Canadian City Proposals - Page 419

WhipperSnapper · #**8361** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 2:11 AM**

It's not about height.

caltrane74 · #**8362** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's not about height.

I agree with koops. I don't care for the lowrise stuff, so maybe two separate threads would be a good idea.

WhipperSnapper · #**8363** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 2:26 AM**

you already have threads that covers the tower heights that matter to you.

Martin Mtl · #**8364** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 2:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

I have commented on this years ago... the Proposals thread needs to split into 2 different threads: Highrise / Lowrise

That way 6 storey proposals aren't next to 56 storey proposals...

Why is that mix a problem ???

WhipperSnapper · #**8365** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 2:33 AM**

I vote we keep it about design. One thread is best.

itom 987 · #**8366** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 5:30 AM**

You see a lot of wooden low rise projects in American city construction threads. I had to snicker when Skyisnolimit commented on Cold's post! But in this thread proposal is still a proposal, no matter how tall they are.

koops65 · #**8367** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 6:45 AM**

I threw in my 2 cents worth... I'll probably say the same again a few years from now...

Beedok · #**8368** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 12:20 PM**

Edmonton has loads of parking to fill in on the north end of the core. Mediocre and high density is a massive improvement on what's there in most cases. Waiting for it to fill up organically just won't work, as there isn't an existing neighbourhood to fill in.

Plus it doesn't look too bad. Towers are a little crowded, but otherwise seems fairly nice.

TorontoDrew · #**8369** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 2:27 PM**

This is down at Metro Hall right now. Part of a Future Toronto exhibit.

source: http://urbantoronto.ca

240glt · #**8370** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 2:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Star

Jesus Christ...Nothing makes you happy man lol.

All this just sucks eh!

From Hilman SSP

DDb2axmVwAAcP3v (1) by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr

The couple new towers are good enough but the rest of that photo is a stark reminder how far Edmonton has to go

My comment was geared towards the quality of the designs, and the construction of the towers, arena and other buildings built lately. Not that good, and in some cases rather poor.

Urban recluse · #**8371** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 2:43 PM**

With the stunning cluster forming before our eyes in the Ice District, plus the Aldritt Tower (providing it sees fruition), the clamoring for height is being satisfied. The focus needs to be on density based on the amount of land needing to be developed. IMO, developments in the 6-10 story range should dominate this area.

GeneralLea · #**8372** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

With the stunning cluster forming before our eyes in the Ice District, plus the Aldritt Tower (providing it sees fruition), the clamoring for height is being satisfied. The focus needs to be on density based on the amount of land needing to be developed. IMO, developments in the 6-10 story range should dominate this area.

I agree. A nice blend of midrise with a few parks mixed in would do the area well.

MonkeyRonin · #**8373** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

I have commented on this years ago... the Proposals thread needs to split into 2 different threads: Highrise / Lowrise

That way 6 storey proposals aren't next to 56 storey proposals...

If you're so inclined, we already have one for skyscrapers: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=210030

Do we really need three height-specific proposals threads?

Airboy · #**8374** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 3:30 PM**

Here is one from Whitehorse.

A 17M affordable living facility, main floor office and retail.

Kobiyashi-Zedda

[IMG]

[/IMG]

This is a tall one for the North.

koops65 · #**8375** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 3:48 PM**

So there are some supporters and some non-supporters...

Let me throw a simple fact at you all. This is skyscraperpage.com, not LOWRISEPAGE.com. In fact, for the purposes of defining the difference between a low-rise and high-rise, on this site, 35 metres is the cut-off point. But yet we have a thread where towers that are 17.5 metres tall (non high-rise) are being talked about beside towers that are 175 metres tall. (high-rise)

In my opinion that should also be the cut-off point for a thread devoted to low-rise projects... everything else should be in a different thread.

In order to appease those who don't want a third height-devoted thread, lets make all proposals over 35 metres the second thread, and get rid of the 50 Tallest Proposals thread...

Or, the 2 threads might be called Low-Rise Proposals and High-Rise Proposals.
We might be able to re-name the 2 existing threads and that would be enough...

TorontoDrew · #**8376** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 3:56 PM**

I'd be fine with that. We should also make them sticky.

caltrane74 · #**8377** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 4:12 PM**

This is a skyscraper forum, didn't join to talk about cornball shit.

WhipperSnapper · #**8378** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

So there are some supporters and some non-supporters...

Let me throw a simple fact at you all. This is skyscraperpage.com, not LOWRISEPAGE.com. In fact, for the purposes of defining the difference between a low-rise and high-rise, on this site, 35 metres is the cut-off point. But yet we have a thread where towers that are 17.5 metres tall (non high-rise) are being talked about beside towers that are 175 metres tall. (high-rise)

The fact is it's just a name. That should be most obvious to us given condo names. SSP started as an urban development forum and has evolved into a community with threads on all things as relationships have forged.

Why must everything be broken down by height? Why can't a thread be about urban design and architecture. There's already the 500 foot thread and all the Tallest threads. That's plenty. Let's not turn this into SSC. It used to compete with Urbantoronto discussions. Than the heighters took over bitching how everything is too short and UT restructured and everyone of value left. Do they still have a forum?

Height alone is boring. Most of the tall proposals are mediocre mass marketing engines too.

P.S. Let's not proved Dleung right

koops65 · #**8379** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 5:47 PM**

I wasn't around in the early days, so I'm just making a wild guess here, but it would seem to me that SkyscraperPage was created to talk about skyscrapers. You know, the really tall buildings that appear in the downtown core of most major cities around the world...

PS. for those who seem to be uninformed, skyscrapers are the exact opposite of all the short, stubby buildings that make up the vast majority of most cities...

WhipperSnapper · #**8380** Posted **Jun 29, 2017, 6:14 PM**

Skyscrapers are the attraction but, you can't build a forum strictly on how tall buildings are.

Also, The very first fan bulletin board and database was skyscrapers.com. It makes sense all followup sites used the term skyscrapers in their name to attract fanboys to their sites. I can imagine SSP being called something else if Emporis.com was used from the start.

Of course, the easiest thing is to ask Dylan but, what's the fun in that.