PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : SKYLINE CHANGE: which city skyline will change the most in 5 yrs?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Cambridgite
Dec 18, 2007, 6:29 PM
Well, I mentioned earlier that I thought KW (specifically Uptown Waterloo) would be a contender for one of the most "noticable" skyline change over the next 5-10 years, at least for historic downtowns. Although I don't have the skills of Maldive or Ctrl+Alt+Del, I was able to use Paintbrush to create reallllyyy ghetto approximations of what skyline changes would occur after U/C and proposed/approved projects are finished. As an aside, I think it's valid to include suburban downtowns because they are still skylines, which is what this thread is about. My vote is either going to Vaughan, Markham, or Surrey.

Anyways, here are some drawings for downtown Kitchener:


http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/skylines/Kitchenerskylineedit2.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/skylines/Kitchenerskylineedit3.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/skylines/Kitchenerskylineedit1-1.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/skylines/Kitchenerskylineedit4-1.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/skylines/Kitchenerskylineedit5.jpg


Uptown Waterloo

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/skylines/UptownSkyline1.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/skylines/UptownSkyline2.jpg


King street, between University Ave. and Columbia street

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/skylines/KingUniversity1.jpg


Yes, my drawings suck. I'm no artist and I don't have photoshop....sue me :P

Aylmer
Dec 18, 2007, 6:49 PM
join the ever shrinking club...

vanman
Dec 18, 2007, 11:06 PM
Well, I mentioned earlier that I thought KW (specifically Uptown Waterloo) would be a contender for one of the most "noticable" skyline change over the next 5-10 years, at least for historic downtowns. Although I don't have the skills of Maldive or Ctrl+Alt+Del, I was able to use Paintbrush to create reallllyyy ghetto approximations of what skyline changes would occur after U/C and proposed/approved projects are finished. As an aside, I think it's valid to include suburban downtowns because they are still skylines, which is what this thread is about. My vote is either going to Vaughan, Markham, or Surrey.



That was weak.

Dylan Leblanc
Dec 18, 2007, 11:25 PM
Then why did you quote them?

Cambridgite
Dec 18, 2007, 11:29 PM
That was weak.

As I said, I don't have photoshop and my paintbrush skills suck. Sue me. :P

Canadian74
Dec 19, 2007, 12:00 AM
Nice job, CAMBRIDGITE. Quite a noticable chage in the skyline. What's the tallest proposed or approved in Kitchener by number of floors?

Cambridgite
Dec 19, 2007, 12:26 AM
Nice job, CAMBRIDGITE. Quite a noticable chage in the skyline. What's the tallest proposed or approved in Kitchener by number of floors?

Thank you.

By floors, the current tallest (Wellington Place) is 19. As far as proposed towers go, the tallest is 18 floors (Centre Block). However, at 67.0m, Centre Block will be a new tallest for the city of Kitchener, while the current tallest, Wellington Place, is only 61.0m.

The tallest buildings in the Region are actually in the City of Waterloo. The current tallest by height is SunLife Financial at 79.0m, which is 18 storeys. The tallest by # of floors is Waterpark Place East at 23 floors (65.0m). The tallest proposed buildings are two of the towers proposed in the Barrel Yards development. They are twin towers each at 76.2m. While this doesn't amount to a new tallest, they are 25 storeys each and amongst several other proposed towers. The whole project is expected to take 5-7 years until completion.

I know, I know, the heights aren't impressive. But I do think that it amounts to a significantly noticable change in skyline, given the low base of tall buildings KW has to begin with, especially in Uptown Waterloo.

vanman
Dec 19, 2007, 1:11 AM
As I said, I don't have photoshop and my paintbrush skills suck. Sue me. :P

I wasn't commenting on your photoshop skills.

vanman
Dec 19, 2007, 1:12 AM
Then why did you quote them?

You're right, I shouldn't have.

vanman
Dec 19, 2007, 1:17 AM
My bad. I just noticed this bit:
Well, I mentioned earlier that I thought KW (specifically Uptown Waterloo) would be a contender for one of the most "noticable" skyline change over the next 5-10 years, at least for historic downtowns.

Cambridgite I thought you were trying to prove that Waterloo was a contender amongst the big cities.

Canadian Mind
Dec 19, 2007, 1:33 AM
I think what Vanman was trying to get at was that their wasn't that much of a visual impact, even though the skyline change IS significant.

Cambridgite
Dec 19, 2007, 1:36 AM
My bad. I just noticed this bit:


Cambridgite I thought you were trying to prove that Waterloo was a contender amongst the big cities.

