Bay Adelaide Centre - Deloitte Tower (east), Hotel/Condo (north) | Prep, Proposed | 43 st, 49 st | 192 m, 120 m | Financial District

[MattToronto]

It's referring to the first phase which is 218m. The second should be shorter I believe (196m according to SSP diagrams).

[Nouvellecosse]

Why would they want it to be shorter? You can't get a location that's much better for height and density than this.

[MattToronto]

Perhaps it's a matter of securing clients to lease. They would be pretty stupid to build a tower much too tall, only to have it barely filled.

[isaidso]

I've heard the argument that building height must taper down from FCP to meet lower rise buildings like the Hudson's Bay Company. It's wrong headed in my opinion, and needlessly shackles the city to someone's rigid idea of what is appropriate.

This should be about the needs of modern Toronto, not about skyline shape.

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I've heard the argument that building height must taper down from FCP to meet lower rise buildings like the Hudson's Bay Company. It's wrong headed in my opinion, and needlessly shackles the city to someone's rigid idea of what is appropriate.

This should be about the needs of modern Toronto, not about skyline shape.

Where do you hear this from? I've never heard any talk of shaping the skyline like this.

[Ramako]

There is a skyline tapering policy I'm aware of, but it applies to the west side of downtown as you approach the Entertainment District.

[Taller, Better]

Is it a rule to make a pretty tapered skyline, or is it a rule to limit the height of towers in the Entertainment district?
Toronto's skyline is pyramidal by natural selection. There were no rules to make it the shape it is; The tallest towers
crowd around King and Bay, and less important towers are shorter, the farther you get away from it. It is the perfect
example of form following function.

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

Is it a rule to make a pretty tapered skyline, or is it a rule to limit the height of towers in the Entertainment district?
Toronto's skyline is pyramidal by natural selection. There were no rules to make it the shape it is; The tallest towers
crowd around King and Bay, and less important towers are shorter, the farther you get away from it. It is the perfect
example of form following function.

From what I recall, it affects only the west side of the core. It's the reason that Theatre Park and 300 Front were shortened.

[Filip]

I'm praying to god for at least a slight redesign. A slightly shorter phase 1 would be very underwhelming.

[isaidso]

I remember that there is a tapering policy in place, but can't remember too many of the details as it was a few years back when I became aware of it. If we do see a 250m+ building it will be a new cluster like Yorkville or Yonge/College. The only other option to conform to the shape policy is to build right within a block of King/Bay.

Regardless, shadowing standards effectively dictate that the skyline will taper down from the CBD. They're not going to build taller as they develop east, west, or south.

[Taller, Better]

It is most likely that the "tapering" simply means they do not want very tall towers in the West part of downtown around the Entertainment district. It is very unlikely to be a policy to control the aesthetics of the shape of the skyline, though. The only time
in my life I've ever heard of a skyline being criticized for the aesthetics of its shape is here on SSC in those rate-our-skylines threads.

[Elkhanan1]

Originally Posted by Ramako

From what I recall, it affects only the west side of the core. It's the reason that Theatre Park and 300 Front were shortened.

The tapering is in effect on all sides of the main cluster - north, south, east, and west. You can see it from the lake, driving along the Gardiner, from Riverdale Park, and from Manulife Centre.

[MattToronto]

I guess it doesn't apply to Aura, or OneBloor.

[Taller, Better]

I'm not saying tapering does not exist... quite the contrary; obviously it does. I think the point is whether it is controlled by rules, or not. I say in general it is the law of supply and demand, and the downtown core CBD has the highest concentration of tall buildings. As you move away from that corner, the desirability decreases, and so does the height. I still am not convinced there is any magic rule to try and maintain a mountain peak skyline, as that simply makes no sense.

[Ramako]

There is an official and defined tapering policy for the west part of the skyline, as it concerns the Entertainment District. It is directly the reason that Theatre Park and 300 Front were shortened. I've heard of no such official planning directive for other parts of the city.

[AndrewJM3D]

More like there was. True it's still in place but if you've got the money that policy means nothing. The northern tapering has a lot to do with city hall not wanting a shadow on their precious square. Anyway all that matters is they provide us with a decent design. Let's hope we don't get two more blue glass boxes, then again that might look good from street level.

[Ramako]

There was a rumour on UT a while ago that KPMB was going to be designing Bay-Adelaide East. Bay-Adelaide West was designed by WZMH (who also designed Scotia Plaza and the CN Tower).

[Taller, Better]

I'd love to see a different architect do it.

[MattToronto]

I wish we could get SOM to do it. Not likely given the economy though...

[Leviathan]

Any news here? Heard a rumour on SSP that they could get things started on part two this summer