The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II - Page 136

The_Architect · #**2701** Posted **Oct 18, 2012, 3:09 PM**

^ Well put, vegeta. The fact that Trump is technically "taller" than Scotia Plaza is a joke.

Anyway, this was the Photo of the Day at UT, a sunset picture taken from the tiff Tower:

Source and higher res version.

dleung · #**2702** Posted **Oct 18, 2012, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

Great pic, but can anyone tell me why the 'spire' on Le 1250 Boulevard René-Lévesque counts towards its height yet the 'antenna' on La Tour CIBC doesn't? Cause they sure as hell look the same, one just actually does something.

Someone's butthurt over this building:

Torontonians and "spires"

Uh no, I'm not a big fan of FCP, so try again.

It's the principle of it that has never made any sense to me. And I've feel this way ever since the Petronas Towers exceeded Sears(Willis now). I mean was the constructions of the spires on top of that building some kind of phenomenal accomplishment far and above the installation of the 'antenna's on top of Sears? Or is the "spire" on top of Le 1250 Boulevard René-Lévesque any more distinctive than the antenna on top of La Tour CIBC???

If anything they should hold the same value. And the height of both should be categorized as their pinnacle height. And have a separate and equally important category for roof heights(the ceiling of the top floor of the building, including mechanical).

Rather than the CTBUH's bullshit and arbitrary 3 separate categories, with one that 'trumps' them all. In fact they already have one for antenna's+spires "Height to Tip". Just drop the "Architectural Top" crap and all would be good. Anyhow, I don't mean to start this debate again, I just felt like ranting about the inanity of it, for just moment.

Asking rhetorical questions sounds like butthurt to me

You don't have to be a fan of FCP to bitterly wish it was classified as a supertall.

I'm only making fun because this first world "injustice" reminds me of that suffered by a few Vancouver forumers who seem unable to take a shit until the mods rightfully change the status of a project to "u/c".

vegeta_skyline · #**2703** Posted **Oct 19, 2012, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

You don't have to be a fan of FCP to bitterly wish it was classified as a supertall.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to interject FCP into this discussion, because my point had nothing to do with that building. Nor does it have anything to do with Canada(or Toronto) having a supertall. If your asking me about whether I actually care about such a thing, yeah sure I do. It's just about as important to me as this site is. And seeing as how I've posted here 0.3 times per day on average, well even you should get that point.

My point was that I find little sense in the way that the CTBUH determine a buildings height and I wanted to know if anyone else on here agreed with me - thanks Architect for the reply.

Now I must ask, will you stop making asinine assumptions about people you know nothing about? Or is that something you plan on continuing to do?