SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It is interesting how the latest all office redesign of BA is very close to the the original 2 towers of the TD Centre built in the late sixties. What I refer to is in the height. The TD towers are 56 floors 731ft and 46 floors and 600ft respectively. The two BA towers in their latest all office floorplates are 51 floors 714ft and 43 floors and approx 600ft. Not much difference at all. I don't know about actual total square footage but I would guess it would would be close on that score too.

When you put it in that context the combined size/height of Bay Adelaide Centre is really pretty impressive. Pity each tower of BA Centre isn't another 10 floors though.

The original TD Centre when completed was huge, overpowering everthing in Toronto. Remember that Commerce Court at 476ft was at that time the tallest building in the commonwealth.

Lets hope Brookfield purchase the two buildings fronting on Bay Street adjacent to the Hotel component, demolish them for a park, and add 20-30 floors to the hotel/residential tower pushing it up to the 800+ft mark.
 

·
lolwut
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
Ive noticed they have put the 90 degree indents on each corner just like the FCP, AON center and so on that many BIG office buildings have..the difference being that this tower is no where near 1000 feet lol. I think i like this tower better just because it will look abit more modern...even if it is just another big box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,718 Posts
I think the whole problem lies in the comparison itself. The TD Centre is 41 years old, this has yet to be built. Just bringing up the comparison raises issues, about what went wrong with the TD. It is one of the best designed office towers, but at ground level the design is too utilitarian. Not enough street interaction. Hopefully BA will fix this problem. The height thing is also an issue, why not reach for the sky, give yourself the titile as the tallest building in the country? TD did it, why not BA? There is only so much space in the core for a tower of that size. I see this as a waste of space when they could have gone 1000ft plus. The box issue also irks me. Why not come up with something creative? Why stick to what we have so much of already? Do they not want the building to stand out?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
VofE if you look at the new application the third tower is designated residential at 49s so it looks like this will be the tallest kid on the block unfortunately!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
CrazyCanuck said:
I think the whole problem lies in the comparison itself. The TD Centre is 41 years old, this has yet to be built. Just bringing up the comparison raises issues, about what went wrong with the TD. It is one of the best designed office towers, but at ground level the design is too utilitarian. Not enough street interaction. Hopefully BA will fix this problem. The height thing is also an issue, why not reach for the sky, give yourself the titile as the tallest building in the country? TD did it, why not BA? There is only so much space in the core for a tower of that size. I see this as a waste of space when they could have gone 1000ft plus. The box issue also irks me. Why not come up with something creative? Why stick to what we have so much of already? Do they not want the building to stand out?
Bear in mind that "box" towers offer the best footprint to usable space ratio (short of an outward-sloping building like the Ritz). It's easy to say that a developer should create more interesting shapes, but more often than not these come at the expense of usable space in the upper floors. Due to their previous experience with the Toronto market, it's not surprising they're taking the most conservative approach possible, and that includes design. Plus, at their current height the BA towers will be only slightly visible from the water, as they'll be hid by the taller buildings to their south. If we're going to get an iconic building, I'd rather it be one that is plainly visible from all angles. If one is to be north of the main cluster, it would have to be well over 1000 feet (probably 1100-1200) to have that kind of impact, especially once Trump is built. Or else it could go to the south of the main cluster, but that land is being used up quickly as well. Maybe the future is the western part of downtown, with RBC and Ritz and Shangri-la going up.
 

·
Have vision. Think big.
Joined
·
623 Posts
sl64 said:
Bear in mind that "box" towers offer the best footprint to usable space ratio (short of an outward-sloping building like the Ritz). It's easy to say that a developer should create more interesting shapes, but more often than not these come at the expense of usable space in the upper floors. Due to their previous experience with the Toronto market, it's not surprising they're taking the most conservative approach possible, and that includes design. Plus, at their current height the BA towers will be only slightly visible from the water, as they'll be hid by the taller buildings to their south. If we're going to get an iconic building, I'd rather it be one that is plainly visible from all angles. If one is to be north of the main cluster, it would have to be well over 1000 feet (probably 1100-1200) to have that kind of impact, especially once Trump is built. Or else it could go to the south of the main cluster, but that land is being used up quickly as well. Maybe the future is the western part of downtown, with RBC and Ritz and Shangri-la going up.

You make some good points here. I really don't see any "supertall" signature structures going up anytime soon, though. At least not in the commercial sector. I just don't think there's an appetite for it in Toronto. I think we will see more of these conservative boxes instead.

I think all of this will very much depend on Toronto getting a "new deal" (as much as the whole topic nauseates me). If taxes can come down relative to the 'burbs, demand, confidence and ambition will all rise in the downtown office market. I think we would see some really nice buldings then, but not until then. As you say, everyone is playing things conservatively. I think they kind of have to.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
VofE if you look at the new application the third tower is designated residential at 49s so it looks like this will be the tallest kid on the block unfortunately!
I didn't see the heights listed -- just floor count.

If commercial is the standard 15' per floor and residential is 9' to 10' per floor, the number of floors will not give much indication.

49 stories of residential is just shy of 500'. 40 stories of commercial is about 600'.

Unless I'm mistaken, the 51 floor western commercial building should be over 700'.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top