I am sometimes critical of table-top skylines but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have some harmony when it comes to height.
Taipei's skyline kinda looks silly with the huge Taipei 101 sticking out from it.
OTOH, Hong Kong's skyline was arguably table-top for a long time, and was still considered one of the most spectacular in the world before they built the International Centre of Commerce, which kinda stands out.
Sao Paulo doesn't have that much variety in building height either, but is still impressive.
This is true. Harmony can mean different things tho. It can mean the whole skyline sort of forms a mountain-like peak or dome which can be cool even if none of the buildings really stick out to make a jagged silhouette. Although for my tastes, it's still necessary to discern some individual buildings. If everything is 100% jumbled together it loses its appeal. Montreal has a decent balance... so far.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
I was just browsing through some older posts and came across this. It's beguiling how stunning this is. The clouds help with framing it, and there's some kind of (inadvertent?) photo-trickery going on giving it a sort of miniature effect.
It's magical.
Last edited by rousseau; Mar 3, 2020 at 5:02 AM.
Reason: Grammar
It makes FCP look much taller to me than traditional skyline views since so much of its "verticality" is typically hidden behind other buildings. That's the first thing I noticed. I was like "Whoarrr... it really is basically a supertall!"
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish
Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
Although all our tallest are the same height, I don't really get that table top feel from the Montreal skyline like in Ottawa for example. There are peaks and valleys and all the new towers should make things even better.
I am sometimes critical of table-top skylines but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have some harmony when it comes to height.
Taipei's skyline kinda looks silly with the huge Taipei 101 sticking out from it.
OTOH, Hong Kong's skyline was arguably table-top for a long time, and was still considered one of the most spectacular in the world before they built the International Centre of Commerce, which kinda stands out.
Sao Paulo doesn't have that much variety in building height either, but is still impressive.
Couldn't have said it better.
Table top is being used to push the taller agenda. Take the Entertainment District is Toronto. The towers that are now adding to the table top are all significantly taller than the district plan and yet, it's always about them too short rather than too tall. I believe there is no limits. You could have a half dozen 300 metre towers grouped together and it would be suggested sa 400 metre tower is needed to break up the table top. Cone shapes creating peaks and valley aren't appreciated either. There is always wonder why a tower transitioning to a lower rise neighbourhood is shorter than its neighbour.
Table top is being used to push the taller agenda. Take the Entertainment District is Toronto. The towers that are now adding to the table top are all significantly taller than the district plan and yet, it's always about them too short rather than too tall.
I could care less about height. When I say table top I'm referring to a skyline losing it's interesting silhouette if it has one. I was also going to point out the entertainment district in Toronto and how no matter what an area's height is increased to developers will push their buildings to the very limit of it. this is where more setbacks could help. Only allowing heights based on the lots size and forcing setbacks as the tower reaches certain heights.
I like seeing them on Lake O. Love seeing them pass through the Welland Canal or Burlington lift bridge even though it's super inconvenient to be stuck for 10-20 minutes while they do.
Where's the pollution, the deterioration, the crush of humanity and, oh, the advertisements. This looks cold, corporate and, generic.
Maybe there's no flashy lights or flying cars but Blade Runner had characteristics such as those in the bolded part of your text. Also, the lighting for some reason reminds me of it.
Where are the port areas on Lake Ontario? It looks like there's ships by Hamilton, but what about it Toronto? Do they get a lot of cargo ships in the GTA?
I could care less about height. When I say table top I'm referring to a skyline losing it's interesting silhouette if it has one. I was also going to point out the entertainment district in Toronto and how no matter what an area's height is increased to developers will push their buildings to the very limit of it. this is where more setbacks could help. Only allowing heights based on the lots size and forcing setbacks as the tower reaches certain heights.
I repeat. The OMB created the table top in the Entertainment District much to the chagrin of the city's planning department. It's irrelevant. My point still stands. No one has ever suggested a lower height to not only create transitioning but to discourage the formation of a table top. Table Top is just an excuse towards validating the endless dissatisfaction in the pursuit of higher and higher.
Prev
Linear Mode
