C-mac said:
You're absolutely fooling yourself if you believe that. Supertall's and big beautiful sky scrapers are a symbol of a city's economic power, engineering strength, and helps create a beautiful skyline which many cities are judged by. To say that supertalls "have nothing to do with being good for a city" couldn't be further from the truth.
Click to expand...
Not you trying to sanewash a height/density fetish.

Things like architectural merit (what's the point of 350 metres of ugly spandrel?) and community benefits (how does the building contribute to the city in terms of infrastructure, affordability etc) matter more than height alone.

Besides, the presence of many supertalls just means a city has lots of rich people/coroporate money which usually turns a place to shit instead of making it better.

You're not a new user and you've had the opportunity to learn from these threads by now that height alone doesn't mean shit. So weird.
 
vinny_the_hack said:
You know what's weird? That you would post on a forum that pays homage to buildings, mostly taller ones, as is the current normal, to voice a contrarian opinion. Maybe this isn't a website suited to your tastes.
Click to expand...
We have posters on this site that defend new useless highways.

Sometimes the people on this site aren't as forward thinking as you would expect for a place discussing urban issues
 
Undead said:
Not you trying to sanewash a height/density fetish.

Things like architectural merit (what's the point of 350 metres of ugly spandrel?) and community benefits (how does the building contribute to the city in terms of infrastructure, affordability etc) matter more than height alone.

Besides, the presence of many supertalls just means a city has lots of rich people/coroporate money which usually turns a place to shit instead of making it better.

You're not a new user and you've had the opportunity to learn from these threads by now that height alone doesn't mean shit. So weird.
Click to expand...


right, another 40 meters on this building would have turned the city to shit. got ya. That's why so many people think NY is a dump.
 
Will the windows on the curtainwall portion be openable/operable at all?
 
Am I just being a bumpkin due to having grown up in northern Ontario- this IS a super tall is it not? Or is it only like 100+ stories that counts? I don't think it woulda been Bad if they'd made it taller but I mean. It's already pretty tall lol.
 
CLT said:
Am I just being a bumpkin due to having grown up in northern Ontario- this IS a super tall is it not? Or is it only like 100+ stories that counts? I don't think it woulda been Bad if they'd made it taller but I mean. It's already pretty tall lol.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, anything above 300m is a supertall so this qualifies. Could be wrong though, I almost always am.
 
What is currently under construction is NOT a supertall... it is going to be 262.8 metres tall. The supertall (phase 2 of this project) might never get built, or it may start soon, who knows?
Here is a diagram of the 2 towers.
 
Last edited:
73 storeys and 262.8 m- if you'd told me as a kid in my hometown where the tallest building was like 10-12 storeys that a 73 storey building didn't qualify as super tall my jaw would've hit the ground lol
 
DB13 said:
The fixation on 300 m is yet another example of the male obsession with measurement.
Click to expand...
The following would have us believe that size is not as much a fixation for males as shape is for females.
1775488858509.png
 
JamesMcGrath said:
Great cities build super talls. Super talls do not build great cities. In my opinion.
Click to expand...
Skyscrapers are not a sine qua non of great cities. Many great cities have very few. I happen to be a skyscraper aficionado, but I don't agree that they are an essential feature of urbanity.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top