Quote:
Originally Posted by roccerfeller
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.
|
Relax, can't speak for anyone else but my post wasn't about taking anything away from the Union tower. In fact I take no issue with the Union tower being considered Canada’s first modern skyscraper.
What I do have a problem with, is this ridiculous notion that the Temple building was no more than a modern variation of the Pyramids. That was the ultimate point of my post, to give credit to the Temple building. Which has been mocked as no more than a 'Victorian pile'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
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.
|
Clearly, the technologies employed are not the same.
That is unless the pyramids still have electric elevators that are waiting to be discovered.
Of which to note, the Temple building also had the fastest elevators ‘of its time’.
And as you are aware, the Temple building had a structural frame made of iron which supported the interior of the building. As for the pyramids, well they may have been some metal in them but it obviously had nothing to do with the structure itself.
And above all else it was considered a high rise building and not some landmark, monument, church spire, or any other type of structure. You do understand this important distinction do you not?
Quote:
|
was the first building to exceed 10 stories, its hard not to say that it was a skyscraper....
|
That's simply not true. The Temple building's 10th floor was added in 1901, several years before the Union tower was completed.
Quote:
|
it was the first 'tallest building in canada' that used a steel skeleton frame....im not sure how the definition could be more clear.
|
That’s fine and that’s an accurate assessment of the building and Winnipeg indeed deserves much credit for that achievement, beating Toronto to the punch by 2 years.
But there is still absolutely no need for you to discredit the achievements of the Temple building, which while not as significant as the Union tower, clearly was none the less a large step towards modern skyscrapers in Canada.
Prev
?
Linear Mode