Regarding the majority of those pictures, I would say not. However there is this...

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/skylines/UptownSkyline1.jpg

It's already been approved by council and the leasing sign is already up for the office building. Given the current skyline of Waterloo, which is basically non-existant, it is multiplying the "skyline" by a factor of 3-4, by the looks of it (I don't know of any downtown that is changing its skyline to that degree).

However, I should emphasize that "skyline change" is difficult to quanitify and can be highly subjective, as we've already seen. I think it's fair to say that, in terms of "proportional change", Waterloo tops Tor/Van/Cal (assuming most of these buildings do indeed finish up in 5 years). But if you were to put these proposed buildings beside any of those big-city skylines, the difference it would make would amount to just another district of infill. Again, make of it what you want. I just wanted to display the changes. Everything is still up for debate.

vanman
Dec 19, 2007, 4:42 AM
There are many areas of Vancouver (specifically suburbs) that have skylines sprouting up out of virtually nothing. The same can be said of Toronto or Calgary so by your definition I still don't agree with you on that. Within Waterloo's own context the skyline change is dramatic.

Aylmer
Dec 19, 2007, 12:11 PM
Ottawa is seeing a condo boom in the market...
It isn't dramatic but considerable nevertheless

WaterlooInvestor
Dec 19, 2007, 12:43 PM
Thanks Cambridgite for posting KW's skyline change images. :cool:

Anyways, here are some drawings for downtown Kitchener:

If possible, there's one more building to add in: Scott/Weber Apartment Building | 38 m | 12 fl | Approved (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=141154)

The tallest proposed buildings are two of the towers proposed in the Barrel Yards development. They are twin towers each at 76.2m. While this doesn't amount to a new tallest, they are 25 storeys each and amongst several other proposed towers.

Correct, and for now 76.2m is the best height to use. That said, it's only an estimate for the time being. The buildings may actually be higher, but we'll have to wait until more info is released. For example what the ceiling heights of the units will be. Let's hope Auburn takes into account the successful sales over at the Bauer Lofts (10 foot ceilings).

GreatTallNorth2
Dec 19, 2007, 2:01 PM
Kitchener Waterloo probably has the worst skyline in Canada for a metro of its size (450,000). I think this will dramatically change once LRT is built and as KW continues to grow.

Cambridgite
Dec 19, 2007, 4:34 PM
If possible, there's one more building to add in: Scott/Weber Apartment Building | 38 m | 12 fl | Approved (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=141154)

Awesome! Thanks for the reminder. I'll edit it ASAP...not that a 40m building changes the skyline much, but it's infill at least.

Kitchener Waterloo probably has the worst skyline in Canada for a metro of its size (450,000). I think this will dramatically change once LRT is built and as KW continues to grow.

I'll agree with you on both points. However, when it comes to Canadian cities of similar size, there's only one city to compare it to.

Cambridgite
Dec 19, 2007, 4:56 PM
Alright, the edit was made, but it only makes any sort of difference on certain angles.

GreatTallNorth2
Dec 19, 2007, 6:01 PM
Let me rephrase that then...K/W has the worst skyline for any city over 200,000. Windsor, London, Halifax, Saskatoon, Regina and Victoria are all better along with every other larger city. Kitchener is in the same league as St. Catherines for downtown skyline. Sorry, I know it hurts.

It would be nice to see someone like RIM built a tall one there. If Kitchener gets GO service to Toronto, it would make it an attractive place to live.

Cambridgite
Dec 19, 2007, 6:22 PM
Let me rephrase that then...K/W has the worst skyline for any city over 200,000. Windsor, London, Halifax, Saskatoon, Regina and Victoria are all better along with every other larger city. Kitchener is in the same league as St. Catherines for downtown skyline.

London, Halifax, and Regina for sure. Victoria is denser, but it doesn't appear much taller. Do you have any skyline shots for Saskatoon, Windsor, or St. Catherine's?

Sorry, I know it hurts.

Okay, now you're just being an ass.

It would be nice to see someone like RIM built a tall one there.

:yes:

If Kitchener gets GO service to Toronto, it would make it an attractive place to live.

I dunno...has it made Brampton any more attractive? It might take some cars off the road, but if anything, will just cause more sprawl. Besides, I doubt a GO-train would entice hordes of commuters to settle here unless they went a lot faster. It would take well over an hour to get to Union still. Acton and Georgetown are much closer in and much less developed.

