Canada's 10 Tallest U/C

[WhipperSnapper]

You act like a child. I didn't say no to a height increase. The committee of adjustments did.

If you look at ALL the permits, it's not the only one with these floor counts.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

You act like a child. I didn't say no to a height increase. The committee of adjustments did.

If you look at ALL the permits, it's not the only one with these floor counts.

Listen when I asked you about this 6 or 7 months ago you told me it (the height increase) was DOA, now I see this May 2, 2016 application has been accepted, what the hell do you expect me to think.

[WhipperSnapper]

I reported that the CofA refused the variance for a 1 metre increase. Hmmm, Maybe open the link for yourself before going, "well, WS said this..."?

The first permit,
Accepted 2013/Last Inspected 2015
http://app.toronto.ca/ApplicationSta...derRsn=3327583

The revised permit with the copied and pasted description
http://app.toronto.ca/ApplicationSta...derRsn=3942293

The office building sign
http://app.toronto.ca/ApplicationSta...derRsn=3853607

Can't find the CofA decision.

**edit

http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20T...er_18_2015.pdf ("100 Harbour")

[koops65]

OK, besides the bickering, what will the end result be? More height for each tower? Or 3 more floors squeezed into the same space?

[WhipperSnapper]

Neither. It's either an error made in 2013 and copied in 2016 or the figures represent an earlier submission in the rezoning process. It's in the links I posted + http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-43359.pdf

These descriptions are copied and pasted all the time and can be full of errors. Only thing that matters is the CofA said no. (see link)

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Neither. It's either an error made in 2013 and copied in 2016 or the figures represent an earlier submission in the rezoning process. It's in the links I posted + http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-43359.pdf

These descriptions are copied and pasted all the time and can be full of errors. Only thing that matters is the CofA said no. (see link)

thanks for clearing that up...

[Daveography]

Stantec:



(More)

[FrankieFlowerpot]

One Bloor East

Running down Yonge Street yesterday morning

[caltrane74]

488 University - 207 meters

[The Fisher Account]

Brookfield Place Calgary



Photo by me

[O-tacular]

From most angles you won't even be able to tell it's our tallest.

[shappy]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Brookfield Place Calgary



Photo by me

This is a nice angle of Calgary... Gives the impression of an attractive and substantial cityscape.

[WhipperSnapper]

Good angle for Brookfield Place too. I'm not too concerned that it isn't the definitive tallest.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by shappy

This is a nice angle of Calgary... Gives the impression of an attractive and substantial cityscape.

Yes, the impression of it....

[905er]

Originally Posted by shappy

This is a nice angle of Calgary... Gives the impression of an attractive and substantial cityscape.

impression? ... really? have you seen Calgary's skyline. It's definitely both attractive and substantial.

[Daveography]

I had to laugh at the wording too, but man folks on this forum just can't resist taking the bait

[koops65]

Originally Posted by 905er

impression? ... really? have you seen Calgary's skyline. It's definitely both attractive and substantial.

The word SKYLINE wasn't even written... he said cityscape.

Originally Posted by shappy

This is a nice angle of Calgary... Gives the impression of an attractive and substantial cityscape.

[WhipperSnapper]

Is there a difference?

[905er]

semantics.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Is there a difference?

Sure there is. A skyline comprises the highrise buildings of a city, whereas a cityscape is a much broader term, enclosing the overall aesthetics of a city.