3Dementia
Senior Member
Hopefully we won't aspire to (or close the gap on) Chicago's other urban reality: 105 homicides were recorded in the month of July 2021. Total reported shootings in July were 461 (a 99% increase within the last two years).
Toronto 191 Bay | 301.74m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
Hopefully we won't aspire to (or close the gap on) Chicago's other urban reality: 105 homicides were recorded in the month of July 2021. Total reported shootings in July were 461 (a 99% increase within the last two years).
urbanexplorer
Active Member
At the risk of getting too off topic, I have to (mostly) agree with this. I was in NYC last week and after years of envying their urban structures, I finally started to see some of the proverbial cracks in the foundation. The entire city seemed to be in a state of construction trying to fix crumbling infrastructure. Most of my friends there seem to envy me when I talk about a lot of the standard luxuries we have in Toronto like central air and in-suite laundry. Even in some of their newer buildings, the interior finishes seem to be cheaper than here (again just from what a few friends that have moved there have told me).
I don't feel like cities that have really leaned into being themselves are constantly comparing to others. Good examples are Barcelona, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Boston etc. They are all super cool and a draw for people everywhere (including New Yorkers) because they are unique in their own right. I feel like Toronto should lean into the things that make it special - the Waterfront + Toronto islands, the ravine system, the mix of SFH and tall buildings - to really create an identity of its own. How do we create a feeling of "oh I'd like to visit/live in Toronto because there's nothing like it!" instead of "because it's the closest thing to NYC in Canada".
Last edited:
Mercenary
Active Member
Why is it each time a comparison between Toronto and Chicago is made on skyscrapers, downtown, urban parks, etc. People like you bring up crime to give yourself an ego boost.
Bro this is not a discussion on crime. Keep it on architecture. You use crime as a trump card to negate any criticism of Toronto.
It's kinda sad actually to having to see this repeatedly.
3Dementia
Senior Member
Thanks for the corrective but pretty sure this is my first post mentioning (ego-boosting?) crime. Sorry you're sad too.
Northern Light
Superstar
Noting that this thread is veering heavily OT...........
I still want to answer that...........
Worth saying there are 500,000 Single Family Homes in New York City proper.
Also.... 3.0 km, is about the closest, I think...........in/around North Portland in Brooklyn. But there might be something closer.
cd concept
Senior Member
Those office and condo buildings that are close to the 300m mark. In my opinion will probably silently ask for extra few meters in the end to the supertall status. They're doing it for The One, One Yonge and possibly YSL Residence tower. This it the city's way of keeping these towers capped at a low 300m mark.
So, we have a front page story up here.
I haven't updated the height in the database file, nor the thread yet, as I am interested in what height you collectively feel is appropriate.
The 296.996 metres (come on, that's an easy 297!!) from the sidewalk height at King to the top of the screen?
Or add about another 2 metres—so 299—for the height difference at Wellington?
Or go with the 374.15 that includes the architectural spire?
Or add the 2 metres to that? If the CTBUH considers the pavilion to be the same building, then they'd consider the Wellington Street entrances as base height, not the King Street height, and they'd add the architectural spire.
Unfortunately our database has only one field for height, so let's hear your feedback!
42
PS - For those asking 'why yet again do we have another building cutting off at just below 300 metres?' for "roof height," this one would shadow the park at St James Cathedral if it went taller, so there's the City's cutoff: sun on parks is sacrosanct.
I haven't updated the height in the database file, nor the thread yet, as I am interested in what height you collectively feel is appropriate.
The 296.996 metres (come on, that's an easy 297!!) from the sidewalk height at King to the top of the screen?
Or add about another 2 metres—so 299—for the height difference at Wellington?
Or go with the 374.15 that includes the architectural spire?
Or add the 2 metres to that? If the CTBUH considers the pavilion to be the same building, then they'd consider the Wellington Street entrances as base height, not the King Street height, and they'd add the architectural spire.
Unfortunately our database has only one field for height, so let's hear your feedback!
42
PS - For those asking 'why yet again do we have another building cutting off at just below 300 metres?' for "roof height," this one would shadow the park at St James Cathedral if it went taller, so there's the City's cutoff: sun on parks is sacrosanct.
Pinski
New Member
By definition 374, simply because that’s what other cities mark them (Spired buildings) as, (San Francisco, Atlanta, NY, Melbourne, Philadelphia)
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
I grabbed my popcorn around the same time, and boy was it prescient.
To me there's no question. 299. Lowest grade entrance on Wellington, to top of screen. I get that CTBUH will track something different, but here at UT we know better, and it would be ridiculous to call this taller than The One or Pinnacle One Yonge just because of a spire that, while architectural, is still just tacked on.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Intuitively I would say the 299.
But yes, by "official" measurements, this is probably 376. It's stupid though to do it that way.
But yes, by "official" measurements, this is probably 376. It's stupid though to do it that way.
Rascacielo
Senior Member
So why is the St Regis listed as 281.93 m on UT?
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Although, the longer answer is that the spire at the St. Regis is a little more integrated into the facade and includes a light feature that extends the full height of the building, so to me, its a harder call and possibly more akin to going with the top of the screen rather than the top slab for this one. Still, I would be fine with cutting the St. Regis' listed height down to the top of cladding on the onion penthouse.
Rascacielo
Senior Member
I would be fine with downgrading the St Regis’ height as well, but UT has to be consistent. I don’t think ‘having a light feature on the spire’ is a valid excuse.
Rascacielo
Senior Member
This picture shows 4 antennas / spires on financial district buildings (from L to R: Brookfield Place, Commerce Court West, the St Regis and First Canadian Place). It's obvious that Brookfield Place's and St Regis' are spires while the other are antennas. CTBUH includes the spires but excludes antennas. While Brookfield Place is not listed on UT's database (too old), I believe UT would include the spire as well. This proposed tower's spire is part of its design (as is St Regis' and Brookfield Place's), so I believe it should be included (with asterisk if possible).
architecture fan
New Member
Whenever I search Skyscraper Page, I use Roof as the number 1 criteria for height, since I find it provides the best overall arrangement of the buildings' perceived / relative height ( a shorter building with a long spire will be placed further away from the taller buildings).
Last edited: