The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II

[someone123]

It is not very well-known and it is only has 6 floors but Halifax actually has a Chicago-style steel frame building that was constructed in 1894. There was another 7 storey building built around the same time that was unfortunately later demolished (speculatively around 1990 -- it's still a parking lot). Behind that site there is still the 7 storey Dennis building which may or may not have a metal frame. The bottom four floors of the facade are from the 1860's or earlier but it was rebuilt after a fire around 1900.

Halifax also has a number of cast iron buildings from around 1850 that were precursors of the steel-framed buildings that came later.

I think setting a height limit is arbitrary, and in some cases a building with fewer floors can be taller than a building with a higher floor count. The use of structural steel instead of load-bearing masonry walls was the real innovation back in the 1800's.

[logan5]

Oh brother. 106 years ago and it's still a Toronto's #1 contest.

Wikipedia defines skyscrapers as being at least 10 stories for that period of time.

[chrisallard5454]

I don't know what you're talking about, but The Union Bank Tower was the first True Modern Skyscraper in the British Commonwealth. At least that is what I have been told time and time again from a reputable source. Ask him if you would like, he is on this forum. I am not even going to bother with this debate. I am not going to name him, but I know he will read this, and if he wants to continue this debate than he will, if not then we can consider it over with.

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I don't know what you're talking about, but The Union Bank Tower was the first True Modern Skyscraper in the British Commonwealth. At least that is what I have been told time and time again from a reputable source. Ask him if you would like, he is on this forum. I am not even going to bother with this debate. I am not going to name him, but I know he will read this, and if he wants to continue this debate than he will, if not then we can consider it over with.

It's really not tough to do a little online research. There is no debate, facts are facts. Turns out it wasn't even a three year gap but an 8 year gap between the two buildings.

The Union Bank Building completed 1904 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Winnipeg
The Temple Building completed 1896 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Building_%28Toronto%29

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

It's really not tough to do a little online research. There is no debate, facts are facts. Turns out it wasn't even a three year gap but an 8 year gap between the two buildings.

The Union Bank Building completed 1904 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Winnipeg
The Temple Building completed 1896 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Building_%28Toronto%29

Not that I disagree with what you have to say, but please stop using wikipedia as your source of information. It is really not a reliable source. When someone presents information based as fact from Wikipedia I just roll my eyes. I am not saying that what you are presenting is wrong, but I don't even bother with Wikipedia articles. I am assuming you went to high school and potentially University. If so you should know better than to use Wikipedia as a source.

Anyways I really don't care enough to get into a debate with you about this, as I just went online and did some research and found out some interesting facts about these buildings that could push it further, but I don't want to. Back to pictures please.

[1ajs]

chill it!!! this is not a pissing contest...

it was a first to use concreat piles it was the first to use steel frame. it was the first to have a general contractor it was a first on many other fronts and was canada's tallest in ushering in a new era of construction that lead to the monsters in toronto today

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

Even those don't really count as 12 storeys has always been the official entry level height to be called a skyscraper.

err...gotta source for who's rule that is?

sorry toronto and montreal...winnipeg's got you beat on this one.

of course the term was and always will be subjective but it can not be debated that a 'skyscraper' must be constructed using the methods that have allowed buildings to grow in height over the last century.....the skeleton frame is the single most important characteristic of a 'modern' skyscraper....for thousands of years we piled rocks on top of each other to make buildings.....the steel frame was the paradigm shift that defines modern construction and along with the invention of the elevator the most important technological innovation that began the skyscraper era.......any building built with load bearing walls can not be considered a 'modern' building and a skyscraper is by definition modern, so no building built without a skeleton frame can be considered a skyscraper.

montreal's New York Life (edit) was amazingly tall, but it was a pure load bearing masonry building....it was the tallest of an historic building type, not the first of a new type.

toronto's Temple building was a hybrid....it did use an internal iron frame but its exterior walls were load bearing.....they were 5' thick at the base.....this can in no way be considered the first of a modern lineage.