WaterlooInvestor
Dec 19, 2007, 8:08 PM
Let me rephrase that then...K/W has the worst skyline for any city over 200,000. Windsor, London, Halifax, Saskatoon, Regina and Victoria are all better along with every other larger city. Kitchener is in the same league as St. Catherines for downtown skyline.

Here's St. Catharines, looks about the same size to me :rolleyes:

http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/ON/St._Catharines/All/2006/005/2
http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/on/st._catharines/2006/sch2006_005.jpg


If Kitchener gets GO service to Toronto, it would make it an attractive place to live.

It already is becoming an attractive place to live. Perhaps you forgot to post this Free Press article: http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2007/12/05/4708137-sun.html

"Young people want to move to the high-tech triangle," Macartney said. "They have a reasonably good economy there."

flar
Dec 19, 2007, 8:18 PM
Kitchener & St. Catharines are remarkably similar

Cambridgite
Dec 19, 2007, 8:42 PM
Kitchener & St. Catharines are remarkably similar

I would agree with that in terms of downtown footprint and the low density nature of the surrounding neighborhoods, but Kitchener's downtown is taller...not that that's saying much. In terms of how built up it is, I'd say a more valid comparision is Saskatoon. However, the latter has more of a compact grid form while the former is more linear.

http://esask.uregina.ca/management/app/assets/img/enc2/selectedbig/51F176AE-1560-95DA-43C1DBDBA89FD847.jpg

Cambridgite
Dec 19, 2007, 8:49 PM
For comparison's sake.... (I predict this will probably become an ugly dick-measuring contest)

Kitchener

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/skylines/Kitchenerskylineedit4-1.jpg

Saskatoon

http://esask.uregina.ca/management/app/assets/img/enc2/selectedbig/51F176AE-1560-95DA-43C1DBDBA89FD847.jpg

St. Catherines

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/on/st._catharines/2006/sch2006_005.jpg


Anyways, this is getting stupid. This thread is about skyline CHANGE, not about who's SSP dick (skyline) is bigger. GreatTallNorth2's "sorry, I know it hurts" comment was out of line and quite irrelevant. Perhaps it's my fault. Any time I post anything related to KW it generates a lot of hostility and ends up as some kind of war. Maybe I should stick to the local section and pretend this conurbation doesn't exist in a Canadian setting.

raggedy13
Dec 20, 2007, 5:43 AM
Here's a quick job I did for Surrey, inspired by Cambridgite. However, there are still about a dozen more towers proposed/approved that aren't yet added as I don't really know enough about them. The ones I've added are just the ones either currently u/c or that I've seen some sort of rendering of. So for now, just imagine about double the towers.

And for a better sense of scale, the majority of the towers in the bottom right are 100m+ (the tallest being 40 storeys)
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/surrey.jpg

Cambridgite
Dec 20, 2007, 2:42 PM
^That's wicked.

Vancity never fails to impress! :tup:

caltrane74
Dec 21, 2007, 5:37 PM
Kitchener Waterloo is impressive in one way Saskatoon and St. Kitts aren't.

Kitchener-Waterloo is 450 000 people and growing faster than the both of them. It won't be long before the skyline starts to resemble it's economic status within the country.

WaterlooInvestor
Dec 24, 2007, 7:16 AM
Kitchener-Waterloo is 450 000 people and growing faster than the both of them. It won't be long before the skyline starts to resemble it's economic status within the country.

That's what I think as well.

When people criticize the current KW skyline, they tend to forget the time-frame it was built in. Our present skyline was built in the 70's, 80's-early 90's, a period when Waterloo Region was a smaller and less significant community. As such, it made sense for us to have a 2nd rate skyline.

Flash forward to 2007, and it's easy to see how the KW area is now a larger and more important metro. As such, looking at development during this current boom, any reasonable observer would conclude that our development scene is outpacing many of our competitors. Generally speaking, KW now has more 1st rate projects, and as time passes and more of them are built, the overall skyline will improve.

craner
Dec 27, 2007, 7:46 AM
Kitchener Waterloo is impressive in one way Saskatoon and St. Kitts aren't.

Kitchener-Waterloo is 450 000 people and growing faster than the both of them. It won't be long before the skyline starts to resemble it's economic status within the country.

Didn't realize KW was that big. Any chance of getting a stadium built for CFL expansion ??

GreatTallNorth2
Dec 27, 2007, 6:39 PM
Didn't realize KW was that big. Any chance of getting a stadium built for CFL expansion ??

