Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by headhorse

why are you equating nuclear energy with nuclear weapons? yeah I know the US is a facist state and the ruling class that supports it, they are fine with killing civilians in their own countries and out... nuclear weapons are just one way for them to kill. make no mistake they find lots of ways to kill civilians. check out what's happening in Fallujah. again, this has nothing to do with nuclear energy.

all this is just projecting anyways... the oil industry and it's mercenaries are guilty, it's just convenient for them to tie this disaster to socialism and an industry that they oppose because it can't be dominated by them. russia and china are about to revolutionize nuclear fission and destroy oil demand.

can I see the sources for all those claims btw?

I'm not equating it with nuclear weapons, I'm saying that is why they covered up the effects of long-term radiation exposure. They used studies from Japanese bomb survivors which began five years after the detonations, and then when the western scientists looked at the Ukrainian and Belarusian data which they began collecting within less than a week after Chernobyl, the westerners dismissed it and called the Soviet scientists incompetent and swept it under the rug. That is how both the west and the east covered up long term effects of radiation exposure and doing so to put down lawsuits like those launched by the Marshallese (irradiated heavily by Castle Bravo) and the people of Nevada and Utah (continuously irradiated from decades of Atmospheric tests) against the US, the survivors in Kazakhstan against the Russian govt, etc.

The reason that the bomb survivors and the Chernobyl survivors are comparable is because the Chernobyl disaster wasn't a radioactive steam discharge like most meltdowns, it was literally a detonation of the reactor core. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be plutonium 239 particles littering northern Ukraine, Southern Belarus, and Western Russia. It would just be the cesium, idiodine, and strontium released in "regular" meltdowns.

And no I'm not going to list every single source, I have nothing to prove to you since you're fairly clearly unwilling to learn. Like I said, read a book. The one I'm studying is 'Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future' by Kate Brown. Her sources and notes are listed at length in the last 100 pages of the book. Go nuts.

You literally have minimized the suffering of millions to spread your misinformed agenda, that is why I called you a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, because it literally makes you one.

[headhorse]

mm yeah I love education. you must be learning a lot in academia. definitely not an echo chamber.

just wondering what you think of the APA (you know, the scientific organization that I could go to university to learn about and become part of) only deciding homosexuality isn't a mental illness by a vote among it's members? pretty scientific stuff eh?

[headhorse]

alright, here's a quote from a scientific publisher about the book you just mentioned:

Writing in the Journal of Radiological Protection, Jim T. Smith, mentioned negatively in the work,[8] criticized many aspects of Brown's Manual for Survival. He describes Brown's book as "deeply flawed and clearly biased history of the health and environmental impacts of Chernobyl" He criticized Brown for cherry picking writing "One of the major failings of this book is that the vast body of knowledge in the international scientific literature is almost completely ignored - except where it coincides with Brown’s thesis."[9]

sounds like vivian krause

half of academia is just losers making up a bunch of 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 to get a masters degree that is regurgitated to justify the most anti-scientific and anti-human system that has ever existed

[Calgarian]

Good thing this is the skyline thread lol.

[Nouvellecosse]

While it's true that we shouldn't minimize any disaster particularly if there's a loss of life, it's also true that an event whose harm is immediate and localized will often attract greater attention than one whose harm is diffuse or delayed in the sense that a greater number of people each suffer a lesser effect over a longer or future time.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Good thing this is the skyline thread lol.

It is? For a while there I thought it was the conspiracy theory thread...

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Aerial Toronto by JamesAnok || ThetaState, on Flickr

A bit of a subjective question but has Toronto surpassed Chicago in terms of skyline size/density?

[youngregina]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

A bit of a subjective question but has Toronto surpassed Chicago in terms of skyline size/density?

I would imagine in terms of numbers, yes. But not by height?

[Nite]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

A bit of a subjective question but has Toronto surpassed Chicago in terms of skyline size/density?