the union tower indeed was a pure steel skeleton with a veneer facade.....there can be little argument that it was built in the lineage of the modern tower and not was in no way a continuation of past technologies....it was also the first building in the country to use the general contractor method of construction...it had the largest and fastest elevator in the country......it was truly built using the methods of construction that came to symbolize the 20th century and beyond.

and since it was the tallest building in the country at its completion (25' taller than temple) and was the first building to exceed 10 stories, its hard not to say that it was a skyscraper....

to be the first skyscraper height is only one consideration....you have to consider other factors that make it the first of a type instead of the last of an historic type.

for this reason union tower in winnipeg was canada's first skyscraper....simply, it was the first 'tallest building in canada' that used a steel skeleton frame....im not sure how the definition could be more clear.

[Andy6]

The Union Tower was pretty clearly the first modern office building. The Temple Building was a big Victorian pile, not a sleek skyscraper.

I found this story from the Free Press about how the latest foundation techniques were being used in the Union Tower construction ... for the first time outside Chicago ... http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5494085&postcount=1396

Winnipeg was where things were happening in the early 1900s.

[chrisallard5454]

Thanks Vike, those facts you mention about the Temple building were indeed the ones that I found last night with a quick search as was suggested I should do. Only I went beyond the first link, being Wikipedia, and looked up the info from some real sources. I then found that the Temple building was indeed one of the last of a pre-modern construction method. I didn't reiterate this information because anytime I say anything to defend my case where Toronto is not praised, I have to deal with endless backlashes, where my words are twisted until I am left running with my tail between my legs. It is to the point where I am trying not to bother posting on the Canada page, but alas, I am twenty and when someone looks for a debate I can not deny them their charge.

[1ajs]

and now it edges closer to its new life as student housing and culinary arts school

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Anyways I really don't care enough to get into a debate with you about this, as I just went online and did some research and found out some interesting facts about these buildings that could push it further, but I don't want to. Back to pictures please.

I love it when people say they will not continue to debate and then leave posts like this and many more. At least I provided a source but if you like I can spend two minutes to provide you with a bunch of other links I looked at. I only used wiki as a standard for both.

I love how all of you Winnipegers are ganging up only because I posted the facts. Throwing insults at a great structure is even better and more childish. This was hardly a Victorian pile.



http://www.blogto.com/city/2011/06/the_tragic_fate_of_the_temple_building/

http://torontoist.com/2008/08/historicist_torontos_first_skyscrap/

http://www.beachesliving.ca/pages/index.php?act=landmark&id=92

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/05/heritage-toronto-mondays-temple-building-1895

http://winnipegtimemachine.blogspot.ca/2009/04/union-bank-royal-tower.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/union-tower-a-beacon-for-downtown-65930577.html

And to be fair after spending another few minutes Montreal truly had Canada's first skyscraper. Hôtel le St-James 1875

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I didn't reiterate this information because anytime I say anything to defend my case where Toronto is not praised, I have to deal with endless backlashes, where my words are twisted until I am left running with my tail between my legs.

Where did I twist your words?

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

This was the time period I was referring to, with its large increase in population in the early twentieth century it saw a great number of construction projects, including Canada's first skysraper.

As you and other Winnipeg forumers have since pointed out it was the first to use modern methods, but no it was not the first skyscraper in the country. That's been the only point I've been trying to show. It seems anytime certain forumers get into a disagreement with somebody from Toronto they need to use it as excuse to do a little Toronto bashing.

[1ajs]

let it rest already

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

And to be fair after spending another few minutes Montreal truly had Canada's first skyscraper. Hôtel le St-James 1875

I'm afraid the Montreal diagram mislead you. Montreal did have Canada's skyscraper, but it was the New York Life Insurance Building down the street. The former merchants bank you referred to was built in 1875, but as this:


http://www.vieux.montreal.qc.ca/inventaire/illus/0040-10-0289-00-01.jpg

And expanded again in 1899 as this:

http://www.vieux.montreal.qc.ca/inventaire/illus/0040-10-0289-00-02.jpg

It was expanded again in 1929 and 2003 to make it what it is presently.