I can't see K/W getting a stadium anytime soon. They are just too close to Hamilton and Toronto. It could happen if they bid for some games in the future, but even that would be a long time away.

London's skyline has seen a lot of growth over the past 2-3 years and we hardly get recognized for everything going on. We have seen...

Built
Cityplace - Two 25 floor residential towers
520 Talbot - One 17 (approx) floor tower

Under Contruction
Renaissance - One 28 floor residential tower (3rd tallest building in city)
Harisston - One 23 floor residential tower
"?" name - One 14 floor residential tower

Proposed
SunLife (Residential) - One-Two towers just north of Richmond/Oxford
Renaissance II - One 28 floor residential tower
**Also talk of a hotel tower going right next to the convention centre.

PLUS at least 20-25 buildings 15+ floors have been or are being built in the city outside of the core.

Not bad for a city like London. Compared to some other midsized Ontario cities, London is putting up a lot (I mean the cranes are in the sky, not just talk).

K/W's biggest problem is that there is no real "one" city with a single downtown core. They sure do make nice phones though.

GreatTallNorth2
Dec 27, 2007, 6:40 PM
double post

Aylmer
Dec 27, 2007, 6:49 PM
Pics?

G-Man
Dec 27, 2007, 9:20 PM
You guys are all wrong the Canadian city with the biggest change to its skyline in the next 5 years will be Colwood, BC which currently has nothing tall and has one tower at 24 storeys under construction and many others proposed in the same range.

That is a 100% percent increase. It cannot be beaten.

Though perhaps it will be tied by its neighbour Langford which is going to also have a numerous 20+ storey buildings in the next 5 years.

:banana:

GreatTallNorth2
Dec 27, 2007, 10:39 PM
Pics?

I will try to get some good pictures shortly.

Cambridgite
Dec 28, 2007, 1:15 AM
I can't see K/W getting a stadium anytime soon. They are just too close to Hamilton and Toronto. It could happen if they bid for some games in the future, but even that would be a long time away.

Yeah, it's true, since Toronto AND Hamilton both have one. Considering how much less popular football is in Canada compared to hockey, it will probably be a while before Southern Ontario gets another team. If it does, K/W will probably be battling it out with London for the next team. There was some speculation about Basillie bringing an NHL team to K/W, but it looks like his intentions are pretty clearly set on Hamilton.

PLUS at least 20-25 buildings 15+ floors have been or are being built in the city outside of the core.

If those were downtown and involved better design (not commie blocks), I'd put London down for the fastest skyline change. But...you might have the fastest densifying suburbs at least.

K/W's biggest problem is that there is no real "one" city with a single downtown core. They sure do make nice phones though.

Yeah, it's a multi-downtown metro area, similar to Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater or Minneapolis-St. Paul. It's a pretty common phenomenon actually...but usually with larger cities. London is more centralized in comparison.

You guys are all wrong the Canadian city with the biggest change to its skyline in the next 5 years will be Colwood, BC which currently has nothing tall and has one tower at 24 storeys under construction and many others proposed in the same range.

That is a 100% percent increase. It cannot be beaten.

If it already had a 24 storey building existing, it would be a 100% increase. But since it has none, it's an infinite increase. Colwood, BC is the winner!! :D

Btw, where is Colwood anyways?

Ayreonaut
Dec 28, 2007, 1:25 AM
A 100% increase is nothing at all. If you had one tower, and nothing was built, it's 100% of what it was before. If you have a tower, and one more is built, it's a 200% increase. But yes, Colwood's is infinite, and I haven't heard of it either.

MolsonExport
Dec 28, 2007, 2:48 AM
That's what I think as well.

.

You are lying. No way. Really? Wow!

G-Man
Dec 28, 2007, 3:15 AM
Its a muni in greater Victoria but it is a "city".

You are correct it is an infinite increase. Forgot my math already

City of Colwood (http://www.city.colwood.bc.ca/siteengine/activepage.asp?bhcp=1)

Here is its first tower.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/133a26b3-7939-4ba4-b93e-0c570ecf1751/wessex_tower.jpg

zoomer
Dec 28, 2007, 3:24 AM
Btw, where is Colwood anyways?

Colwood, and Langford are nearby suburbs of Victoria (see Google image below).

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8239/victoriawo9.jpg

Downtown Victoria and the urban core are in a red oval.

