someone's has screwed up the elevations diagrams.

Those are the old elevation diagrams. You have to scroll further down in the document to see the amended site plan, which is included as an attachment at the end.

They are showing it as the original proposal plus amendments, it makes it confusing, I agree.

Here are the relevant quotes:
The original application, submitted on May 4, 2007 proposed a T-shaped residential building with commercial uses on the ground floor. A 183 metre north-south building on the east limit of the site and a 39 metre east-west building at the north end of the site were proposed. A private open space area was proposed on the west side of the site.

Through discussions with City staff and based on comments at the community consultation meeting, the proposal has been modified. The current proposal reorganizes the development on the site, reduces the maximum building height and modifies the built form of the tall building element through offsetting of the building length and stepping of the building height.

The current application proposes the redevelopment of the site for a residential building with commercial uses at grade. The building is comprised of two distinct elements: a tall element of 48 storeys (140 metres) and 52 storeys (156 metres) centrally located on the site in a north-south orientation; and, a lower rise building that graduates in height from 1 storey (6 metres) to 16 storeys (50 metres) oriented east-west at the north end of the site. (See Attachment 1: Site Plan)

A publicly accessible open space area of approximately 825 square metres is proposed at the intersection of John Street and Front Street West.

(Actually even this is still confusing, as "Attachment 1" shows the original site plan, the new site plan is "Map 2" on page 30)

Change it back, the original proposal look so much better.

http://www.tridel.com/300front/index_pre.php

Why is there a Fendi bag in the photo? Is it mimicking the paving tile patterns they used for the rendering?

Why is there a Fendi bag in the photo? Is it mimicking the paving tile patterns they used for the rendering?

Sadly, I think the paving is copying the stupid bag.

Sadly, I think the paving is copying the stupid bag.

Not that I would know, but doesn't the design of hand bags change 3 or 4 times a year? God, that paving is so six months ago.

There is some inspiration drawn from that style (the style of the purse) but you can also see that the paving spells out "300" from above. It's cool :cheers:

I am thinking that is just a pattern template that the artist used to represent tiled area. I doubt very much if he was intending the tile pattern to be Fendi-esque.

Hmmm. There's a Tridel Sales center on Howe St. here in Downtown Vanc. Maybe I could get some pictures of the model.

Quote from the landscape architect's website:
Like the logo on a Fendi purse, the site-integrated icon is woven through with an intricate network of paving.
source: http://cormier.bassoburo.com/project/300-front-street/

^^^ ewwww. Count me wrong on that last assumption! ;)

the more I see this development, themore Ihope it isn't built. Not because it's a bad development but because it makes the redevelopment of the Hydro facility even more unlikely to be redevelopment as well as a thin silver of parking lot as the west neighbour. This is one of those time where the whole block should have been development simultaneously

Even if they approved the 183 old proposal I doubt they would pay so much attention to landscaping detailing. ROCP style is as good as you'll get unfortunately. :nuts:

Site in context...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3020/2560396838_a09a66471b_o.jpg

? = Boutique Condos

It is true that the word "boutique" is becoming a cliché, in the same way as everything is now "iconic" (which rather contradicts the meaning of the word).

http://tridel.com/300front/images/300_front_wlogo_620.jpg

That sure looks thin to me.

That looks great, finally a non blue glass condo. Is it steel framed?

?? What is this lately about all condos being blue? Tons of non blue stuff has been going up.

TRIDEL is really getting their act together! :) I am looking forward to seeing "FLY" condos now.

The above rendering is amaaazing. And it looks like something different than we're used to :cheers:

like it... good idea with the small parkette on the corner.

so the smaller north building will cover the ugly view of the hydro wires and steel from front st. not too shabby.

That looks great, finally a non blue glass condo. Is it steel framed?

It may not be quite blue glass but it sure doesn't give the impression that it's that far off. At quick glance it almost looks blue glass.

Wow, terrific design. I was scrolling down and it kept on going.

I'm loving the look of this building and the proportions are superb. Great addition to the area.

Alright, not all buildings going up are blue glass, but im just saying most of the condos on front (i.e. Cityplace) are mostly the same colours, a turquoise blue glass. I like this tower because it is more unique, although boxy, it's white/grey and has lighter faded tones of blue, and it has a wonderful texture in its cladding.

Looks like Cityplace. A lot.

But it's still sleek, tall and gets rid of an ugly parking lot. Hope they didn't lose the stunning landscaping that was planned for the base.

