felix123
Active Member
Australia 108 is definitely superior to Aura. And most of Melbourne's towers are better quality than Toronto's counterparts. I wanted to highlight a rare win for our city nevertheless.
- Thread starter AHK
- Start date
Rascacielo
Senior Member
Today
DarkSideDenizen
Senior Member
Dustin William
Active Member
another shot from Nathan Phillips Square
mandy_CN
New Member
Yes but Toronto has so many more. The density is crazy here. Melbourne can barely compete with Toronto in skyscrapers.
Toronto is competing and HAS TO compete with the likes of Chicago and New York. Competing with B-grade cities like Melbourne is not an option anymore.
3Dementia
Senior Member
Mel is definitely experiencing a huge construction boom. Many of the threads I've checked out feature a bunch of new blue-ish curtain-wall towers... and the cladding is always nice, but large multi-tower sites like this one below all start to look… the same.
Certainly don’t see much like 160 Front W and 19 Duncan that marry an historic building (or at least facade) to curtain-wall towers... with a great at-grade result.
Link
The Four Seasons super-tall (in sales) could be a great addition to their skyline. Huge improvement on their other talls.
Link
Certainly don’t see much like 160 Front W and 19 Duncan that marry an historic building (or at least facade) to curtain-wall towers... with a great at-grade result.
Link
The Four Seasons super-tall (in sales) could be a great addition to their skyline. Huge improvement on their other talls.
Link
egotrippin
Senior Member
lol in what world is Melbourne a B-grade city? It's an alpha world city and consistently ranked one of the world's most liveable, many of its metrics are quite comparable to Toronto. I suppose unless one's primary metric is only number of skyscrapers, in which case Toronto is better than pretty much every European capital too!
SkylineHorizon
Active Member
Australia is going through quite the building boom itself but Toronto has as many u/c and proposals across a while range of heights as Australia as a whole. Though Canada altogether is not much further ahead. The other Canadian cities outside the GTA really need to pick up the slack, only Burnaby and Montreal to a degree are really active right now.
Bjays92
Senior Member
This is simply untrue, unless you consider all of the Golden Horseshoe the GTA.
There is a crazy amount of construction in Kitchener, Waterloo, Hamilton, Niagara, Barrie, Cambridge, plus considerable intensification (but not skyscrapers) in places like Guelph, Brantford, St. Catharines, Ottawa and London. The whole of Ontario is experiencing a massive amount of construction.
Beyond Ontario, Edmonton and Calargary are seeing plenty of development, so is Halifax. Skyscrapers are not everything and there are housing booms across the country.
SkylineHorizon
Active Member
My response was to a comment about skyscrapers, not development in general. By range of heights I was referring to the 150m/200m/250m/300m or 500ft/600ft/700ft/800ft/900ft/1000ft plateaus for statisticians like me who are capable of doing the math and regaularly using both metrics
Canada and Australia have an almost identical number of buildings especially in the upper range whether looking at completed, u/c, proposals or all the above. Personally I find this unusual since Canada is about 50% larger by population and both are similarly developed. All in all we should be punching more above our weight, at least relative to them.
And yes I'm well aware that many people on here care not for such things. It's also not the only thing I care about, but that's all I was conversing about in that specific reply.
Last edited:
felix123
Active Member
My comment has nothing to do with the number of skyscrapers in either city. It is about the quality. Melbourne's skyscrapers are head and shoulders above ours in this regard, and so are those of many other cities, Chicago and NYC included.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Begging the question, why do we need to compete with other cities as opposed to being our own thing?
That said, there is certainly an argument made for our city's tolerance for more value engineering that's dotted out our skyline with a lot more eyesores of varying degrees. Something that may have been resolved with a requirement for better materials...
...which bring us back to this building, where it's a leading the example of what should of been done in this regards, IMO.
That said, there is certainly an argument made for our city's tolerance for more value engineering that's dotted out our skyline with a lot more eyesores of varying degrees. Something that may have been resolved with a requirement for better materials...
...which bring us back to this building, where it's a leading the example of what should of been done in this regards, IMO.
felix123
Active Member
That's why. I don't want rampant value engineering to be "our own thing".
Once again though, I was pointing out how good 19 Duncan looks, because it wasn't value-engineered like its neighbours.
gregv
Active Member