[trueviking]

nope.

both the New York Life Insurance Building and the Hôtel le St-James were made by piling stones on top of stones....they had load bearing stone walls, not a skeleton frame......they were the tallest of an historic building type, not the first of a new.

they were no more canada's first skyscraper than the pyramids of egypt were the world's first.

union tower in winnipeg was the country's first modern skyscraper....it can not be debated.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Andy6

The Union Tower was pretty clearly the first modern office building. The Temple Building was a big Victorian pile, not a sleek skyscraper.

I found this story from the Free Press about how the latest foundation techniques were being used in the Union Tower construction ... for the first time outside Chicago ... http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5494085&postcount=1396

Winnipeg was where things were happening in the early 1900s.

add that to the list....pretty amazing.

first tower with a full steel frame structural system
first to use concrete piles
first to use general contractor type of construction method
tallest in canada
largest and fastest elevator in canada

no argument that this is truly the first of a modern type.

interestingly it was built by the same crew that built the flatiron building in new york.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

I love it when people say they will not continue to debate and then leave posts like this and many more. At least I provided a source but if you like I can spend two minutes to provide you with a bunch of other links I looked at. I only used wiki as a standard for both.

I love how all of you Winnipegers are ganging up only because I posted the facts. Throwing insults at a great structure is even better and more childish. This was hardly a Victorian pile.

Though I admit I may have been childish in my word usage, Viking, Andy, and 1ajs have only been providing facts. As you said earlier, there really is no debate to be had here. In regards to me saying I would stop only to continue, I say I would like to stop the debate in the hopes that you also stop bringing it up as well. I later on mentioned that I have a hard time with just passing up something that is presented, so if you continue on with the debate despite my request to stop I will continue on with it as well.

No one is ganging up on you, I simply called upon TrueViking, because I know that he understands the facts around these buildings fully, where as I do not. I don't want to get caught saying something that can be misconstrued as something else, as so often happens.

When I say Canada's first Skyscraper I am referring to modern construction, which should be obvious, because as pointed out, if we are just comparing sheer height of buildings there are examples all over the world that could steal the claim from Chicago because of their sheer height. It is very dangerous to discuss buildings with a contrasting tone and to not take into consideration the style of construction and design.

[trueviking]

^there were also numerous churches in canada taller than all these buildings at the time, so if height is the only determinant of a skyscraper, it would have to go to one of them.

to be the first of something, it has to display the characteristics of those to come.....frame construction is as important as height in the definition of skyscraper.

[chrisallard5454]

Including Church of our lady immaculate built in 1883 in the small town of Guelph (then 9000 residents).



Sorry this is the first thing that came to mind, as I lived in Guelph for this past year. Gorgeous little town with a gorgeous Church as the focal point right in its city centre. An interesting fact about high-rises in Guelph; no building can exceed the total height above sea level of the church. This allows for 10-20 story buildings to be constructed around the city depending on its geographical location, as Our Lady also sits on the highest point in the city.

[vegeta_skyline]

Originally Posted by trueviking

they were no more canada's first skyscraper than the pyramids of egypt were the world's first.

Absolute joke of a comparison.

So you view a building like this;
(an example of a highrise building with load-bearing masonry exterior wall - the Monadnock Building in Chicago)

In the same regard as these?



I'd imagine that more than 99% of the internal volume of pyramids is structural in nature. Where as a skyscraper is continuously habitable building of multiple stories. Somehow I think there's more than just a small difference between the two, but maybe that's just me.

The Temple Building may not have been Canada's first skyscraper in the strictest sense, but it was Canada's tallest modern highrise building for many years.