Looks like Cityplace meets 1 Bloor.

http://tridel.com/300front/images/300_front_wlogo_620.jpghttp://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d78/Archivistower/300FrontR2.jpg

Here are the amenity plans for 300 Front Street West in preparation for the Preview Opening (http://www.tridel.com/300front/register.php) at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/ground_floor_wlabels_800.jpg

15th floor amenities. The rooftop Urban Resort pool and social areas are located on top of the lofts. It features a sundeck, private cabana, BBQ grill and Roman Fountain. The indoor amenities are within the tower to the left and feature the fitness studio, steam and massage rooms, tranquility pool, party room, bar, private dining room, billiards and poker room.

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/resort_amenity_wlabels_1200.jpg

Here are just a sample of the VRs

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/park_aerial_wlogo.jpg

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/park_corner_1000wlogo.jpg

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/park_1000wlogo.jpg

Lobby with 24 hour Concierge

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/lobby_concierge_1000wlogo.jpg
Lobby Lounge

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/lobby_lounge_1000wlogo.jpg

Elevators

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/elevator_1000wlogo.jpg

15th Floor Rooftop Infinity Pool

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/infinitypool_1000wlogo.jpg

15th Floor Private Rooftop Cabanas

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/rooftop-pool_1000wlogo.jpg

Fitness Studio Contains exercise equipment, stretching room, spinning room and a yoga room.

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/fitness_1000wlogo.jpg

Tranquility Whirlpool

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/steamroom_1000wlogo.jpg

Private Dining Room

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/dining_1000wlogo.jpg

Party Room Lounge

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/partyroom_1000wlogo.jpg

Party Room

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/partyroom2_1000wlogo.jpg

Blimp Camera Views: Follow this link (http://www.tridel.com/300front/gallery_views_pre.php) to see camera views from the site at various heights.

That shot of the base looks like it has a little TD influence in it.

I always wondered why they didn't put more rooftop pools in Toronto.

Renders look amazing!
Especially like the "300" in the paving stones.
I just hope they put in some mature trees in that park, and along the streets.

I always wondered why they didn't put more rooftop pools in Toronto.

There is a swingin' old 70's apartment in the village that has a great rooftop
deck, and I believe swimming pool: 100 Wellesley. I think it is an amazing idea, and a great place to meet new friends!! :D

the cosmopolitan at maitland and yonge has one, too. lived there for a couple years. and you're right, it's a great place to meet people. and impress your family and friends.

^^ Yes, I went to a Pride Party on that rooftop one year.. was a lot of fun.
When the Cosmopolitan was built, it was the latest thing in swank!! :D

There is a swingin' old 70's apartment in the village that has a great rooftop
deck, and I believe swimming pool: 100 Wellesley. I think it is an amazing idea, and a great place to meet new friends!! :D

look it up on good earth...pretty sure i saw another rooftop pool close to yonge inbetween wellesley and college.

I noticed Chicago had a lot of them. This picture only shows two but there was one area in which it seemed 80% had rooftop pools.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7295/clevelandchicago035hh8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a rooftop outdoor pool in Toronto .(or Chicago for that matter) A few older condos have hot tubs and some of the newer 500+ unit complexes have podium pools but, only Freed seems to be big on the whole roof top pools. (I'd kill to have his penthouse)

In practical terms it doesn't make sense to have an outdoor pool, in the same way it doesn't
really seem to make sense to have Canada's Wonderland in a cold climate like ours.... but it is all about luxury and splurging for the summer months. One can get about just as easily in a Honda
Civic as a Lambourghini, but... guess which one is more fun getting from A to B!

posted by Tridelwebmaster over at UT....looking good!!

http://www.tridel.com/300front/images/aerial_composite_wlogo_1000.jpg

Wow... it is beautiful. The original proposal was nice, but I prefer this cleaned up and unified version better.

That north street wall is a killer, i'm lovin it. From B-A to this a nice canyon effect will be had. Down with 2-3 storey bases, lol.

This is nice. I love it.

That north street wall is a killer, i'm lovin it. From B-A to this a nice canyon effect will be had. Down with 2-3 storey bases, lol.

My sentiments exactly. The Fendi bag inspired design elements in the courtyard may come off as pretentious, but inspiration comes from the most basic of things. This is a building that is paying attention to the details throughout, and it shows. Very impressive.