Toronto is still 10 years away from surpassing Chicago's skyline.
By 2030 Toronto should be on top in all categories except may 350m+

[koops65]

Towers 100 metres and taller:

Built + U/C

Toronto - 367

Chicago - 339


Towers 200 metres and taller:

Toronto - 33

Chicago - 35


Towers 300 metres and taller:

Toronto - 1 (2 if the CN Tower is included)

Chicago - 7


So, Toronto surpasses Chicago when shorter buildings are included, but Chicago is on top with the taller towers overall.


Proposals over 100 metres:

Toronto - 232

Chicago - 30


Toronto will surpass Chicago in 5 or 10 yrs if most of the proposals get built...

[isaidso]

Taking all that into consideration, Toronto's skyline should pull even with Chicago's in the next 2-3 years.

[Darkoshvilli]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Taking all that into consideration, Toronto's skyline should pull even with Chicago's in the next 2-3 years.

In sheer number but not in height.

[WhipperSnapper]

Not quite. Those figures are a comparison between municipalities. A 100 metre ... heck a megatall at Kennedy and the 401 adds no intrinsic to the main skyline. Chicago has a long, continuous skyline. Toronto is multi-nodal.

Toronto would look bigger and denser than Chicago if 90% of the highrises were in the main cluster. Right now, it looks much smaller than the municipal stats with 1000 plus highrises spread out in North York, Etobicoke and, Scarberia.

[mcminsen]

The City of North Vancouver in the late afternoon.




Nov.26 '19, my pic

[TorontoDrew]

Toronto Skyline by bwilliamp, on Flickr

Toronto Winter by bwilliamp, on Flickr

Autumn in Toronto from the east end by bwilliamp, on Flickr

Pano by bwilliamp, on Flickr

[craner]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Not quite. Those figures are a comparison between municipalities. A 100 metre ... heck a megatall at Kennedy and the 401 adds no intrinsic to the main skyline. Chicago has a long, continuous skyline. Toronto is multi-nodal.

Toronto would look bigger and denser than Chicago if 90% of the highrises were in the main cluster. Right now, it looks much smaller than the municipal stats with 1000 plus highrises spread out in North York, Etobicoke and, Scarberia.

Maybe that's what it is because Chicago's skyline still seems superior to me.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by craner

Maybe that's what it is because Chicago's skyline still seems superior to me.

Chicago still has twice the number of built skyscrapers (150m) than Toronto

65 for Toronto
124 for Chicago

it will be around the late 2020S until Toronto tops Chicago

[TorontoDrew]

Chicago's skyline runs continually as the crow flies from the Shed Aquarium in the souuth north to Lincoln Park 7.5 KM and That's it, it stops dead at both ends. From the lake it goes 2.5km deep to the Fulton River District..

Toronto's distance we view from the lake is only about 5.9Km across and filling in fast from the Don Valley estuary to BMO Field. But Toronto's skyline runs North from the lake to Rosedale roughly 4.15km.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Chicago's skyline runs continually as the crow flies from the Shed Aquarium in the souuth north to Lincoln Park 7.5 KM and That's it, it stops dead at both ends. From the lake it goes 2.5km deep to the Fulton River District..

Toronto's distance we view from the lake is only about 5.9Km across and filling in fast from the Don Valley estuary to BMO Field. But Toronto's skyline runs North from the lake to Rosedale roughly 4.15km.

Yeah the cities fill out differently and thus from where the picture is taken and what angle makes a difference. When you look at that aerial from the back on Toronto almost seems bigger because the tower density spreads back from the lake...where as Chicago's tower density spreads along the lake.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nite

Chicago still has twice the number of built skyscrapers (150m) than Toronto

65 for Toronto
124 for Chicago

it will be around the late 2020S until Toronto tops Chicago

To a degree. I find Sao Paulo's skyline larger than either Toronto or Chicago despite being short. I wouldn't be surprised if Chicago still has more 12 storey highrises in its core than Toronto. I don't have the patience to count them. The 65, 150 metre towers in Toronto are also spread around the city.

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=4
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=12

It becomes clear in these interactive building maps. Set the minimum to 100 metres and I do not see how Toronto will be perceived to have a bigger, larger, grander, whatever skyline in a few short years.