Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by osmo

Is this seriously being mulled about in Calgary right now?

No. I'm just throwing it out there as an idea.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

What about Queen's Park?

I would say the greenspace network north of Bloor that encomposes the Kay beltline/Roycroft Park/ Rosedale ravines is very unique in its layout and rivals central park.

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Queens park is probably 1/20th the size of Central park, the convention centre park would be even smaller. A park like central or Hyde Park, to put it in perspective, is roughly the size of spadina to jarvis and Bloor to Lakeshore.

Clearly there is no chance for Toronto to ever have a grand urban park, short of demolishing half of downtown.

Oh I know, I was at both Hyde and Regents Park this summer, it's tiny in comparison. I was just using it as a fair-sized park in the middle of the downtown.

You're right, Hyde Park and Central Park were made in an era where a city could get away with razing entire neighbourhoods of slums for a manicured park (even more so than the Ward in Toronto for New City Hall). You could never get away with that now.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

You're right, Hyde Park and Central Park were made in an era where a city could get away with razing entire neighbourhoods of slums for a manicured park

Except neither of them involved any such thing.

They're a result of thoughtful pre-planning.

[Chadillaccc]

Hyde park was thoughtful pre-planning?

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

I would say the greenspace network north of Bloor that encomposes the Kay beltline/Roycroft Park/ Rosedale ravines is very unique in its layout and rivals central park.

Even thought it's only loosely connected and not all in high traffic areas of downtown.

The fact is that NOTHING, not one park in Toronto, comes remotely close to Central Park. I don't really know anything about Hyde Park...

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Ramako

Calgary's future skyline would look fantastic with a spire or two.

I actually agree with you. Calgary does have some buildings with spires (Jamieson Pl., Centennial Place, Calgary tower, 5 West) but none are tall enough to be highly visible on the skyline. At the very least I'd like to see future highrises with non-uniform roof lines like EAP has. The biggest problem is that even the Bow from head on looks flat topped. Add the 225 6th and you have a crop of flat topped, ie boxy looking towers.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Except neither of them involved any such thing.

They're a result of thoughtful pre-planning.

Central Park definitely required the razing of large amounts of residential.

Using the power of eminent domain, the city acquired 840 acres located in the center of Manhattan, spanning two and a half miles from 59th Street to 106th Street (in 1863 the park was extended north to 110th Street) and half a mile from Fifth Avenue to Eighth Avenue. In the process, a population of about 1,600 people who had been living in the rocky, swampy terrain--some as legitimate renters and others as squatters--were evicted; included in this sweep were a convent and school, bone-boiling plants, and the residents of Seneca Village, an African-American settlement of about 270 people which boasted a school and three churches. The members of AME Zion, Seneca Village's most prominent church, were scattered throughout the city, their community destroyed. Though the city did compensate the landowners with an average of $700 per lot of land, many residents estimated this far below the value of their property, which, despite the (until then) undesirable topography, contained their homes, their history, and their livelihoods.

http://www.ny.com/articles/centralpark.html

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I actually agree with you. Calgary does have some buildings with spires (Jamieson Pl., Centennial Place, Calgary tower, 5 West) but none are tall enough to be highly visible on the skyline. At the very least I'd like to see future highrises with non-uniform roof lines like EAP has. The biggest problem is that even the Bow from head on looks flat topped. Add the 225 6th and you have a crop of flat topped, ie boxy looking towers.

At least Calgary has one thing over all Canadian cities save for Montreal, is that not all of our buildings are flat topped boxes, in fact, most of our recent buildings have at least some thought put into the tops of them. Especially our tall ones, Suncor Energy, EAP, Bankers Hall, Centennial, Transcanada, Jamieson, even Canterra tower has set backs on the way up to its flat roof which look really nice

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

At least Calgary has one thing over all Canadian cities save for Montreal, is that not all of our buildings are flat topped boxes, in fact, most of our recent buildings have at least some thought put into the tops of them. Especially our tall ones, Suncor Energy, EAP, Bankers Hall, Centennial, Transcanada, Jamieson, even Canterra tower has set backs on the way up to its flat roof which look really nice

It would be nice to have at least one tower with a good old fashioned spire, pomo or not.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Allan83

No. I'm just throwing it out there as an idea.

Wow I had no idea the Calgary tower was expandable. I had always hoped/wished/prayed that they would remove that hideous facade from the pod section. I mean, it looks like a bucket of gods damn KFC. Though I can't really think of anything that would work in its stead. So it can accommodate what? another 2-3 floors? and an extra 70-75 meter spire?

