You have no idea dude. Im a moody fuck.

lol
"navel gazing"?

This really doesnt accurately show which cities are growing the most.

Phoenix,Houston,Dallas all are in the highest growth margin but all of them are more than twice and big land wise as Seattle,DC,Atlanta, SF, and Boston.

For instance if you look at Atlanta city boundaries and extended then as much as Houstons it would go well into Dunwoody,Sandy Springs,and as far as Alpharetta in the suburbs.
Even if you consider just the inner loop of Houston,a significant portion of developments are still outside the Western loop. Post Oak area and beyond

Read the post. It's about metros. This isn't about city limits.

BTW, in Seattle's case, 16.83% is far less than the core city grew, which is estimated at 25%.

I did read the post.
I quoted that post because they were referring to the Emporis data that only list city propers in regards to developments.
I wasnt focusing on the population

He should have used population data for the city propers instead for the proper context.
Notice i said "developments"
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...2&postcount=12

Elaborate please, unless you made a typo. It sounds contradictory.

re: kids table..It's funny and kinda true in some respects, but Canada is also a G7 country, so I guess it sits at the adult table sometimes.

re: Native American terminology. I watched a Joe Rogan podcast less than a year ago, and his guest was an indigenous lawyer of sorts. She consistently referred to parts of Oklahoma as "Indian lands", and referred to treaties as "Indian treaties",,She actually used the word "Indian" quite bit when she referred to her people(s)..Before the podcast aired, I actually thought that Americans in general still used "Indians" for Indigenous people tbh.

Steely can speak for himself......

But I don't see anything contradictory there.

He's saying that the U.S. is a navel-gazing country.

That's the same as saying inward-looking or self-absorbed depending on how harsh you want it to sound.

Then he's saying you don't become that way by considering others beyond your borders.......... which would be entirely logical.

Ahh you know what..You are correct! I've always took the term "navel gazing " as something else..The complete opposite of the true meaning..The things you learn daily..Thanks!

I'm not sure I still like Toronto constructing so many tall buildings. Sure, they look nice, but those elevators can be annoying to use, and maybe too crowded, especially during a pandemic. And I also have to wonder how increasing reliance on elevators fits into Canada's climate change goals. I think we can increase density without building exclusively ever taller and skinnier towers. For example, is Toronto really that much denser than Montreal? I think Toronto should take some inspiration from Montreal and all its dense low-rise and mid-rise neighbourhoods. Toronto new buildings are shinier, but Montreal's might be more livable, and also more sustainable in the long-term.

Are you suggesting a wholesale rebuild of Toronto's houses as townhouses and walk-ups? How's that going to work?

Towers work because you don't need to tear much down to provide enough room for them.

Elevators must have a miniscule effect on climate vs. the transportation impacts of not being dense.

Apparently Doady is into satire? Obviously Montreal started out much denser, but most new density there is also concentrated in towers in very constrained sites like Toronto/Vancouver rather than spread out.

Back to thread topic... many people might be unaware of Burnaby aka the continent's biggest collection of suburban skylines in a single suburb, now with more towers above 150m than downtown, and about to have 7 of the 8 tallest buildings in Metro Vancouver. 23 towers under construction, with 12 of the 20 tallest buildings under construction in the metro (only 5 are downtown)

https://i.imgur.com/8y8GrW1.png

I've heard a lot of arguments against building too many high-rise residential towers. The environmental impact of elevators is a new one though. :haha:

Why aren't most of the tallest towers in metro Vancouver downtown?

downtown has a height limit.

It's the same thing for Ottawa, and possibly soon for Hamilton. All these cities have relatively low height limits so the tallest buildings are in the suburbs where there are no such limits.

Right, but why?

Do you know what is the reasoning behind the height restrictions? I know why they have them in DC so I assume its the same reason for Ottawa but why Hamilton and other cities?

My area has height limits basically everywhere. Even the tiny area without them has tight FAR limits. The limits are very tight given our growth pressures. So nearly all projects go to the precise limit.

A shocking number of Canadian cities actually have height limits. Montreal is limited to the height of Mount Royal adjacent, Hamilton is limited to the height of the Niagara Escarpment adjacent (this is a new rule however and there are several existing buildings which exceed the limit), and Ottawa is limited to the height of the Peace Tower on the Parliament Buildings. Not sure what the rationale is for Vancouver's height limit is, but it's about 200 metres in height as the absolute maximum from what I recall.

there isn't any real clear rationale for the limits often, just a visual preference by municipal planners.

Vancouver's height limit is to protect mountain views.

^That's very similar to Honolulu's -- to protect the mountain views and the ocean views as well as Diamond Head Crater (I believe).