Building Boom Set to Vault Toronto Past Chicago in Skyscraper Rankings

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And hockey is an afterthought in most of the U.S., with ratings lower than even Mexican soccer league, and it isn't like the Raptors and Blue Jays are iconic in the U.S.

What it is is people watching the Lakers play the Raptors, the Red Sox play the Blue Jays, the Seattle Sounders play Toronto FC, etc.

I wasn't suggesting that the Raptors and Blue Jays have a lot of fandom in the U.S.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Is Detroit's Renaissance Center nationally iconic because it's shown in every national broadcast of a Detroit sporting event? .

The RenCen is far from being as architecturally singular (note I did not say beautiful) as the CN Tower. RenCen could be in any city - even Atlanta has a copy. Or was it the original?

Sporting events broadcast from Detroit that I've watched often don't even show the RenCen. They often show stuff like The Fist, the Motor City Casino, or even the Fox Theatre marquee.

Whereas all of the Toronto city shots show the CN Tower. Hard to avoid it.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What it is is people watching the Lakers play the Raptors, the Red Sox play the Blue Jays, the Seattle Sounders play Toronto FC, etc.

I wasn't suggesting that the Raptors and Blue Jays have a lot of fandom in the U.S.

Anyone who's watched their team play the Jays at home in the summer has definitely seen a shot panning out of the Skydome with the CN Tower in the background. Whether they could name it or consider it iconic who knows. Whether or not enough people even watch baseball anymore for that experience to be a common occurrence is also up for debate.

The fact is there are probably only a handful of modern buildings in the entire world that are truly iconic in the sense that a overwhelming majority of people could recognize and name them.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The RenCen is far from being as architecturally singular (note I did not say beautiful) as the CN Tower. RenCen could be in any city - even Atlanta has a copy. Or was it the original?

The RenCen is ugly and dated, but IMO very distinctive, with its dystopian 70's-era Portman fortress architecture, in a seven-tower maze. There are only two other large-scale Portmans on earth- hotels in LA and Atlanta.

The CN Tower has TV tower analogues throughout the world. Not singularly distinctive.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The RenCen is ugly and dated, but very distinctive, with its dystopian 70's-era Portman architecture, in a seven-tower maze. .

Certainly an appropriate home for RoboCop's "parent" (quite literally) company.

(I am right on this, am I not?)

[Acajack]

So regarding the global renown of the Alamo, I texted my kids earlier asking about it, and one of them has finished school for the day and responded.

"Sure Dad. We rented a car from there one time in Florida."

[Nouvellecosse]

Sorry to interrupt, but I'm wondering if everyone could think for a moment about these terms as they relate to pieces of architecture:

Iconic
Famous
Landmark
Symbolic
Important

What do they each mean? How do they compare? What do we mean when we use them?

I ask because a lot of the recent disagreements seem to be from people using these concepts in different and conflicting ways (in many cases interchangeably). They each have their own distinct meanings with important but sometimes subtle differences so establishing agreement would really help.

But in terms of buildings being globally famous, the only really reliable way to tell how well the overall world knows about something is to ask. Short of some global survey (or at least a study showing how often something comes up in images or conversation across cultures and languages) no amount of anecdote, personal impression, or educated guess will tell us.

Alright, back to regularly scheduled programming!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A city's appeal is far from being primarily based on a structural landmark or landmarks. Just ask Pisa.

But still, many of the Canadians on here (including lio and myself) aren't even Torontonians and we don't necessarily feel any psycho-emotional ownership towards Toronto even if it's our country's biggest city.

Exactly. To be honest, I don't like Toronto. (Though I admit it's been years since I went downtown; my last visits to the area were to customers' plants in Mississauga/Brampton.) But that has nothing to do with recognizing that the CN Tower attracts in the seven figures per year and has decent international "fame" as a symbol of TO and by extension, Canada.

Similarly, one could have the opinion that Rome is a decrepit hellhole that smells like piss and where the locals are rude assholes, AND at the same time, not be hell-bent on denying that the Coliseum is a First-Tier Global Iconic Structure.

