The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II - Page 186

Coldrsx · #**3701** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 8:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

What is the average height in Edmonton like compared to Vancouver? both seem to have similar height for most towers, and a 200m tower in Ed would probably dominate like Shangri-La does in Vancouver.

Vancouver has a ton 100-130m where as Edmonton has many in the 45-70m and 14 over 100m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Edmonton

davidivivid · #**3702** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 9:19 PM**

montreal (1 sur 1) par Alexis Gravel, sur Flickr

kw5150 · #**3703** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 9:32 PM**

Much of Manhattan is a tabletop and I love it. It is the screen shot for all Miramax movie projects and always reminds of the view from crescent hill in Calgary

Yes I know Manhattan is a billion times larger than Calgary's downtown. Its off the charts.

• Video Link

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

CAlgary is definitely getting to be more of a tabletop, 225-Sixth will be pretty much the same height as the Bow and Suncor, and with Bankers Hall and EAP1 at about the same height, we are definitely starting to see a plateau effect.

Chadillaccc · #**3704** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 10:28 PM**

You don't seem to have your facts right...

Both Vancouver and Montreal each have a building over 200 meters (Vancouver - 201, Montreal - 205), plus Montreal's second tallest is 230 meters if you include the architectural spire (like most American 🞵🞵🞵🞵-measuring contests, I mean building heights do).

Edmonton has a serious proposal for a 161 meter tower.

Winnipeg has recently (2006) had a proposal for a 180 meter tower, though it was reduced to 113 meters, currently has a tentative proposal that could end up being its new tallest building (over 130 m).

Regina is 200 000 people, so why would you expect that it would have a 100+ meter tower anytime soon when some of our larger cities (Victoria, Halifax) don't even have them yet.

Ottawa has proposals for 2 towers over 120 meters right now.

Halifax is retrofitting its current tallest which will be over 100 meters when complete, plus its new tallest which will begin next year, will be 110 meters.

I love how you belittle Herald Square (the blue glass box) because of it's design, even thought it is more imaginative than 90% of the projects built in Toronto since 2004.

and, Tulsa is in Oklahoma, not Ohio, and it is the state's primary business centre, that's why it has more tall buildings than Oklahoma City(even though OC just recently completed their first 200+ meter building).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

I feel like every Canadian city is afraid of height. Compared to the US anyway.

Vancouver and Montreal are building tons of buildings yet nothing will ever go past 200m.

Nothing will go over 150m in Edmonton.

Nothing goes over 100m in Regina, 130m in Winnipeg, 300m in Toronto, 120m in Ottawa, 100m in Halifax.

While the US has tons of cities with a 200m building, even freaking Tulsa Ohio!

Calgary is kind of an exception, but even their "super projects" (The Bow and that blue glass box I forgot the name of) aren't THAT tall.

Toronto seems to be waking up though.

Ottawa is the only city that really shouldn't be building tall.

Rico Rommheim · #**3705** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 11:17 PM**

Really? Last time I checked, the Shangri la was 197 metres. And nobody considers the 1250 Rene-Levesque to be 230 metres tall. Shame really, the roof height of the 1250 is 199m!

Chadillaccc · #**3706** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 11:26 PM**

Well with the structural crane it is 201 meters, but yeah, I guess I embellished a bit. At least I only got one fact wrong instead of all of them.

Rico Rommheim · #**3707** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 11:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidivivid

montreal (1 sur 1) par Alexis Gravel, sur Flickr

Highly doctored, and yet quite beautiful. Looks like an image out of a 1920's German expressionist film.

Mrs Sauga · #**3708** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 3:09 AM**

I admit I didn't fact check. But I was speaking in more of a general way. So whether something is 201m or 210m, it doesn't change the overall POINT. Same if a city proposes something that is 180m, and it eventually scales it down to 115m, at the end of the day, it is 115m.

Thats nice about the Manulife 2 proposal for Edmonton, But 161m isn't much bigger than 150m, so I think the overall point still remains. I'd love to see a 200m in that skyline. Edmonton is a growing city and it seems like their office market is doing well, so hopefully it can amount to something.

I love Herald Square. I think its gorgeous. I didn't know what it was called so I just gave a very vague description. Just like if I forgot what Royal Bank Plaza was called I would describe it with "that gold triangular building". But next time I'll say "that beautiful blue glass box" so I don't offend anyone lol.

