UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...but if you round off every building to it's 100th place, we would have a lot more towers at 300 m though. >.>
Lenser
Senior Member
Really though, what does it matter? It's only a bone of contention for height fanbois.
cd concept
Senior Member
If this proposal is now at 300m . Shouldn't the top of this blog's hieght statis be that number instead of 298? 300m number has a nice ring to it lol!
NorthshoreCity
Active Member
As mentioned by Interchange42 above, the drawings still indicate that the building will be 298M tall with the option to build up to 300M if needed.
cd concept
Senior Member
I can see them using that option to climb up to 300m somewhere down the line when topping up lol!
Yeah, maybe they'll put a sugar shack on top and tap the sugar maples growing on the roof.
42
tstormers
Senior Member
Wait, they will have to make sure they trim the trees if they grow past 300m mark....
Northern Light
Superstar
Hmmm, an ideal specimen, would add up to 40m/120ft to the building height.
Of course, it would also add ~30,000lbs + of weight, per tree.
so 16 mature Sugar Maples, plus a sugar shack would add 500,000lbs of load, give or take. *(does not include leaf mass/snow load factor)
concrete_and_light
Active Member
In many ways a tree is a kind of naturally grown spire and a building with a tree on top is one that changes and grows in height over time.
Raises the interesting potential thought about what would be done if a building proposal near Jesse Ketchum Park planted trees on top that caused increased shadowing on the park.
Raises the interesting potential thought about what would be done if a building proposal near Jesse Ketchum Park planted trees on top that caused increased shadowing on the park.
Wait, a 40m sugar maple?! In the heart of Elvendom maybe, but this ain't Lothlorien. 10m high more like it in 20 years if we're lucky, growing behind glass screens to mitigate for the winds. I mean, we're 6a at ground level, but behind the screens it'd be more like a 4b up top, which should still keep the sap flowing to the 3-metre high supertall sugar shack. The trees would be on the lower levels of the stepped roof of course, tapping bags probably better than unsightly lines. I can hardly wait for the 2055 taffy pull!Hmmm, an ideal specimen, would add up to 40m/120ft to the building height.
Of course, it would also add ~30,000lbs + of weight, per tree.
so 16 mature Sugar Maples, plus a sugar shack would add 500,000lbs of load, give or take. *(does not include leaf mass/snow load factor)
42
M Anonymous
Active Member
That is surprising in a way that there are so few floors for a tower this high. I wonder if they'll go to exactly 300 metres now?
Thanks. That's very helpful.
Northern Light
Superstar
Or maybe Tennessee.
LOL
I didn't say one would get that tall here; I said 'ideal conditions'.
PS, that would also take well over 100 years.
taken from: https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/
The next closest in height that I'm aware of is just over 34M in Claremont, Mass.
In Ontario, I don't think we have a recorded specimen over 30M.
Though there probably is one we just haven't measured yet!
There's one over 30M at an Arboretum in Belgium too.
***
There was one in Lyme, Connecticut that reached 37.5M but it's since been cut down.
Here's a picture of that one:
from: https://patch.com/img/cdn/users/1782987/2013/03/raw/a532ffd91d2a44d51cc2302a59f1b0b0.jpg
Perhaps we should return this thread to its principal topic though. LOL
Strange Advance
Active Member
The massing on this one is atrocious, imo. The "building as wall" aesthetic doesn't do it for me. Halving its breadth would make the proportions more visually appealing.
urbanexplorer
Active Member
I kind of feel like this too. It feels like sunlight is going to be in short supply to the north of this building most of the day.
officedweller
Senior Member
The 300M includes mecahnical penthouse, so I don't know of they can improve upon the 298M while still hiding the mechanical penthouse.