Canada's 10 Tallest U/C

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by nouvellecosse

i don't think he was arguing that the cn tower was equally "impressive" as the sears tower (whether he thinks it or not i don't know). More that having the same number of supertalls but with the tallest being shorter, the cn tower would provide a sort of "top up" or equalizer with the extra height. Whether or not that would work of course depends on the type of skyline elements one finds attractive and impressive. Something being "impressive" just means it's the type of thing a typical person is impressed by. But on an individual level it's ultimately in the eye of the beholder. So maybe you finding one more impressive than the other is a typical reaction or maybe you're an outlier. You seeing them both in person does nothing to address that.

+1

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't think he was arguing that the CN tower was equally "impressive" as the Sears Tower (whether he thinks it or not I don't know). More that having the same number of supertalls but with the tallest being shorter, the CN tower would provide a sort of "top up" or equalizer with the extra height. Whether or not that would work of course depends on the type of skyline elements one finds attractive and impressive. Something being "impressive" just means it's the type of thing a typical person is impressed by. But on an individual level it's ultimately in the eye of the beholder. So maybe you finding one more impressive than the other is a typical reaction or maybe you're an outlier. You seeing them both in person does nothing to address that.

I'd say the people who find the Tower more impressive than the Building are the outliers here. I saw 3 radio masts south of Raleigh that were taller than the CN Tower, but still less impressive than the sturdier CN Tower, which itself is less impressive than an actual building rivaling it in height.

Additionally, an argument could be made that the CN Tower is pointless, whereas the Sears Tower can accommodate over 16,000 workers. However, that aspect doesn't really matter to me, and it's obviously still a very visible and dominating structure. But at the end of the day it's a tower towering over a skyline of skyscrapers, whereas Sears is a skyscraper towering over a skyline of skyscrapers. The tower seems kind of separate from the surrounding buildings, rather than integrated in the way a true supertall building would be. I honestly barely even notice the CN Tower when I look at the Toronto skyline, as I only generally focus on the buildings around it.

Maybe there is a "towerpage.com" where people congregate who find the CN Tower more impressive than Sears.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Speaking about brutalism, is there a name for that style of building from the late 1960s to the early 1980s that used pre-cast concrete panels on the exterior, but international style massing?



It's not quite brutalism - it doesn't have raw concrete. And it's doesn't really have the curtain wall and exposed steel of International style modernism.

There are hundreds of these buildings, tall and small, in every Canadian city. I personally find this to be very drab, and the nadir or skyscraper design.

International style is a broad term for modernistm; function first; little ornamentation and, modern materials. All those apply to this building. It's not exclusive to glass and steel or is Brtualism exclusive to concrete. Concrete was the best choice for creating more expressive modernist structures.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by DZH22

I'd say the people who find the Tower more impressive than the Building are the outliers here. I saw 3 radio masts south of Raleigh that were taller than the CN Tower, but still less impressive than the sturdier CN Tower, which itself is less impressive than an actual building rivaling it in height.

Additionally, an argument could be made that the CN Tower is pointless, whereas the Sears Tower can accommodate over 16,000 workers. However, that aspect doesn't really matter to me, and it's obviously still a very visible and dominating structure. But at the end of the day it's a tower towering over a skyline of skyscrapers, whereas Sears is a skyscraper towering over a skyline of skyscrapers. The tower seems kind of separate from the surrounding buildings, rather than integrated in the way a true supertall building would be. I honestly barely even notice the CN Tower when I look at the Toronto skyline, as I only generally focus on the buildings around it.

Maybe there is a "towerpage.com" where people congregate who find the CN Tower more impressive than Sears.

Perhaps, sounds like a perfectly fine theory. But others may say that something thinner and self supporting without guy wires seems more gravity defying. Either way, without doing a survey or other study of public perceptions neither of us has any more than speculation and our own perspectives.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by DZH22

I'd say the people who find the Tower more impressive than the Building are the outliers here. I saw 3 radio masts south of Raleigh that were taller than the CN Tower, but still less impressive than the sturdier CN Tower, which itself is less impressive than an actual building rivaling it in height.

