The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! - Page 82

sammo · #**1621** Posted **May 20, 2009, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

why don't you do it?

cuz i'm from 'here', t.o.!
do you want another t.o. skyline pic already? even i'm getting bored with too much local pics -becoming too toronto heavy. i almost want to appologize.

i'd like to see and critique/compare/appreciate/belittle/etc. some other skylines too.

Bigtime · #**1622** Posted **May 20, 2009, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammo

i'd like to see and critique/compare/appreciate/belittle/etc. some other skylines too.

Belittle Calgary! Feast your eyes upon our sub-800' tall buildings! Laugh at our ridiculous colour schemes on some of our newer condo towers! Contemplate suicide as you gaze upon the works of Point of View developments!

You may also chuckle at our abundance of twin towers (there's 3 in the pic I posted! Not counting the triple tower complex!), faux heritage brick podiums and never ending cookie cutter suburbs. IT CAN ALL BE YOURS!

sammo · #**1623** Posted **May 20, 2009, 6:24 PM**

thanx Bigtime.

calgary has alot of interesting 'stuff' in the skyline to look at and stuff.

Calgarian · #**1624** Posted **May 20, 2009, 6:33 PM**

Doubles I see Petro Canada, Bankers Hall and Penn West (the second one isn't finished) I see the 3 Sun Life buildings and 3 of 4 Bow Valley square buildings. Man we sure like to have lots of different kinds of buildings within a single development here.

sammo · #**1625** Posted **May 20, 2009, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sacamano

I don't really know what the hell you mean but the closest Toronto's skyline has ever been to Chicagos was probably back in the late seventies.

I wouldn't count on the average heights over the past five years to continue either. There just isn't enough demand for 400+ suites buildings and almost every week another of these launched towers gets canned.

height withstanding. Chicago is insane!
i believe they have less offended, more daring city/urban planners that appreciate and understand the value of world class skyscrapers
-and nimbys are properly 'dealt with'/ignored, im sure.

i knew i should'a included this disclaimer!

caltrane74 · #**1626** Posted **May 20, 2009, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 98fb

Are people this stupid back east. You give Nicko a run for his money.

If you're going to call me stupid, at least do everyone here a favor and state what is so stupid about the post you quoted. - Cause I think it's very clear that I never stated that chicago was not a great skyline...or that Toronto was superior...

People drew their own conclusions from a post in which someone made a comment about not liking the CN Tower in the skyline...

I made a post defending the CN Tower in the Toronto skyline, as it created some uniqueness, without which, I think Toronto's skyline would be pretty hum-drum.....

truedaniel · #**1627** Posted **May 20, 2009, 7:49 PM**

Appreciate the afternoon laughs!!!
Chi-town is not even in the same league, let it go girls!
Let's see some skyline pics... (no waterfront TO pics though, enough! lol)

WhipperSnapper · #**1628** Posted **May 20, 2009, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

i believe they have less offended, more daring city/urban planners that appreciate and understand the value of world class skyscrapers
-and nimbys are properly 'dealt with'/ignored, im sure.

It's just different. They have 30 times the companies requiring 250,00 square feet or more, a larger high end condo apartment market, and strict height limits outside the city core. And, while I wholeheartly agree they have a great history of skyscraper building I'm certainly not convinced the vast majority of what has been built over this past boom is any better than you get here unless height is all you care about. I can do without Toronto's love affair with colonades but appreciate people actually living on floors two to ten.

I imagine everyone who doesn't kiss developer's 🞵🞵🞵 is a NIMBY in your mind. Typical YIMBYism. Completely ignoring community consultation has almost always yielded a better product regardless if a few metres were lost in the process. (and very often means a few metres added.)

Bigtime · #**1629** Posted **May 20, 2009, 9:30 PM**

OH LOOK HERE ARE SOME SKYLINES!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/opuspixel/3543305191/in/pool-canadianskylines

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwkphotos/1363395592/in/pool-canadianskylines

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fauxtoshop/3314646825/in/pool-canadianskylines

Calgarian · #**1630** Posted **May 20, 2009, 10:10 PM**

I knew Calgary was the real centre of the universe, that or we're getting sucked into a black hole.

Aylmer · #**1631** Posted **May 20, 2009, 10:38 PM**

Ahem.

Read my location.

sammo · #**1632** Posted **May 20, 2009, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sacamano

It's just different. They have 30 times the companies requiring 250,00 square feet or more, a larger high end condo apartment market, and strict height limits outside the city core. And, while I wholeheartly agree they have a great history of skyscraper building I'm certainly not convinced the vast majority of what has been built over this past boom is any better than you get here unless height is all you care about. I can do without Toronto's love affair with colonades but appreciate people actually living on floors two to ten.

I imagine everyone who doesn't kiss developer's 🞵🞵🞵 is a NIMBY in your mind. Typical YIMBYism. Completely ignoring community consultation has almost always yielded a better product regardless if a few metres were lost in the process. (and very often means a few metres added.)

Skyscrapers are (in my opinion) not just tall buildings but beautiful 'objects' or icons that are best appreciated from afar.
you really can't view or assess them properly from too close. they need good podiums or 'squares' to make them human.
tall building may accomodate the need for more square footage in limited space but there's probably a 'optimum' or reasonable max. height most buildings have to be in our cities -probably 5 to 10 storeys.
as a resident, i'll agree that the 'premium' floors are lower ones -plus 'good urban planning'... BUT booooring for skyline (i'm thinking london,u.k. -i love london, fav foriegn city)
many old euro cities are mostly based on (roman) concentric plans which lend well to relatively uniform building height.
our modern n.american cities are usually grid plot and the skyscraper is our shtick.
i'm not saying one's better than the other (i actually prefer a rigid grid -Mies good -LeCorb, meh)

as far as chicago having "30 times the companies" and stuff... i'm not sure i'd agree, totally.
certainly they have approx. one and a half our population, but i believe toronto's 'hinterlands' are more dependant on toronto than chicago's. there's more choice cities for companies to locate in the u.s. (i'd liken this comparison to each respective stock exchange)
overall (without checking) they probably have more office space.

Doug_Cgy · #**1633** Posted **May 20, 2009, 11:02 PM**

I don't see where these childish antics come from. I don't think CalTrane had any ill intent or implications with the comments he made whatsoever, it was just an opinion about the CN Tower. Face it, some people like Chicago, some Toronto...Who gives a f*ck? I think they're both AWESOME cities, with AMAZING skylines!

sammo · #**1634** Posted **May 20, 2009, 11:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sacamano

I imagine everyone who doesn't kiss developer's 🞵🞵🞵 is a NIMBY in your mind. Typical YIMBYism. Completely ignoring community consultation has almost always yielded a better product regardless if a few metres were lost in the process. (and very often means a few metres added.)

is that you jane? jane jacobs?