Automation Gallery said:
Watch out for Panama City, soon to be in the top 5...Toronto will also soon be in the top 10.
Click to expand...

Agree with the sentiment, but Panama City will probably get to 6th. They may catch Chicago, but Shenzhen will probably stay ahead. Toronto getting to 12th is more likely. We will be passed by Panama City, but should pass Moscow, Wuhan, Atlanta, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Singapore, Los Angeles, Seoul, Bangkok, and Houston if they stay at 14. Nanjing and Chongqing are building quite a bit so passing them will be more difficult. Other moves: despite the real estate woes, Dubai will zoom way out in front of both Hong Kong and New York. In 2015, it should look like this, current ranking in brackets:

01. Dubai (3)
02. Hong Kong (1)
03. New York (2)
04. Shanghai (4)
05. Shenzhen (6)

06. Panama City (29)
07. Chicago (5)
08. Tokyo (7)
09. Guangzhou (9)
10. Nanjing (10)

11. Chongqing (12)
12. Toronto (21)
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
Dubai will zoom way out in front of both Hong Kong and New York.
Click to expand...

Wasnt that there plan all along to be the skyscraper capital of the world..Now lets hope that small town Toronto can keep it going with a bunch of over 200 meter and a couple of over 300 meter proposals, at the moment the only potential over 200 meter tower planned for Toronto is the Signature Tower.
 
Oh, come on....

It's actually insulting that the greatness of our city and how it compares with other cities is the number of skyscrapers we have.
 
^^ May be insulting but definitely an important measure of a city's greatness. Important, thriving, twenty-first century cities build skyscrapers. Lots of them. Plain and simple. Even ancient, European centres like London and Paris have clued into this.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Wasnt that there plan all along to be the skyscraper capital of the world..Now lets hope that small town Toronto can keep it going with a bunch of over 200 meter and a couple of over 300 meter proposals, at the moment the only potential over 200 meter tower planned for Toronto is the Signature Tower.
Click to expand...

Dubai's goal was to wean themselves off oil revenue and transform Dubai into the primary city for the entire region. They've accomplished almost everything they set out to. They are now a financial hub, cultural hub, transportation hub, and the most famous city in the Middle East. Skyscrapers were simply a one by-product of this process. The culture there was also very conducive to building very tall. They're not culturally conservative or reserved like Canadians are.

P.S. I believe 45 Bay is in the 250 m range, but I wouldn't categorize it as a proposal.
 
tkip said:
It's actually insulting that the greatness of our city and how it compares with other cities is the number of skyscrapers we have.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, skyscrapers do reflect on a city's status. With a few exceptions like Ottawa and Washington, healthy, modern, growing cities build skyscrapers. It's also worth pointing out that you were the first to draw that conclusion. It's a quantitative list. Whether you extrapolate that to insinuate this or that is your own business. The list was produced in rebuttal to a person who claimed that Toronto didn't have an aversion to height. Are we to stop gathering data because someone might make inferences from it that they don't like?
 
Last edited:
Legitimate discussion but time to start a thread (Toronto issues?). I know you are a Tranna-phile... but Lumiere is crying out for attention.

Opportunistic comment: Dubai cannot build a great city because it's reliance on oil isn't/wasn't oil on its property. It is a wannabe great banking/manager of oil and a wannabe purveyor of (guilty) pleasures/tourism. Building postcards of skyscrapers may create a flow of 1st time visitors.... but no return traffic. new York (or even Tranna) it ain't. It has turned its back on its real equity.. old Dubai (a process begun in 1978.

Just sayin'...
 
3D has it right, and in terms of this topic this conversation is pointless as much as that over 200m list is. We all know our density is much more important a figure than just how many buildings over 200m we have in comparison. Its simply juvinile to base anything on how many buildings over 200 metres there is in a city. Dubai? That city is a phony as Las Vegas and has nothing to offer everyday people, and has slums all around it, not sure if i would want to live there unless i was a billionaire. Im sorry but height does not equal or equate to greatness. That is a superficial view of a city. Height really matters little, look at Paris or Berlin as examples, even the london of old. Very few talls, mostly consistant midrises. Paris and Berlin likely both have more office space, more living space than a chicago or a dubai. New York and hong kong are simply massive dense places and should be up there on any list.

Just saying that 200m list is pointless.
 
For those who are interested, Lumière seen from above,
IMG_0130.JPG
tonight, June 9.
 
Last edited:
wow you've got quite a view from RoCP ... thanks Bayer !!
 
Seen from this angle, that's quite a wall on the north side of Lumiere (With the holes for precast panel anchors) Looks a lot taller than it does when you're standing at the base of it.

Looks like they're just about topped out! I think that's the roof top terrace canopy they're forming. Looks like the mechanical room roof is already poured!
 
I liken this condo to a beautiful crisp euro cut Paul Smith suit; while across the street ROCP/Aura is like buying something at Moores. I walked by it yesterday--very nice, very business like architecture in an almost British fashion.
 
urbandreamer said:
I liken this condo to a beautiful crisp euro cut Paul Smith suit; while across the street ROCP/Aura is like buying something at Moores. I walked by it yesterday--very nice, very business like architecture in an almost British fashion.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Lumière is lovely... and the noise was much less than I expected. However, the layouts are positively crappy. Any building that offers 10 x 10 bedrooms (or less) is trash, as far as I am concerned.

But then again, it is pretty to look at!
 
The design is pretty sharp... but very conservative and "cost effective" - especially the cheap cheap windows. Isn't this building supposed to be rather high-end? It amazes me that buyers here don't demand better quality.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top