The images below are taken directly from VibrantVictoria (http://www.vibrantvictoria.ca/)

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9913/underconstructionbr5.jpg

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3017/approvedie5.jpg

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2746/proposedpd1.jpg

Cambridgite
Dec 28, 2007, 4:27 AM
^ :worship:

For the absolute number of condo projects per capita, I think Victoria rules the mid-size city category. Hate to say it, K/W or London, but Victoria's got this by a long shot.

flar
Dec 28, 2007, 4:49 AM
Looks like Victoria is the rising star

Cambridgite
Dec 28, 2007, 5:15 AM
Looks like Victoria is the rising star

Depends on what you consider a "rising star". Victoria is certainly intensifying more impressively than its other mid-sized counterparts, and its growth rate is healthy, but not blowing other mid-sized cities out of the water. What are the factors that are behind the growth in Victoria? I think that's an important question to ask (requesting help from Victoria forumers). And what in particular is behind the condo boom in Victoria? Is it just part of the BC culture?

Growth in a sample of mid-size Canadian CMAs from 2001-2006. Taken from Statscan community profiles.

Kitchener.......8.9%
Victoria..........5.8%
London.......... 5.1%
Hamilton.........4.6%
Halifax............3.8%

G-Man
Dec 28, 2007, 6:26 AM
Well I personally think that a large part of the growth is retirees on one end of the spectrum and also the increasing growth of the high tech sector which is now bigger than tourism in the money it brings in.

I know a lot of buyers are from Alberta. There was a time when there was a lot from the states but that has died off now.

Also the provincial government is on a hiring spree so that always boosts the economy a bit here.

Are there too many condos going up well for what they are asking I would say probably but our rental vacancy is still below 1% so there is not far for prices to fall before rental investors will come in.

zoomer
Dec 28, 2007, 7:06 AM
In addition to G-Man's comments, according to the Victoria Real Estate Board (http://www.vreb.org/mls_statistics/current_statistics.html) the average house price for Nov 2007 in Victoria was $596,586.

Average condo price: $311,844

So, what are most people going to do? Buy a condo! I'm amazed there are still enough people who can afford a house to support those prices, but for as long as I can remember Victoria has always been in the top three for house prices in Canada.

Also, as you can see in the google photo, land is limited, which further leads to higher prices. Most of the remaining undeveloped land is agricultural, or mountainous (but they are still building on some mountains).

here a recent photo by SSP's thegreatscaper:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1040/1441415738_369a18540d_b.jpg

WaterlooInvestor
Dec 28, 2007, 10:14 AM
I agree Victoria's CMA, specifically the Colwood-area, wins the mid-sized city's skyline change.

Didn't realize KW was that big. Any chance of getting a stadium built for CFL expansion ??

It all depends on the CFL and it's desire to expand. They probably want to expand back into Ottawa first. Then likely to Halifax in order to promote the league from coast to coast. Quebec City is another strong potential due to the strength of their football market. After those three, KW could make a strong case for being the next expansion city, hopefully happening sometime before 2020. I personally think 8 teams is too few to cover the entire country and as a result the CFL is missing a lot of potential fans. I'd rather see a 12, 14 or even 16 team league. Again though, it's all up to the league and how far they want to expand. I started this thread in the Waterloo Region section to discuss the CFL in Waterloo Region: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=141447

K/W's biggest problem is that there is no real "one" city with a single downtown core. They sure do make nice phones though.

In the past this was an issue, but not going forward. Our future main urban core will be from above the current Uptown to below the current Downtown. KW will have a linear skyline along King Street, similar to how Toronto's skyline follows Yonge Street. The main reason Toronto's skyline does this is because of their subway. For KW, our main driving factor will be our LRT system. However even without rapid transit, the process has already begun: with the UW Health Sciences Campus pushing downtown's boundary up to the train tracks, and with the Bauer Lofts pulling uptown's zone further south. In fact the official Uptown BIA's boundaries were changed this year from Allen Street to Union in order to reflect this.

You are lying. No way. Really? Wow!

You must be the King of intelligent comments. :rolleyes:

Mister F
Dec 28, 2007, 2:55 PM
The main reason Toronto's skyline does this is because of their subway.
I wouldn't say that. The Yonge subway reinforced the pattern but it didn't create it. Yonge St has been the main street for pretty much all of Toronto's history. College Park, which would still be one of the biggest buildings in the city if it were finished, was started a couple decades before the subway.

WaterlooInvestor
Dec 29, 2007, 10:16 AM
I agree with what you're saying. At the same time though, a similar statement could be made regarding King Street in Kitchener-Waterloo: how it's been the main street for pretty much all of KW's history.

