I was trying to think of a more sunning response, but the answer is simply, 🞵🞵🞵🞵 yes! I love how skyscrapers stand big and tall and can be seen for miles. To me a city's skyline represents its development and prosperity. So the more there are and the bigger they are, the better.
And the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 thing came up because it's been used before to describe what the shangri-la would look like by other members if it were too tall. I've also heard it used in many other city's, like Toronto for the CN Tower, Seattle for the Columbia centre, etc. the phrase seems to be used when one structure stands much taller above the rest, and I feel that woudl apply if the Shangri-la is much taller.
That answer suit you?
yea, we wouldn't want erectile disfunction....which is something the Canada Line stations/trains have.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
I was wondering if you were ever going to show up again. I constantly feel bad for you two, and feel like an idiot for often contributing to the problem.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Here are some pics I took earlier today. It sure has got a lot taller since the last time I took pictures of it. It has become much more difficult to fit the whole thing in the picture from the usual angles...
Rag, you deserve a fucking medal for all the shots you took today. These are bloody amazing.
Also, for taking pictures from the same angle, take two or three, each of a differemt section of the tower, and stitch them together later to provide a real sense of scale.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
SL does not dwarf the skyline, in fact - it is only a short hop over the masses. I think Vancouver could easily have an 800 foot tower or three and if designed correct they wouldn't dwarf look out-of-place.
SL is almost topped out and yet in almost every shot it looks the same height as Wall Centre, except the close up shots where it appears to be a slim stilt.
Hopefully there might be some design changes to Ritz (and perhaps SL might go up to at least 200m?), maybe 250m - which wont be much taller but would give us some 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 satisfaction (instead of envy).
Yea, not happening unfortunately. I'm hoping the fins will be extended to 201 metres, but that is unlikely to happen. There is no way in hell more floors would be added now. Same goes for RC unfortunately.
Really there is plenty of room in the area for taller structures. There are so many short buildings around it's ridiculous. I know alot of people don't want to nix Teresen, but frankly at that corner all four adjacent blocks (including shangri-la) could and should have buildings in the 600-800 foot range.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
I know for a fact that no more floors will be added. But there will be a 200cm extension on the fins at the penthouse.
Does anybody know what floor the banquesting facilities will be on. How about the number of restaurants. The concept brief is always so bland and is never updated during construction
^ those are some amazing shots, but i think it could do with another 100 feet....that would make it look perfect.
I agree. I built a little sketch-up model and inserted into google earth with all the other 3d downtown buildings loaded (was very bored at work yesterday) and did some height comparisons of how it would look at 646 vs 750 feet. 646 didnt make much of an impact - as we're seeing. But 750 looked perfect and stuck out just enough.
Parallax has an effect on the apparent relative heights of the towers. The difference in street elevation between Wall and Shangri-La is only 10 feet. Wall appears taller in the image cause it's physically closer to the camera in that shot. The Scotiabank tower is much closer.
A shot taken from Stanley Park would show a very different perspective; Shangri-La would look like a monster.
In the numinous image, the difference in camera range between Wall and Shangri-La relative to the camera is 7 %. I used googleearth and the location of the camera's coordinates
The 646 ft vs. 659 ft. discrepancy in Shangri-La height can be explained by the 10 foot difference between the elevation of Georgia and Alberni. Would Shangri-La's height be measured relative to Georgia or Alberni?
Same thing with Harbour Center... is the height measured relative to Hastings or Cordova as there's a 20 ft or so difference due to the slope; it's built on a hill
well from that angle it looks like a glorified stump! Just that the picture doesn't give the true scale and scope of the project.
I'm really loving the glass.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Prev
Linear Mode
