Future Canadian Skylines - Page 61

jlousa · #**1201** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 12:23 AM**

And Toyko has as many buildings as Toronto has people.

Only exaggerating a bit. Seriously the Toyko CMA has more people then our entire country.

Calgarian · #**1202** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 12:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

So your definition of a "better skyline" is a function of population size or sheer number of buildings, regardless of dimension, proportion, aesthetics, balance and overall composition? Therefore, cities like Mexico City, Calcutta, Lagos, Cairo, etc., have better skylines than Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto?

Interesting.

Nice try, but no. I never mentioned the aesthetics of the skylines, I said it's dumb to even compare them.

Watch a timelapse video of someone driving through Tokyo, or look at an aerial picture of Tokyo. Toronto might have more buildings over 200m but Tokyo has many, many more highrises than Toronto. Any comparison is pointless.

Calgarian · #**1203** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 12:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

I don't think they were being compared to the size of Tokyo's skyline, only that in a few short years T.O will have more buildings >200m then Tokyo. Not to shabby for a Canadian City.

Toronto kicks some serious ass, that's for sure.

Tokyo is just an odd comparison to me because they have many thousands of highrises, but don't really care enough to try and make a statement by building them really tall. Besides, once a building gets over 50 floors or so, it becomes less efficient (space taken up by elevators and other services starts eating into useable floor space), so unless you are building a building for symbolic reasons, there isn't much point.

caltrane74 · #**1204** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 12:44 AM**

Well there is a certain amount of height inflation here in addition to rising land values that is pushing heights over 60 floors on a regular basis now. So economics can favor taller buildings in the right circumstance.

Prometheus · #**1205** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 12:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I never mentioned the aesthetics of the skylines.

Exactly.

Calgarian · #**1206** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 1:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Exactly.

So you criticized a part of my post that was never there in the first place? good job.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue about Toronto vs Tokyo as it's beyond pointless.

Chadillaccc · #**1207** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 1:26 AM**

I think, aesthetically speaking, Toronto's skyline is much nicer than any of Tokyo's... though with mount Fuji in the background any of Tokyo's skylines looks pretty badass... I just like the difference of colour and architecture between Toronto's buildings.

But really, why are people getting so up in arms over such a arbitrary comparison? It's like people being shocked if someone said Manhattan has a nicer skyline than Toronto. Big deal!

In my personal opinion, Toronto has a much nicer and larger skyline than Los Angeles even though it is only one third the population. Toronto is also much more dense than DT Los angeles, though I do think that the Library Tower (U.S. Bank Tower) is much nicer than any major highrise in Canada... I dunno why... I have just always loved it ever since it was dematerialized by the aliens in Independence Day.

armorand93 · #**1208** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 1:28 AM**

Getting back on topic!!!

Picnikrender, but yeah.

Prometheus · #**1209** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 1:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

So you criticized a part of my post that was never there in the first place?

Why is that so difficult to understand? In a discussion about "better" skylines, the failure to incorporate important criteria (i.e., proportion, dimension, balance, composition, aesthetics, etc.) into one's analysis is a glaring omission. To focus only on the number of buildings a city has is to have an impoverished understanding of what constitutes a good skyline. And, of course, to consider population size is wholly irrelevant.

WhipperSnapper · #**1210** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Toronto kicks some serious ass, that's for sure.

Tokyo is just an odd comparison to me because they have many thousands of highrises, but don't really care enough to try and make a statement by building them really tall. Besides, once a building gets over 50 floors or so, it becomes less efficient (space taken up by elevators and other services starts eating into useable floor space), so unless you are building a building for symbolic reasons, there isn't much point.

Tokyo is more of a mid-rise city if we use the standard definition of a highrise in forumland of 12s/35m. That doesn't mean the city's number of highrises isn't several times that of Toronto's however, you can pass by hundreds of six to ten storey building there without seeing one eclipse 12 storeys.

dleung · #**1211** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 3:09 AM**

The last few pages are so sad. Let's pay a little more attention to quality rather than cheering for every poorly-rendered massing study breaking 200m that boosts our numbers count in this arbitrarily-defined game.

Ramako · #**1212** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 3:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Let's pay a little more attention to quality rather than cheering for every poorly-rendered massing study breaking 200m that boosts our numbers count in this arbitrarily-defined game.

Most people have the mental capacity to do both.

caltrane74 · #**1213** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 3:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

The last few pages are so sad. Let's pay a little more attention to quality rather than cheering for every poorly-rendered massing study breaking 200m that boosts our numbers count in this arbitrarily-defined game.

The fact is we are cheering the height and density because the initial renderings are poor, or we don't have renderings at all. Speaking for myself this flood of 700 footers is downright amazing. I will however admit I am a skyscraper geek.

Gresto · #**1214** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 3:47 AM**

dleung · #**1215** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 4:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramako

Most people have the mental capacity to do both.

I used to think that

TallBob · #**1216** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 4:34 AM**

Calgary could easily have 2 -3 60+ story buildings if ti wasn't for so many twins. And to alesser extent, shadowing.... As I said, to a lesser extent.

isaidso · #**1217** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 4:39 AM**

If Alberta keeps booming, I wouldn't be shocked to see a 300m+ proposal for Calgary in the next 10 years. Edmonton may not be a head office city, but surely its on the cusp of building 150m+ buildings? There must be some a lot of rapidly growing non-energy firms in Edmonton; PCL and Stantec can't be the only major ones?

Andrewjm3D · #**1218** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 10:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Watch a timelapse video of someone driving through Tokyo, or look at an aerial picture of Tokyo. Toronto might have more buildings over 200m but Tokyo has many, many more highrises than Toronto.

Is anybody disputing that? No, so lets move on.

chrisallard5454 · #**1219** Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 6:43 AM**

A design by me for 281-287 Portage. It took me two days to make.

youngregina · #**1220** Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 7:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

A design by me for 281-287 Portage. It took me two days to make.

Capitol Records comes to Winnipeg? Aha, I do like your design though.