The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II

[kool maudit]

i give this one to winnipeg. new york life and temple were, as andy puts it, "victorian piles."


i know tribalism is an evolved quality, but so is knowing when to quit for the sake of one's rhetorical aesthetic.


the modern skyscraper is inseparable, as a concept, from the steel frame. all other variants are hybrids, mutants and precursors.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

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.

Any site I have found only labels it as the tallest in the city, not the country. An example.

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

[logan5]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

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.

Is Wikipedia really that bad? The article on skyscrapers seems like it's well written and informative. And a few years back, Nature (journal) declared Wikipedia a reliable source of information, and subsequent articles have backed that up, so I'm gonna keep rollin' with Wikipedia.

[caltrane74]

Can someone give a better learning source than Wikipedia?

It seems like a pretty thorough site to me.

[1ajs]

all this talk of construction styles has me thinking what about concreat forum buildings where do they fit into this discusion?

theres like at least 4of them still standing here in winnipeg from around 1910 era

[Redkey]

r.i.p Temple building.. T.O's tallest building from the 1800's

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by logan5

Is Wikipedia really that bad? The article on skyscrapers seems like it's well written and informative. And a few years back, Nature (journal) declared Wikipedia a reliable source of information, and subsequent articles have backed that up, so I'm gonna keep rollin' with Wikipedia.

I personally use wikipedia all of the time, it provides a good read. The problem with it is that it is created by completely random individuals and there is no proof that what is being said is true until someone who knows better corrects it.

There aren't any single encyclopedia's out there that could provide as much off hand info as Wiki, but if one were to take time many reputable sources could be found that provide far more insightful and accurate pieces of information.

I have never heard of a post secondary institute that allows the use of Wikipedia, in fact some of my previous classes will give you a mark of zero as soon as they see wikipedia as a source. If it isn't good enough for our schools, than it shouldn't be good enough for us.

But like I said, for an overview it is a very good source for finding info. But only to do a quick general analysis.

It would be smart to find a secondary source before repeating information obtained from Wikipedia, just so your bases are covered. I have made the mistake of using Wiki as my sole source of information many times, and it has made me look like a fool as many times.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

Absolute joke of a comparison.

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.

Oh the irony here. Look man, he's just defining what is structurally accepted under the term "skyscraper" and saying it was Canada's first of its kind. What the big deal with that?? Why the need to go out of your way to continue to argue something that comes across as a cyber manhood measurement? Viking knows what he's talking about.

I thought it was generally accepted the little piece of history that building in Winnipeg held. What's the big deal? No, it wasn't the tallest structure in Canada that time. But it was the first modern skyscraper. Deal with it. Winnipeg isn't exactly a cutting edge city in terms of skyscraper development today, but that doesn't mean it didn't have something Toronto didn't have the first to claim. Come on. Drop it and move on.


--------------------------

Can we get back to the skylines please. Anyone got some Ottawa, Quebec City, Halifax and/or Edmonton? S'il vous plais.

Recent spring shots if any.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

i give this one to winnipeg. new york life and temple were, as andy puts it, "victorian piles."

the modern skyscraper is inseparable, as a concept, from the steel frame. all other variants are hybrids, mutants and precursors.

But like I said, there's a building in Halifax from 1894 which has a steel frame and was built in the Chicago style (with a passenger elevator and two storey storefront with big windows that would not have been possible years earlier). I would not be surprised if there were similar buildings in Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, or Quebec City. I bet that if we could compile a complete list of buildings we'd see a timeline of incremental improvements and changes to construction technology in many different cities.

Part of the issue here is it's not even clear what title is being awarded to Winnipeg. A "first skyscraper" title would probably have to be pretty heavily qualified in order to be correct.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by someone123

But like I said, there's a building in Halifax from 1894 which has a steel frame and was built in the Chicago style (with a passenger elevator and two storey storefront with big windows that would not have been possible years earlier). I would not be surprised if there were similar buildings in Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, or Quebec City. I bet that if we could compile a complete list of buildings we'd see a timeline of incremental improvements and changes to construction technology in many different cities.

