Maybe he wants it to look like those renderings that show a tower in the middle of downtown surrounded by a lush forest with no other buildings in sight.
 
Before you all jump down isaidso's throat, before drum edited his post, there were several picutres of Crystal Blu alone with no Uptown in sight.
 
CityPlaceN1 said:
Everything gets dirty. The problem with FCP was the replacement pieces which were brand new and hence not dirty yet. As long as they don't replace any of the precast it should all age at the same pace.
Click to expand...

It's not just that FCP has dirty panels: marble gets permanently stained and eaten by acids in the atmosphere. I assume that the precast being used today at Uptown and other projects does not react the same way, and will stand the test of time better than marble. Not that it won't get dirty and need to be cleaned - it will - but dirt should wash off of it unlike what has happened at FCP.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Has there been any mid-rise or high-rise built in the last cycle using stone as opposed to precast?
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I have given up the hope of real stone being used as a primary cladding material in almost all new buildings. However, modern cladding can be done well. 1 St. Thomas is the best example; it uses a generous amount of real limestone at the base and podium parts of the tower, which give way to well matched precast panels that take a very close look to differentiate. The precast there has texture and a natural look to it.

Most precast cladding looks as cheap as it is unfortunately, and Uptown's is no exception. If you're going to approximate early 20th century architecture, an attempt to approximate the materials should be made as well.
 
Well aren't most new buildings supported internally while older skyscrapers were supported by those stone walls.

Or is the discovery Channel lying to me???
 
lordmandeep said:
Well aren't most new buildings supported internally while older skyscrapers were supported by those stone walls.

Or is the discovery Channel lying to me???
Click to expand...

You'd have to go back to the 1800s to find tall buildings that were supported by masonry. Pretty much anything past 1900 would use masonry as a decorative element.
 
then the discovery channel is only 50% right.

They said that changed happened in the 1940's ...
 
I'm sure there's later examples of load-bearing masonry walls, but the vast majority of towers built post 1900 were steel (or concrete) construction with internal structural components and non-structural facades.
 
lordmandeep said:
then the discovery channel is only 50% right.

They said that changed happened in the 1940's ...
Click to expand...


That sounds right to me but I am no expert, except that houses used masonry and no frame construction until after the 50's so I assume it might be similar for buildings.
 
That was my understanding as well -- that structural steel replacing masonry load-bearing walls was one of two necessary developments for true skyscrapers to be built. (The other being the "safety" passenger elevator.)
 
There are no load bearing masonry skyscrapers outside of Egypt. The major difference between a modern skyscraper and a prewar one is the distribution of the weight. A modern skyscraper is largely supported by a massive core with some columns along the floorplate's perimeter while a prewar skyscraper is supported evenly by columns throughout the floorplate. The latter is more stable but doesn't allow for column free spaces ideal for open concept floorplans
 
7 October 2009 photo update

More cranes coming into view on this yucky Fall afternoon/evening:

dsc09468rm.jpg


left to right: Four Seasons, 1 Bedford, Uptown, Crystal Blues, X, Casa
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top