please do the blue/green thing with Calgary. i would also love to see the too-scale comparison with Vancouver and Calgary. that would be very interesting to see.
Also, a Mississauga City Centre model would be great, especially since there is so much density being added to it recently + to come. MCC is going t be great in 10-15 years. Could you do please do a "blue/green" model with 'sauga too?
Calgary and MCC will be too time consuming because I don't have the base model, as I did for Vancouver/Toronto.
I'm also very perplexed as to why anyone in this day and age would want a new pomo/faux-historic tower in their skyline... but we'll save that discussion for the fantasy tower thread. Anyway, good to know what people's tastes are.
Deco is a style not an era so there is no reason why that style can't be used again. Just because something uses a deco form does not make it faux. And why would anybody want to fall back on Art deco as a style? It's only the best form of Skyscraper IMO.
Last edited by Andrewjm3D; Feb 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM.
the shorter building above the google earth logo is also the new globe an mail headquarters.
It might be shorter than the other proposals in the area but it still looks to be in the 250-300ft range and quite wide/massive so it will make an impact on the skyline, at least when driving into the city on the Gardiner.
a view of the entertainment district with my model I made in sketchup.. (all white buildings are proposed/under construction/confirmed at that height and location but no design yet)
Whats that project on Queen and Beverley? It has office tower dimensions.
I'm almost starting to see, in a way, what Caltrane is talking about when comparing Toronto to Chicago. While there definitely, currently, is no comparison... I see the parallels of how the Toronto core is spreading out and eventually the tallest buildings in the city won't just be in the Financial Core, they'll be all over, just like in Chicago. We still have many years to go but the process has already begun with projects like Four Seasons, Aura, One Bloor, and Shangri-La. It would be awesome to get a 300+ meter built somewhere noticably distant from the core so that it can kind of stand apart, in it's own glory, like all of the supertalls in Chicago do.
Just my two cents... not saying that there is currently any comparison but I do see some of Caltrane's point.
Just to be clear I've never compared where Toronto is "now" to where Chicago is "now".
What I have stated on numerous occasions is that Toronto is building at a faster rate than Chicago. And using pure building metrics, that's the next step for Toronto. When this building cycle has played itself out in about 8 or 9 years. Toronto will not look like the same city. The downtown core is "not downtown" but the "downtown highrise core" will expand out from its King and Bay and Yonge Street confines towards the lake south, north to Yorkville and Bloor, and west to Bathurst. That will be a huge "core" of highrises.
^^^ even still, a lot of things are major downers in the city such as the railway tracks, NPS, and even Queens park for skyscrapers... don't even get me started on shadow concerns.
some of those things are why our skyline is so awkward.
I'm almost starting to see, in a way, what Caltrane is talking about when comparing Toronto to Chicago. While there definitely, currently, is no comparison... I see the parallels of how the Toronto core is spreading out and eventually the tallest buildings in the city won't just be in the Financial Core, they'll be all over, just like in Chicago. We still have many years to go but the process has already begun with projects like Four Seasons, Aura, One Bloor, and Shangri-La. It would be awesome to get a 300+ meter built somewhere noticably distant from the core so that it can kind of stand apart, in it's own glory, like all of the supertalls in Chicago do.
Just my two cents... not saying that there is currently any comparison but I do see some of Caltrane's point.
^^^ even still, a lot of things are major downers in the city such as the railway tracks, NPS, and even Queens park for skyscrapers... don't even get me started on shadow concerns.
some of those things are why our skyline is so awkward.
Also, a Mississauga City Centre model would be great, especially since there is so much density being added to it recently + to come. MCC is going t be great in 10-15 years. Could you do please do a "blue/green" model with 'sauga too?
actualy there should be a thread started which is dedicated to just such a thing.
skyline scale-model compare-o, magnific-o. that would be a good name for it.
Deco is a style not an era so there is no reason why that style can't be used again. Just because something uses a deco form does not make it faux. And why would anybody want to fall back on Art deco as a style? It's only the best form of Skyscraper IMO.
It's both an era and a style as a revival is an imitation in the truest of senses. I don't like how you interchange "style" and "form" either as Deco is an offshoot of Gothic Revival and the form is undeniably Gothic in origin.
It's both an era and a style as a revival is an imitation in the truest of senses. I don't like how you interchange "style" and "form" either as Deco is an offshoot of Gothic Revival and the form is undeniably Gothic in origin.
This is true. Either way falling back on the design styles for inspiration should not be looked upon as a bad thing. It's also impossible to call it "faux" architecture. Even Art Deco got it's inspiration form other design movements.
Forumers here should go visit Europe sometime. Their historic buildings are far grander and more beautiful, but no one there would imagine trying to regress and imitate them today.
Prev
Linear Mode