Additionally, an argument could be made that the CN Tower is pointless, whereas the Sears Tower can accommodate over 16,000 workers. However, that aspect doesn't really matter to me, and it's obviously still a very visible and dominating structure. But at the end of the day it's a tower towering over a skyline of skyscrapers, whereas Sears is a skyscraper towering over a skyline of skyscrapers. The tower seems kind of separate from the surrounding buildings, rather than integrated in the way a true supertall building would be. I honestly barely even notice the CN Tower when I look at the Toronto skyline, as I only generally focus on the buildings around it.

Maybe there is a "towerpage.com" where people congregate who find the CN Tower more impressive than Sears.

The Willis Tower does NOT rival the CN tower in height, either by roof, or antenna...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by koops65

The Willis Tower does NOT rival the CN tower in height, either by roof, or antenna...

Well it doesn't equal CN in height. But how close in height does something have to be to rival something taller? I'd consider a difference of half a quartile or less (N<1/8) of the taller one's height to suffice. That means a building over 175m would rival a 200m building in height. So for CN that would include anything with a pinnacle height over 484.14m. But I'm sure some people would have much stricter criteria .

[WhipperSnapper]

I've been posting on skyscraperpage a long time. Torontonians are far more likely to omit the CN Tower from a tallest list than Americans. It is clearly as something significant. A taller assembled pole supported by wires should not be in the conversation.

Toronto is not going to build a 450 metre tower with 2.95 metre floor heights. It will never surpass Chicago if having a few of these is more valuable than every other building making up the skyline. If It's about height and size than Toronto is in the running to surpass Chicago based on the insurmountable ground circa Steely Dan 2002 made up in just the past 20 years.

It's a skyline. Architecture is a lot less important. I wish Toronto had even a couple high rise tenements from the early 20th century. Chicago has them in droves. They are a complete non factor in the skyline though. The mediocre masterplanned Lake Shore East development is not a non factor in Chicago's skyline. Blow out is not reality.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Well it doesn't equal CN in height. But how close in height does something have to be to rival something taller? I'd consider a difference of half a quartile or less (N<1/8) of the taller one's height to suffice. That means a building over 175m would rival a 200m building in height. So for CN that would include anything with a pinnacle height over 484.14m. But I'm sure some people would have much stricter criteria .

It's just a matter of numbers... CN is 457m to the roof and 553m to the antenna. Willis is 442m to the roof and 527m to the antenna. So Willis is slightly shorter by both counts.

[IMG][/IMG]

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But others may say that something thinner and self supporting without guy wires seems more gravity defying.

There's as big a gap in impressiveness between the 1990' guyed towers south of Raleigh compared to the CN, as there is comparing the CN to the Sears Tower. Something as thin as a guyed tower without the actual guy wires wouldn't be possible.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by koops65

It's just a matter of numbers... CN is 457m to the roof and 553m to the antenna. Willis is 442m to the roof and 527m to the antenna. So Willis is slightly shorter by both counts.

[IMG][/IMG]

It's absolutely insane to post these and to say that they don't rival each other in height. I'd say, where's the other 100 floors in the CN Tower? It looks like they just replaced it with a smokestack and then... I don't know, more smokestack? I don't hate CN at all but it alone does not offset the Sears Tower in these 2 competing skylines. One of them shows every one of its 100+ floors and the other one is tapering/functionless blank concrete.

[koops65]

I'm talking about the HEIGHT of these 2 structures, not their thickness... if you want to dismiss the CN Tower for being a tower and not a high-rise, be my guest. Regardless of your personal opinion, it's still a giant building.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by DZH22

There's as big a gap in impressiveness between the 1990' guyed towers south of Raleigh compared to the CN, as there is comparing the CN to the Sears Tower. Something as thin as a guyed tower without the actual guy wires wouldn't be possible.

Again... a big gap in what you personally find impressive. Until we know if these are generalized human traits, you being impressed by certain things more than others is a characteristic of you rather than of the things. Not that hearing your views isn't interesting or that I don't value different perspectives on the topic. But our reactions to things are democratic. We all get a vote in what society considers beautiful, impressive, etc. but each vote is just one vote.

[WhipperSnapper]

I can't imagine most would agree the CN Tower is as close to a mast as it is to a supertall through a comparative girth analysis to an abnormally large supertall in Willis.

