Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals - Page 278

vanman · #**5541** Posted **Oct 6, 2012, 9:37 AM**

Updated rendering of the 160m, 3 Civic Plaza in Surrey:

DrNest · #**5542** Posted **Oct 7, 2012, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

All the people hating on spires must have been so used to resenting the height boost they give to largely-American and Australian cities...

It's a false way to claim extra height. I admit on some buildings architecturally they look good, but generally, in my opinion they're a false pretense. Have a look at the Bank on America building in NYC for example. A 288m building pretending to be a supertall at over 365m. And don't get me started on Trump Toronto!!

WhipperSnapper · #**5543** Posted **Oct 7, 2012, 5:35 PM**

It's an integral part of BoA's design despite that it may "cheat" in some obscure sense. While Trump is garbage, I wholeheartly disagree that it would be better without the onion dome/spire. A crown is a necessity and what we got, despite its faults, is much better than the typical inspired Mansard roof.

dleung · #**5544** Posted **Oct 7, 2012, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

All the people hating on spires must have been so used to resenting the height boost they give to largely-American and Australian cities...

It's a false way to claim extra height. I admit on some buildings architecturally they look good, but generally, in my opinion they're a false pretense. Have a look at the Bank on America building in NYC for example. A 288m building pretending to be a supertall at over 365m. And don't get me started on Trump Toronto!!

fair enough, but seems like people are channelling their dislike (mostly jealousy) of the "cheater" factor (generally favoring other cities to date) into an outright dismissal of spires in general. How can you say "no spires plz!" without seeing how it works with the architecture?

I posted this alternate badass version of Trump a while ago, which would have saved the day at lower cost than the pretentious 80's onion dome that isn't even visible half the time, being so small

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/fil...2012/06/5846/urbantoronto-5846-18617.jpg

Chadillaccc · #**5545** Posted **Oct 7, 2012, 9:20 PM**

I have received word from a reliable source that the new Herald Square proposal in Calgary will be larger then the Bankers Hall which is currently the largest complex in the city by square footage. Apparently one of the towers is being proposed as a super tall.

WhipperSnapper · #**5546** Posted **Oct 7, 2012, 9:25 PM**

Is The Bow alone not larger than Bankers Hall?

yaletown_fella · #**5547** Posted **Oct 7, 2012, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

I posted this alternate badass version of Trump a while ago, which would have saved the day at lower cost than the pretentious 80's onion dome that isn't even visible half the time, being so small.jpg

The T R U M P signage is more important than any redeemable architectural gimmicks.

However, overall I find this tower a refreshing change from the bland glass econo-tecture as of late. Give me this or 38 Avenue Road over Exhibit Residences anyday of the week.

Wooster · #**5548** Posted **Oct 7, 2012, 10:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Is The Bow alone not larger than Bankers Hall?

I think Bow tower is 1.7 million square feet, while Bankers Hall is a combined total of about 2.6 million square feet including retail.

The South Block of the Bow may bring its total above 2 million square feet, but I think there's still quite a bit up in the air about that building.

Herald Square I believe has a total possible density of about 2.8 million square feet under the City's zoning. It's been undergoing a redesign with its new architect. I suspect they were chasing after Imperial Oil as a lead tenant, but with the announcement they're going to a suburban location (unique for an energy player in Calgary - but a company with a very insular corporate culture) that may have an impact on what Brookfield decides to do with their Herald Square complex.

craner · #**5549** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I have received word from a reliable source that the new Herald Square proposal in Calgary will be larger then the Bankers Hall which is currently the largest complex in the city by square footage. Apparently one of the towers is being proposed as a super tall.

Ooohhhh that's juicy - please keep us updated

TallBob · #**5550** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 6:38 AM**

Craner: Be aware of too much "Over-hype" talk of HS or most high-rise projects in Calgary.... A lot of them get down-sized! Hope I'm wrong.

isaidso · #**5551** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 10:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Apparently one of the towers is being proposed as a super tall.

Well wouldn't that put a few noses out of joint. It would be worth it for that alone.

kool maudit · #**5552** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 11:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest

It's a false way to claim extra height. I admit on some buildings architecturally they look good, but generally, in my opinion they're a false pretense.

nobody except skyscraper nerds thinks of it this way. a spire is a type of verticality, an aesthetic choice, a decision to vanish into the sky.

DrNest · #**5553** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 12:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

fair enough, but seems like people are channelling their dislike (mostly jealousy) of the "cheater" factor (generally favoring other cities to date) into an outright dismissal of spires in general. How can you say "no spires plz!" without seeing how it works with the architecture?

I'm not totally against spires. I agree, in some case they truly add to the building's aesthetics. Obvious examples are the likes of the Chrylser Building, Petronas Towers and Tapei 101. In all those cases, the spire is an intergral part of the design and completes the building. With the likes of Trump Toronto and BoA in NYC, the building would look much better without the bit of metal stuck on top.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The T R U M P signage is more important than any redeemable architectural gimmicks

Totally agree. This one would have looked fine with just the big TRUMP sign at the top instead of that 1/4 onion thing.

caltrane74 · #**5554** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 1:35 PM**

Hey what are the odds that Mirvish teams up with Menkes, Great Gulf or Tridel for their super development?

WhipperSnapper · #**5555** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 3:40 PM**

Stinson Properties is a more likely candidate.

caltrane74 · #**5556** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Stinson Properties is a more likely candidate.

Lol!

Yeah, cause that went so great last time.

craner · #**5557** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallBob

Craner: Be aware of too much "Over-hype" talk of HS or most high-rise projects in Calgary.... A lot of them get down-sized! Hope I'm wrong.

Oh I know TallBob - I've lived through many "chopped down" dissapointments.
I still get excited over proposals though - can't help myself.

Gresto · #**5558** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 10:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest

I'm not totally against spires. I agree, in some case they truly add to the building's aesthetics. Obvious examples are the likes of the Chrylser Building, Petronas Towers and Tapei 101. In all those cases, the spire is an intergral part of the design and completes the building. With the likes of Trump Toronto and BoA in NYC, the building would look much better without the bit of metal stuck on top.

Once again, I agree entirely. I was going to write something similar, then noticed it had already been done. Add Empire State to the list of buildings with spires that actually contribute to the look and effect of the building.
To me, it isn't about "cheater" spires or whatever (adding height "unfairly"), it's simply what looks good and what doesn't.

Ramako · #**5559** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 10:06 PM**

I think spires look great, generally, but I'm not inclined to include them in building heights, be they in Toronto or elsewhere.

steveve · #**5560** Posted **Oct 8, 2012, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

I posted this alternate badass version of Trump a while ago, which would have saved the day at lower cost than the pretentious 80's onion dome that isn't even visible half the time, being so small

ya, but any bigger would have been awkward. it's pretty proportionate in regards to the footprint they have to work with at the top of the tower,