The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! - Page 142

Beedok · #**2821** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 4:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

I think using 100m is too short for most larger cities. They are barely visible from a distance. Larger towers define and bring focal points to their respective skylines. You could add 50 towers between 100-105m to Toronto's skyline (without the rest of the projects) and people would wonder why Toronto stopped building anything. In Toronto's case, 1 supertall would do more for the skyline than those 50 buildings, but that kind of thing just isn't reflective by using such a low benchmark as the measurement.

I think 1 supertall would effectively be lost in Toronto while 50 buildings a bit over 100m would make a huge impact.

Nouvellecosse · #**2822** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 5:21 AM**

Well of course, supertall can mean a lot of things. It can mean a timid 310m residential building or a bold 510m corporate headquarters. Either could be noticeable in Toronto (depending on the location) but one would be markedly more noticeable than the other.

isaidso · #**2823** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 7:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Generally I have always been told that 150 meters is the definition of a "skyscraper"

I've seen that too, but it bares mentioning that those sites also tend to be American. Go to China, and I bet they don't bother with anything under 200m.... maybe nothing under 300m before the decades is out.

I remember when Europeans used to think 70m was exceedingly tall.

csbvan · #**2824** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 7:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Ya, 100 meters is too short to be called a skyscraper especially in larger cities, to me they are more just high-rises. I think 150 meters is the bare minimum for a true skyscraper.

Seattle has far fewer buildings than Vancouver but when you see Seattle with all it's true skyscrapers it grabs your attention and looks dramatic. Vancouver has a beautiful skyline setting and great density but it's not the kind of skyline that would catch your eye much like many Latin American skylines.

Seattle's skyline is eyecatching because of a few buildings. But the problem is that you can drive past it/through it so fast that it is almost an after thought. From afar some buildings make it look impressive, but the girth of Vancouver's shorter skyline gives a much more cosmopolitan feeling. Seattle is great, but it doesn't have an impressive downtown core in the least.

isaidso · #**2825** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 7:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

328' so an even weirder number.

Ah it's 328 ft not 335 ft, but the point stands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

I agree with these being to restrictive. 200m says that Vancouver doesn't exist, and 1000 feet says that a singular supertall in the middle of nowhere is a better skyline than a sprawling metropolis like Toronto.

I think using 100m is too short for most larger cities.

I find the benchmark people prefer largely depends on what city/country one is from. I doubt Vancouverites would warm up to the idea of using 150m. By that standard, there are only 4 buildings in their entire skyline. Using 150m is better than 200m, but still too restrictive imo. 100m includes buildings that do make an impact, but not so short that we're measuring mid-rises. The cities where 100m don't make an impact are dwarfed by the number of cities where they do make an impact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

I'm always interested in new ways of measuring skylines, and like the one that ranks how "tall" a skyline is.

It's always best to analyze things using lots of different criteria. One gets a clearer picture than just looking at one thing. That said, the best quantitative table I've come across is this one:

http://tudl0867.home.xs4all.nl/skylines.html

Jeff · #**2826** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 8:49 AM**

thanks for the great comments on my last picture

another portage and main-er from late September:

BretttheRiderFan · #**2827** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 9:59 AM**

A supertall is noticeable everywhere...

Beedok · #**2828** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan

A supertall is noticeable everywhere...

Not sure it would make a huge difference in downtown New York or Shanghai. I mean you'd see it, but it wouldn't really make a huge impact.

DZH22 · #**2829** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 3:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

I think 1 supertall would effectively be lost in Toronto while 50 buildings a bit over 100m would make a huge impact.

Let's call it a minimum 350m to the roof. This would easily be more meaningful to that skyline that 50 more buildings between 100-105m.

DZH22 · #**2830** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

It's always best to analyze things using lots of different criteria. One gets a clearer picture than just looking at one thing. That said, the best quantitative table I've come across is this one:

http://tudl0867.home.xs4all.nl/skylines.html

Believe if or not I'm the same DZH22 who has discussions/arguments with you on SSC.

So I know about, and regularly cite, that link.

Now I'm just trying to do a bit of a deeper dive. I think the Top 10/25 average is a good way to compare skylines based on their largest, most "defining" buildings. Just an additional piece of information/differentiation.

#**2831** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 3:15 PM**

Content removed

#**2832** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 3:24 PM**

Content removed

Beedok · #**2833** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

Let's call it a minimum 350m to the roof. This would easily be more meaningful to that skyline that 50 more buildings between 100-105m.

I'd say that depending on where they're placed and the angle you're looking at the skyline from those 50 ~100m buildings would have more impact. I mean you could put them on one side then photograph the other side and they'd be invisible, but most of the time I think Toronto is lacking in girth and needs to thicken up more than get taller. (Of course I probably prefer cityscapes to skylines.)

travis3000 · #**2834** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Ya, 100 meters is too short to be called a skyscraper especially in larger cities, to me they are more just high-rises. I think 150 meters is the bare minimum for a true skyscraper.

Seattle has far fewer buildings than Vancouver but when you see Seattle with all it's true skyscrapers it grabs your attention and looks dramatic. Vancouver has a beautiful skyline setting and great density but it's not the kind of skyline that would catch your eye much like many Latin American skylines.

Yeah I say 150m is the threshold for a true skyscraper.

Mrs Sauga · #**2835** Posted **Nov 22, 2014, 3:49 PM**

Thing is, 100m may not be SKYSCRAPERS but when judging SKYLINES they are a big part of it. Seattle and Vancouver is good example. While I don't regard Vancouver's skyline as highly as other Canadians on this forum, I prefer it to Seattle. Its a close call though.