[patm]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Wow I had no idea the Calgary tower was expandable. I had always hoped/wished/prayed that they would remove that hideous facade from the pod section. I mean, it looks like a bucket of gods damn KFC. Though I can't really think of anything that would work in its stead. So it can accommodate what? another 2-3 floors? and an extra 70-75 meter spire?

I always wished that they would surround it in reflective glass in a way that would get rid of the pod but still keep everything that is in it.

Make it look like a glass shard.

[Chadillaccc]

That would be cool. But with something so modern, they would also have to do SERIOUS work to the column portion as well. I wonder what could be done to that thing? Just being a blank concrete pole, looks really awful.


On another note... I really wish Matthew Dumont(illustrator) would make a twin of his EAP I drawing for EAP II, also would be sweet to see his take on the new Herald Square buildings. Anyone know how to get ahold of him? Or Chris Malayko? or Kamiux? All are some of the best illustrators for Calgary I've seen.

I wish I knew how to do good ones dammit

[Chadillaccc]

btw... what the hell does Pomo mean? Been wondering for ages.

[Innsertnamehere]

post modern. (as in post modern architecture) I have always been an unusually large fan of Pomo, 'considering it is entering its period of "OMG THAT IS SO UGLY" which it will be in for the next 30-40 years.

[Chadillaccc]

I also like postmodern too. Some of my favorite towers are considered postmodernist structures like the Well-Fargo Centre in Minneapolis, and the Petronas Twin Towers. Isn't ScotiaPlaza postmodern?

[Nouvellecosse]

It's actually supposed to be written PoMo, short for Post Modern. It's the international style of architecture that sprung up after Modernism's sleek and minimal reign ended around the 70s. The architecture continued to be composed of sleek materials like steel and glass, but instead of sticking to the strict "form follows function" mantra, it incorporated non-functional design flourishes. It dominated highrises architecture in the 80s and 90s. Well known examples include the Liberty Place buildings in Philadelphia, Library Tower in LA, and 1000 de la Gauchetière.

It is often criticised due to some examples being garish or kitschy with an excess of ornamentation, or with over zealous attempts at integrating historical references (particularly at the end of its popularity). However, there are some extremely well done examples like Scotia Plaza and the Transamerica Pyramid which remain very popular.

Today, it is not common for new buildings to have the PoMo style, with contemporary being best described as Neo-Modern. It is essentially a compromise between the staid minimalism of Modernism and the grandiose enthusiasm of PoMo.


** Edit** Ooops should have refreshed before posting lol

[Chadillaccc]

haha thanks for the dictionary version That is interesting. You named some of my favorite buildings in there too, the Library Tower, 1000 de la Gauchetière, TransAmerica Pyramid, and ScotiaPlaza. Pretty cool!

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

I would say the greenspace network north of Bloor that encomposes the Kay beltline/Roycroft Park/ Rosedale ravines is very unique in its layout and rivals central park.

Unique in it's layout sure, but rivalling central park? I can't tell if you're kidding or not. I jog through there a few times a week and at best it's a moderately well used riverway park with a freeway running through it miles from downtown. Sorry to sound like an — but it just isn't even close to comparable.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Wow I had no idea the Calgary tower was expandable. I had always hoped/wished/prayed that they would remove that hideous facade from the pod section. I mean, it looks like a bucket of gods damn KFC. Though I can't really think of anything that would work in its stead. So it can accommodate what? another 2-3 floors? and an extra 70-75 meter spire?

I’ve seen the plans but that was some years ago and I couldn’t find them online with a quick search. Here’s a Wikipedia quote and the source if you happen to have access to old Herald articles, and this is essentailly what I remeber from the plans as well:

“A study was conducted in 1982 that proposed building an additional 85 metres (279 ft) shaft on top of the existing pod that would feature a second observation deck.”
-Williamson, Kerry (2001-08-01). "Landmark's glory overshadowed". Calgary Herald: p. A1.

I think the problem with this proposal then and now is in how to pay for it. I’m sure it would increase the number of tourists, and it might add some value to the proposed office towers on either side. It might also haves some added value as a cell phone tower, but I’m not sure this would be enough. So I made the modest proposal that we should pay for it by hosting the winter Olympics again, and that we extend the tower and use it as a big torch for the Olympic flame, as was done in 1988.