Rico Rommheim
Jan 7, 2008, 6:55 AM
Could anyone provide me with a photo or a link of this infamous Marylin Monroe building along with its status and real name? Couldn't find it on google or even here on ssp!!

flar
Jan 7, 2008, 8:05 AM
Could anyone provide me with a photo or a link of this infamous Marylin Monroe building along with its status and real name? Couldn't find it on google or even here on ssp!!

It's called Absolute. There are some photos of this development in my Mississauga photo tour: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143799

Here is one that includes the rendering:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/mississauga/00111.jpg

caltrane74
Jan 7, 2008, 4:59 PM
an abomination!!!

Nicko999
Jan 7, 2008, 5:10 PM
It's called Absolute. There are some photos of this development in my Mississauga photo tour: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143799

Here is one that includes the rendering:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/mississauga/00111.jpg

LOL, what an beautifull building:haha:

Maldive
Jan 12, 2008, 7:00 PM
With the recent mini-explosion of projects west of the core mentioned by
Caltrane in the "Top Proposals" thread... I thought I'd position the projects in
my future render to show the added height/density these projects will add.
I also threw in the location of the office tower east of the ACC and the GO
Transit project behind L Tower.


60 John Street - 38 storeys
306 Richmond - 35 storeys
21-31 Widmer (behind Festival Tower/Lightbox)
rumoured by developer at 40+ storeys
117 Peter - 28 storeys
215 Queen West - 15 storeys
426 University - up to 50 storeys
GO Transit - 18 storeys
Office tower east of ACC - up to 50 storeys

scroll>>>>>>>>>

http://www.upside-down.ca/maldive/dtwupdate.jpg

Cambridgite
Jan 12, 2008, 9:07 PM
Holy crap! Toronto's skyline will soon be as large and built up as Chicago's.

MonkeyRonin
Jan 12, 2008, 10:55 PM
Whats that triangular shaped building with the blue shit?

Maldive
Jan 12, 2008, 10:58 PM
Whats that triangular shaped building with the blue shit?

^ How not to ask for directions or a good place to eat.

WaterlooInvestor
Jan 12, 2008, 10:59 PM
Looks awesome Maldive.

caltrane74
Jan 14, 2008, 3:54 PM
Nice work!!!

Amazing stufff..............

zerokarma
Jan 21, 2008, 3:56 PM
interesting thread

Aylmer
Jan 21, 2008, 5:32 PM
:haha:

:)

O-Town Hockey
Jan 22, 2008, 4:45 AM
Whats that triangular shaped building with the blue shit?

Is nobody gonna answer? I'm curious too.

Calgarian
Jan 22, 2008, 5:06 AM
All I know is it looks like shit.

Deepstar
Jan 22, 2008, 5:09 AM
With the recent mini-explosion of projects west of the core mentioned by
Caltrane in the "Top Proposals" thread... I thought I'd position the projects in
my future render to show the added height/density these projects will add.
I also threw in the location of the office tower east of the ACC and the GO
Transit project behind L Tower.


60 John Street - 38 storeys
306 Richmond - 35 storeys
21-31 Widmer (behind Festival Tower/Lightbox)
rumoured by developer at 40+ storeys
117 Peter - 28 storeys
215 Queen West - 15 storeys
426 University - up to 50 storeys
GO Transit - 18 storeys
Office tower east of ACC - up to 50 storeys

scroll>>>>>>>>>

http://www.upside-down.ca/maldive/dtwupdate.jpg

Toronto's skyline is really going to look impressive with all of the new additions.

caltrane74
Jan 22, 2008, 3:16 PM
Before and After

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj265/jdh_980/Toronto-2011.jpg

from a newbie on SSC (next level 2008)

Coldrsx
Jan 22, 2008, 5:11 PM
once again...in about 2-3 yrs Toronto will finally finally look like the big city it is.

Calgarian
Jan 22, 2008, 5:15 PM
Toronto's skyline will get much better, it still looks too skinny from the lake though.

LeftCoaster
Jan 22, 2008, 5:16 PM
Toronto is looking great! although I think the guy put RBC and Ritz Carlton a little too big. Even if they are closer from that vantage Ritz looks over 900'

WhipperSnapper
Jan 22, 2008, 5:33 PM
it still looks too skinny from the lake though.


not for long ;)

Whats that triangular shaped building with the blue shit?

a 35 storey building which has been compared to Montreal's Habitat installation by those who have seen it.