The two are entirely unrelated.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Colour me surprised. I haven't the foggiest idea why that would be the case, though. Davey Crockett? Daniel Boone? Can't remember which one was the Alamo guy. But I do remember the "Remember the Alamo" slogan or chant.

My kids live an hour's drive from the U.S. border, they can speak English, and I am 100% sure they've never heard of the Alamo.

I'm a bit surprised by that, 'cause as you pointed out, it has symbolic importance not only for the Lone Star State but also for the U.S. in general / manifest destiny.

I read and enjoyed James A. Michener's book "Texas" so I'm probably not typical there for a Canadian (I did learn lots of stuff in it), and as well due to years of Amarillo real estate investing and exploration - where one of the most interesting neighborhoods in terms of cap rates has its streets all named after early Texas heroes - I can spout off such names without cheating (Bowie, Fannin, Crockett, Lamar, Rusk...) and I can even say I remember somewhat decently who each is...

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Sorry to interrupt, but I'm wondering if everyone could think for a moment about these terms as they relate to pieces of architecture:



What do they each mean? How do they compare? What do we mean when we use them?

Excellent Post!

Definitions, from the dictionary, one by one:

Iconic:

adjective

The definition of iconic is someone or something that is a representation of something else.

An example of iconic is the Eiffel Tower being a symbol of Paris.

Famous:

adjective

The definition of famous is someone or something that is very well known by a lot of people.

Landmark:

1)Any fixed object used to mark the boundary of a piece of land

2)Any prominent feature of the landscape, as a tree or building, serving to identify a particular locality

Symbolic:

representing something else

Important:

adjective

The definition of important is having great significance or consequence.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Sorry to interrupt, but I'm wondering if everyone could think for a moment about these terms as they relate to pieces of architecture:

Iconic
Famous
Landmark
Symbolic
Important

What do they each mean? How do they compare? What do we mean when we use them?

I ask because a lot of the recent disagreements seem to be from people using these concepts in different and conflicting ways (in many cases interchangeably). They each have their own distinct meanings with important but sometimes subtle differences so establishing agreement would really help.

But in terms of buildings being globally famous, the only really reliable way to tell how well the overall world knows about something is to ask. Short of some global survey (or at least a study showing how often something comes up in images or conversation across cultures and languages) no amount of anecdote, personal impression, or educated guess will tell us.

Alright, back to regularly scheduled programming!

Good point. For me, the buildings that truly stand out and transcend all those qualities are the ones we probably were familiar with at a pretty early age. For me it was the Statue of Liberty, Eiffel Tower, Empire State/ Chrysler Buildings, (Old) WTC, Golden Gate, Pyramids, Great Wall, STL Arch. Mount Rushmore, Big Ben (Parliament), Tower Bridge, St. Basil's Cathedral, Sydney Opera House, Taj Mahal, Colosseum and a few other biggies I might have over looked.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by JManc

Then in it is clearly Sears Tower league as a destination. In fact, when I do go to TO again, the wife and I will absolutely visit the CN Tower but hell to the no for hanging off to the side or walking over a glass floor. We will overpay for expensive cocktails in the lounge.

The restaurant, 360, is a decent approximation of fine dining. Whatever you do, don't visit just the tower by itself. It's highway robbery. I haven't been in about 10 years, but even then it was $40+ just for the elevator ride. Fuggedaboudit! If you make a reservation at the restaurant, the visit to the tower is included. Still expensive, but it can be a very memorable experience on a nice summer evening as the sun sets and the Jays are playing under an open roof 1,100 ft below. Wonderful!

[chris08876]

I think the John Handcock Tower is quite legendary. When I was in Chicago a few years back, that building was the one I kept staring at. And even Aon.

IDK... I just really like the Aon Tower. Sears was okay, but architecturally, IMO its not the best that Chicago has to offer.

Two Prudential was nice. There's just a lot of good stuff in that city.

