TORONTO | Ice Condominiums | 234M | 202M | 57 + 67 FLOORS - Page 15

DZH22 · #**281** Posted **Jun 18, 2012, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Actually, I think we are at 33, but at this point it's academic.

I edited this so JWill will leave me alone.

Innsertnamehere · #**282** Posted **Jun 18, 2012, 9:25 PM**

we were referencing caltranes post about proposed-built-UC. when I said we currently have 28, I meant that we currently have 28 buildings over 200m that are Build_UC-proposed, not just built.

Gresto · #**283** Posted **Jun 19, 2012, 12:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

we are at 28. somehow I doubt the 40 number though. wouldn't be surprised if we hit 30!

30 sounds doable, unless there's another sudden influx of tall proposals. They seem to come in fits and starts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

Only people from Toronto include proposals as if they are already built.

No one's going on as if they were already built. I don't know where you get that impression. Nevertheless, an official proposal is a serious step towards realization. No dilettante (Harry Stinson excepted) makes an official proposal. These things require money and commitment to put together.

DZH22 · #**284** Posted **Jun 19, 2012, 2:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gresto

No one's going on as if they were already built. I don't know where you get that impression.

Sorry, I think the impression is actually from skyscrapercity and not here. There are all these debates about Toronto vs Chicago, and everybody from Toronto always cites the full amount of numbers as if they have already been built. It's like, maybe in 3 years that will be a better debate, but right now it seems misleading at best. Of course, again, I think I got my sites confused. I look at both of them regularly.

Gresto · #**285** Posted **Jun 19, 2012, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

Sorry, I think the impression is actually from skyscrapercity and not here. There are all these debates about Toronto vs Chicago, and everybody from Toronto always cites the full amount of numbers as if they have already been built. It's like, maybe in 3 years that will be a better debate, but right now it seems misleading at best. Of course, again, I think I got my sites confused. I look at both of them regularly.

Well, there's city boosterism on this site too, and I agree with you that it can be obnoxious when it's blinkered and ignorant. I don't like it when fellow Torontonians engage in it, and I don't like it when others engage in it on behalf of their cities.
I think most Toronto forumers here would readily agree that Toronto's skyline is, objectively, not yet on a par with Chicago's, at least in terms of height and brawn. Many of us T.O. skyscraper fans are excited, though, about the unprecedented amount of highrise construction going on, hence the talk about number of 200m+ buildings. I'm sure that enthusiasm grates on the nerves of some.

J. Will · #**286** Posted **Jun 19, 2012, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

Only people from Toronto include proposals as if they are already built.

No, that's a lie. Nobody suggested that proposed buildings were already built.

J. Will · #**287** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 2:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gresto

No one's going on as if they were already built. I don't know where you get that impression

Of course not. He's a liar.

Gresto · #**288** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 2:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Will

Of course not. He's a liar.

Come on. Give him the benefit of the doubt. More vitriol is not what's needed.

DZH22 · #**289** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 2:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Will

Of course not. He's a liar.

Way to ignore that I mentioned that I mistook it with skyscrapercity. I think the main argument was on the "Best North American Skyline" thread and it was one of those typical Toronto vs Chicago arguments. I just (wrongly) assumed that it was the same type of thing extended to here. Also, way to post the same thing twice in a row. You seem like a real swell guy.

whiteford · #**290** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 3:52 AM**

omg the glass is perfect, which means these towers are going to be absolutely dreamy.

J. Will · #**291** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

Way to ignore that I mentioned that I mistook it with skyscrapercity.

No. Nobody on Skyscrapercity said that either. There is no truth to your statement.

Quote:

I just (wrongly) assumed that it was the same type of thing extended to here.

Instead of making assumptions why didn't you bother checking to make sure you wouldn't be making an untruthful statement?

DZH22 · #**292** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 2:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Will

No. Nobody on Skyscrapercity said that either. There is no truth to your statement.

Instead of making assumptions why didn't you bother checking to make sure you wouldn't be making an untruthful statement?

Ummm, they DID say it, and it turned into one of those 2-3 page long arguments that so often get removed by the moderators for going too far off topic. This has happened more than once. I myself was once (partially) responsible for having 3 pages removed off the Devon Tower thread, so I know this thing can happen from firsthand experience. I remember reading these debates multiple times. I made a mistake with my original post here. Why are you still going on and on about this?

J. Will · #**293** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 5:29 PM**

Why did you bring it up in the first place? I started this thread to talk about Ice Condominiums, not so people could whine about others supposedly counting proposed towers as finished.

DZH22 · #**294** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Will

Why did you bring it up in the first place? I started this thread to talk about Ice Condominiums, not so people could whine about others supposedly counting proposed towers as finished.

Oh I'm sorry God, I didn't realize YOU were responsible for this thread. I bow down to you.

But really, STFU