Part of the issue here is it's not even clear what title is being awarded to Winnipeg.

This is also true. I've always been under the impression that specific building was the first modern skyscraper in Canada. But if that turns out to not be the case, then it is what it is.

I'd be interested in seeing the bolded happen. Not a fan of "inter-city" bickering myself but rather respecting every city for what it is. If another city ends up having that claim, then it should be known to set the record straight otherwise others like myself will continue to assume that title belongs to Winnipeg (that is, not tallest for its time, but first "modern" skyscraper in Canada)

[Rico Rommheim]

Winnipeg having the first "modern skyscraper"? Yeah I think that's quite obvious.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

Absolute joke of a comparison.

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.

toronto's building is the end of the lineage of a construction type that began with the pyramids.....piling rocks on top of each other to make tall structures.....of course they are not the same building, but the technologies were the same....it was the last of that lineage, not the beginning of the modern typology.

its like saying the last guy to build a really great horse drawn carriage built the first car....it may have had rubber wheels, a radio and windshield wipers, but if it didnt have an engine under the hood, it wasnt a car.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by someone123

But like I said, there's a building in Halifax from 1894 which has a steel frame and was built in the Chicago style (with a passenger elevator and two storey storefront with big windows that would not have been possible years earlier). I would not be surprised if there were similar buildings in Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, or Quebec City. I bet that if we could compile a complete list of buildings we'd see a timeline of incremental improvements and changes to construction technology in many different cities.

Part of the issue here is it's not even clear what title is being awarded to Winnipeg. A "first skyscraper" title would probably have to be pretty heavily qualified in order to be correct.

i agree with you.....it was definitely an evolution in technology.....both the montreal and toronto buildings were hybrids of old and new construction types....but to be considered the 'first' of something, wouldnt it have to be the first to use the modern technology in its entirety?....load bearing masonry exterior walls is a pretty big component missing from the label of 'modern' for those buildings.

the first 'canada's tallest building' that used the construction techniques that came to define the modern skyscraper was union tower in winnipeg.

the list is pretty long to make its case for being the first skyscraper.

- first 10 storey building to use a full steel frame and veneer facade.
- first building to be taller than 10 stories (11).
- first building to use concrete piles instead of timber.
- first building to use the modern construction organization of 'general contractor' (previously the architect led construction)
- fastest and largest elevator in canada
- tallest building in canada for 2 years.

let's have someone else make the case for the montreal and toronto buildings and we will compare.

[feepa]

Edmonton Skyline from the West by SkepticRod, on Flickr

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Can someone give a better learning source than Wikipedia?

It seems like a pretty thorough site to me.

Wikipedia is fine as long as you rely on the sources the article cites rather than on the Wiki page itself. Wki articles are just written by normal people on the internet and can be edited by anyone and therefore lack any credibility on their own without being backed by reliable sources. Sometimes when you click on a link to see the source the link is broken or outdated, or sometimes the info in the link does not match the claim being made in the article or the article's general tone or slant which is why Wiki is often criticized.

In other words, when you look something up on wiki, don't accept its accuracy until you examine the sources it provides and if you want to link someone else to the info, linking directly to the sources the articles cites may have more credibility.

But Wiki of course can be very good for finding sources on the topic which means it's still a useful tool.

[FrAnKs]

Here we go :

--------------------------------

They're all my own work (2 weeks ago)
1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)


--------------------------

Thats all, I hope y'all enjoyed.

Franks.

[MolsonExport]

^excellent shots. Some surprising scenes.

[chrisallard5454]

I know it isn't skyline, but here is a shot of Winnipeg's sky during the Solar Eclipse, sorry, but I had to really mess with the aperture to get a good shot of the sun. Notice the Stars behind the sun?

[Xelebes]

Post that in that Space Thread in the Skybar too.

[MTLskyline]

Pretty soon a police helicopter is going to become a permanent addition to Montreal's skyline.