All this talk of frequency and numbers is just ego talking, when at the end of the day, quality is important BUT often overlooked by how many "0"'s one has. Chicago is a Rolls Royce when it comes to architecture. Yeah you can have your nice Nissan GTR, but legacy... prestige... quality is what the gentlemen like!

Many U.S. cities have gems, but if you want the whole art museum West of Philly, yah go to Chicago.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I think the John Handcock Tower is quite legendary. When I was in Chicago a few years back, that building was the one I kept staring at. And even Aon.

IDK... I just really like the Aon Tower. Sears was okay, but architecturally, IMO its not the best that Chicago has to offer.

Two Prudential was nice. There's just a lot of good stuff in that city.

All this talk of frequency and numbers is just ego talking, when at the end of the day, quality is important BUT often overlooked by how many "0"'s one has. Chicago is a Rolls Royce when it comes to architecture. Yeah you can have your nice Nissan GTR, but legacy... prestige... quality is what the gentlemen like!

Many U.S. cities have gems, but if you want the whole art museum West of Philly, yah go to Chicago.

Same here, I love the John Hancock. Even looked at a condo in it - they were really cheap back then (probably still are).

Monthly fees were crazy though.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by lio45

Same here, I love the John Hancock. Even looked at a condo in it - they were really cheap back then (probably still are).

Monthly fees were crazy though.

Yeah defintly. Some of the condos or units are a bargain... just in general, but man is the HOA high as heck.


https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1.../3848945_zpid/

110 E Delaware Pl APT 1004 for example. 400k for 1600 sqft, 2 beds, 3 baths, but a ridiculous $1,385/month for HOA. About 8k for property taxes.

Still, at $249 a sqft, still cheaper than my kneck of the woods.

I've been looking at propety in Dallas for the last few months, and I'm finding the closer you are to the city, so much HOA. I mean its bad, but who the heck wants HOA added on. I don't need a gold course, and if means saving 400-600 a month, I'll cut my own grass and do my own landscaping.

Just on a tangent, but maybe its better just to commute. Seems like once yo get out of the city, you don't pay them city costs and can get more bang for the buck.

Here;s one: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1.../3850186_zpid/

John Hancock unit, but a reasonable 696 for HOA. I mean... considering the iconic nature of the tower, I suppose its a good deal for a unit.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Yeah defintly. Some of the condos or units are a bargain... just in general, but man is the HOA high as heck.


https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1.../3848945_zpid/

110 E Delaware Pl APT 1004 for example. 400k for 1600 sqft, 2 beds, 3 baths, but a ridiculous $1,385/month for HOA. About 8k for property taxes.

Still, at $249 a sqft, still cheaper than my kneck of the woods.

I've been looking at propety in Dallas for the last few months, and I'm finding the closer you are to the city, so much HOA. I mean its bad, but who the heck wants HOA added on. I don't need a gold course, and if means saving 400-600 a month, I'll cut my own grass and do my own landscaping.

Just on a tangent, but maybe its better just to commute. Seems like once yo get out of the city, you don't pay them city costs and can get more bang for the buck.

Here;s one: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1.../3850186_zpid/

John Hancock unit, but a reasonable 696 for HOA. I mean... considering the iconic nature of the tower, I suppose its a good deal for a unit.

Stay away from condos.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Yeah defintly. Some of the condos or units are a bargain... just in general, but man is the HOA high as heck.

They don't even allow washer/dryer, so useless for families. They're a "bargain" because they're glorified rental units with no appreciation.

Huge monthlies make no sense unless you're talking luxury full-service buildings.

[lio45]

They don't allow you to have a washer/dryer?!?

[lio45]

Just clicked on Chris' link - the listing for that John Hancock unit says clearly that it has "in-unit laundry".

[chris08876]

The building has several laundry rooms that are positioned on various floors. Just open the door and take the elevator to the laundry room to wash and dry your clothing...

For units that don't have that parameter.



Man... Americans are getting lazy lol.

They also have a pool too.