A supertall mast is a prefab structure than can be erected in less than week. The CN Tower took years to build and would cost 3 to $400 million to build today.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by DZH22

It's absolutely insane to post these and to say that they don't rival each other in height. I'd say, where's the other 100 floors in the CN Tower? It looks like they just replaced it with a smokestack and then... I don't know, more smokestack? I don't hate CN at all but it alone does not offset the Sears Tower in these 2 competing skylines. One of them shows every one of its 100+ floors and the other one is tapering/functionless blank concrete.

It's not about if one is an office tower or an observation communication tower it's about their prominence in the skyline. Both act as visual anchors. The Willis Tower is actually a fairly lack luster building from the ground up. Aside from its height one could argue its not even the most prominent building in its skyline. I would give tge Hancock that title. Either way Toronto is on path to eclipse Chicago and pull ahead fast with the size of the skyline.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by DZH22

It's absolutely insane to post these and to say that they don't rival each other in height. I'd say, where's the other 100 floors in the CN Tower? It looks like they just replaced it with a smokestack and then... I don't know, more smokestack? I don't hate CN at all but it alone does not offset the Sears Tower in these 2 competing skylines. One of them shows every one of its 100+ floors and the other one is tapering/functionless blank concrete.

The CN Tower is FAR from functionless. It is a communications tower, designed specifically to broadcast TV and radio signals to the Toronto area, and has been doing so for decades...

[WhipperSnapper]

Odd derogatory choice for words. The tower shaft is a self supporting core. If you wanted to you could add floors onto the shaft so you could count storeys. Try that with a guyed mast.

1400ft - Chicago 1 - Toronto 0
1300ft - Chicago 2 - Toronto 0
1200ft - Chicago 2 - Toronto 0
1100ft - Chicago 5 - Toronto 0
1000ft - Chicago 6 - Toronto 0
900ft - Chicago 9 - Toronto 3
800ft - Chicago 19 - Toronto 6
700ft - Chicago 28 - Toronto 20
600ft - Chicago 56 - Toronto 41
500ft - Chicago 127 - Toronto 87

In as little as 5 years or less

1400ft Chicago 1 - Toronto 0
1300ft Chicago 2 - Toronto 0
1200ft Chicago 2 - Toronto 0
1100ft Chicago 5 - Toronto 1
1000ft Chicago 6 - Toronto 2
900ft Chicago 9 - Toronto 6
800ft Chicago 21 - Toronto 10
700ft Chicago 30 - Toronto 28
600ft Chicago 58 - Toronto 53
500ft Chicago 127 - Toronto 116

Major gap shrinkage. Building heights among proposals are easily 100 feet taller now than 5 years ago in Toronto. It's a matter of Toronto getting back on track and keeping it up for the next 15 years. Political will within all levels of government and all parties support the housing boom to continue. The province are the heightiest heighter geeks too. Taller is better.

[craner]

Originally Posted by koops65

It's just a matter of numbers... CN is 457m to the roof and 553m to the antenna. Willis is 442m to the roof and 527m to the antenna. So Willis is slightly shorter by both counts.

[IMG][/IMG]

Just looking strictly at height alone I think it’s totally fair to say Willis “rivals” CN.

[koops65]

We should move this discussion to an appropriate thread, neither of these 2 are in the 10 tallest U/C... I'm not sure how we got into this tangent, but its way off topic now.

[Maldive]

Back on topic

160 Front West | 239.87m | 46s | Cadillac Fairview | AS + GG l u/c

International Women’s Day


mburrrrr

mburrrrr

toronstruction


CIBC SQUARE | 241.39m | 50s | Hines | WilkinsonEyre l Phase 2 u/c


mburrrrr

bbto32

Incoming


bbto32

Work on the east podium.


bbto32

Johnny Au

Meow


mburrrrr


The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners l u/c

It’s moving up fast… so the weekly delivery of crane extensions lol ;-).


thaivic

Johnny Au

thaivic

jer1961

jer1961

Floorplates look tiny from distance… will end up looking a bit like a pencil tower at full height.


jer1961

[Maldive]

Note that this off-topic contribution follows my on-topic post.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Toronto is not going to build a 450 metre tower with 2.95 metre floor heights. It will never surpass Chicago if having a few of these is more valuable than every other building making up the skyline.

A 400 metre+ tower would help T-Dot's case ... and it could happen sooner rather than later… I just have to convince Pinnacle to go for some vanity height for SkyTower lol (pays homage to the Big Apple’s ESB*).

*Eat this One World Trade Center (with your pathetic Canadian-built donut and antenna).


3D