UtakataNoAnnex said:
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.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I view comparing ourselves to other cities, especially the typical NYC/Chicago comparisons, to be a sign of insecurity. Our focus should really be on quality and public realm than height and quantity.
 
egotrippin said:
Totally agree. I view comparing ourselves to other cities, especially the typical NYC/Chicago comparisons, to be a sign of insecurity. Our focus should really be on quality and public realm than height and quantity.
Click to expand...
If folks want to be like those cities instead, they should encourage architects to be hired from those cities. But this would also require the developers again not to cheep out on them and The City not to kill it for stupid reasons. Latter being also partly why we can't really have nice things, IMO.

...on that note, those cities should be Chicago and Copenhagen and not New York. Because some of our best designed buildings seem to be coming from there.
 
November 9, 2022:

IMG_6314.jpeg
IMG_6315.jpeg
IMG_6316.jpeg
IMG_6320.jpeg
IMG_6321.jpeg
IMG_6322.jpeg
 
SkylineHorizon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except these cities do have skyscrapers propsed, not all of them, but lots of them have numerous proposals that break the 150m mark and esp the 100m mark. Niagara, Kitchener, Hamilton and Ottawa all have several skyscrapers U/C or proposed.

Additionally, I know this doesn't exactly go in line with what you're saying but crane counts are another great statistical indicator and there are an excessive amount in quite a few Canadian cities. For example K-W would be near the top if it were on the RBL index. Calagary has plenty of construction coming up as well.

So yes, there is a good deal more construction that doesnt quite reach skyscraper status but is still high density. There is also lots that does. Also, idk if you're doing this or not but lumping in places like VMC, Brampton, Richmond Hill etc with Toronto isnt super fair either. Those are really their own separate cities and cores hardly connected with Toronto proper. I doubt Australia has much development going on outside of downtown Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane with the exception of the Gold Coast. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
 
I have my own little way of determining the size of a cities' skyline, last time I checked the GTA has approximately 148 buildings complete or under construction 148m or taller. Melbourne has 96 buildings complete or under construction 96m or taller. Really there is no comparison.
 
this is a decent building... almost wasted though in the forest of banality that is the Entertainment District. the vertical lines are a nice change from dominant horizontal lines of many neighbouring buildings.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top