My bad about the state Tulsa is in lol.

Martin Mtl · #**3709** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 3:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Highly doctored, and yet quite beautiful. Looks like an image out of a 1920's German Expressionist film.

I corrected that for you :-)

Rico Rommheim · #**3710** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 3:50 AM**

Thank you

Daveography · #**3711** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 5:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Is the Muni-related height limit really the big bogeyman that it's made out to be when only two buildings in Edmonton are built up to the 150m limit (Epcor at 149m and Manulife at 146m)?

That argument would be more believable if there were > 10 buildings built up to 150m as opposed to just one or two.

150m isn't the only restriction, that just covers the core. There are two cone-shaped areas extending from the runways crossing over large parts of downtown east of 97 St. and between about 107 St. and 120 St. that are restricted to ~60m. It is easily observed:

Edmonton Skyline from Griesbach by bulliver (full size)

Given the plateau within that area, and the height that exists and being built just outside of it, I'd say the demand to grow beyond those restrictions is apparent.

craner · #**3712** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 6:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kw5150

Thank god. I like our stubby skylines. We dont have a big ego to prove I guess. Calgary has a table top skyline which is perfect. Nothing dominates which has a very democratic appeal.

Wow! My opinion/preferences couldn't be more opposite than yours kw. I hate "stubby tabletop", give me tall skylines with peaks and valleys please.
I guess that's what is interesting about these forums - all the different opinions.

craner · #**3713** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 6:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kw5150

Much of Manhattan is a tabletop and I love it. BE]

Once again - I don't like tabletop. That is why I much prefer Chicago's skyline to Manhattan's.

TallBob · #**3714** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 8:39 AM**

Craner: Agreed! I think we might be cousins!! LOL.

1ajs · #**3715** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 9:02 AM**

Andrewjm3D · #**3716** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by leftimage

This makes me curious as to how deep the bedrock is for different Canadian cities... only on SSP could I admit this without feeling like a total 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

I'm not sure how deep it is in Toronto but at digs near the lake it seems much closer to the surface then further towards midtown.

Andrewjm3D · #**3717** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 3:16 PM**

Taken by: Mitch. Harri
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mitchharri/8276913612/

WhipperSnapper · #**3718** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 3:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

I feel like every Canadian city is afraid of height. Compared to the US anyway.

Vancouver and Montreal are building tons of buildings yet nothing will ever go past 200m.

Nothing will go over 150m in Edmonton.

Nothing goes over 100m in Regina, 130m in Winnipeg, 300m in Toronto, 120m in Ottawa, 100m in Halifax.

While the US has tons of cities with a 200m building, even freaking Tulsa Ohio!

Calgary is kind of an exception, but even their "super projects" (The Bow and that blue glass box I forgot the name of) aren't THAT tall.

Toronto seems to be waking up though.

Ottawa is the only city that really shouldn't be building tall.

Afraid of height in comparison to the US? I can't agree with you there especially coming from the GTA.

A lot of what you perceive as, "even Tulsa has a 200m building" has to do with supply and demand. Head offices are much larger in the States requiring a lot more space and larger buildings. Restrictive zoning only allow small areas of the cities to go high-rise meaning that land becomes highly desirable and the economic threshold in regards to height is drastically increased for these lands. In Toronto, you can build a 30 storey tower just about anywhere. Look at Solaris in Scarborough as an example.

harls · #**3719** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 8:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

Edmonton Skyline from Griesbach by bulliver (full size)

This is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 awesome.

kw5150 · #**3720** Posted **Feb 23, 2013, 9:12 PM**

Edmonton is beautiful. I like watching this place change over time. We used to drive through coming from Fort St John and I would always ask if we could go downtown and see the skyscrapers. The mid rise condo district has a nice pedestrian scale. The view down Japer is very cool when driving in from the west.

For my 11th or 12th birthday I asked to go to Calgary....haha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

150m isn't the only restriction, that just covers the core. There are two cone-shaped areas extending from the runways crossing over large parts of downtown east of 97 St. and between about 107 St. and 120 St. that are restricted to ~60m. It is easily observed:

Edmonton Skyline from Griesbach by bulliver (full size)

Given the plateau within that area, and the height that exists and being built just outside of it, I'd say the demand to grow beyond those restrictions is apparent.