New win, place, and show skyscrapers in American/Canadian cities

[Centropolis]

i've long been semi-apathetic regarding skyscrapers since i live in a city that had a skyscraper boom (relatively speaking) during a time that was arguably one of the worst eras for the city, but it's hard to argue with the sort of emotional impact of seeing a tall, fresh glassy tower going up over an old city.

[isaidso]

Stantec, Edmonton

Stantec, at 251 m, will be Edmonton's tallest building and the tallest in Canada outside Toronto. Rising at the same time is Edmonton's 2nd tallest, JW Marriott.


Courtesy of wherezjeff


Courtesy of wherezjeff


https://www.flickr.com/photos/wherez...32304/sizes/h/[/QUOTE]

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Height of skyscrapers in Montreal can’t exceed Mount Royal which is 233m high from sea level.

Since most of Downtown is hilly, the max height is on lower lots (such as the one where the two towers posted earlier will be built) at 210m, which honestly isn’t all that bad because we have a very dense CBD.

National Bank HQ will be 46 floors, not 36. Brocccolini, the builder is also building 628 St Jacques, a 35 storey condo next to Victoria on the Park (56 floors) and the National Bank, so the 3 are going up simultaneously side by side.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i've long been semi-apathetic regarding skyscrapers since i live in a city that had a skyscraper boom (relatively speaking) during a time that was arguably one of the worst eras for the city, but it's hard to argue with the sort of emotional impact of seeing a tall, fresh glassy tower going up over an old city.

With Ballpark Village finally coming out of the ground and rumors of hi-rise development on the North Riverfront. I think we will be looking at a much different downtown St. Louis skyline in 2020. One thing that is interesting about St. Louis is that we actually have a good amount of hi-rises for a metro our size, they are just strung along a linear line from the River to Clayton. Could you imagine if all those hi-rises lined the river? That would be impressive.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Wow, that's a fantastic tower.

You like that? I mean, to each their own but god, that is one ugly building. Would have been passable until they ruined it with that unholy mess at the top.

[pdxtex]

here's portlands tallest condo tower, the cosmopolitan. tall for us is over 300 ft. this one is about 350. its the tallest building in the pearl though, finished in 2016. photo kpff engineers

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Spocket

You like that? I mean, to each their own but god, that is one ugly building. Would have been passable until they ruined it with that unholy mess at the top.

Yeah I would look much better without the weird hat thing. At least from the angle of the rendering.

[mhays]

Edmonton's image is probably going to grow...a skyline can really help a city. In Edmonton's case it's not really on my radar in the US (different for hockey fans presumably) so cues like that can be important at those occasional touch points.

[Hudson11]

an honorable mention for Charlotte. A 640' blast from the postmodern past. Currently U/C, it will be the 4th tallest.

[Wpg_Guy]

Crane is up for Winnipeg’s new tallest building! A 42 storey residential tower on top of the underground concourse. Will bring almost 700 permanent residents to the #PortageandMain area.

@brent_bellamy

Originally Posted by Biff

From above


Nicole @NicDea48 on Twitter

Originally Posted by BuildUpWpg

Ya, the Free Press certainly misreported when they said the crane was going to go on the elevator shaft.

@DowntownPeggy
Hmmm...I notice something a little different added to our skyline...

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

here's portlands tallest condo tower, the cosmopolitan. tall for us is over 300 ft. this one is about 350. its the tallest building in the pearl though, finished in 2016. photo kpff engineers

I knew eventually someone would screw up and post a building that ignored the criterion since this building is not one of Portland's 3 tallest

Ahhh well, at least it took a while

Wpg_Guy, so the new building is just going by it's address? I thought it was going to be the Artis Reit residential tower

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Height of skyscrapers in Montreal can’t exceed Mount Royal which is 233m high from sea level.

Since most of Downtown is hilly, the max height is on lower lots (such as the one where the two towers posted earlier will be built) at 210m, which honestly isn’t all that bad because we have a very dense CBD.

Interesting--this is exactly the opposite of the policy of the San Francisco Planning Department which encourages the tallest buildings on the hills to emphasize the terrain and not disguise it.

Of course, this is just one factor. The maximum allowable heights are still in the financial districts (north and now south) which are near the Bay and relatively flat.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

I knew eventually someone would screw up and post a building that ignored the criterion and this is it since this building is not one of Portland's 3 tallest

Wpg_Guy, so the new building is just going by it's address? I thought it was going to be the Artis Reit residential tower

It’s always been known as it’s adddress, all the towers at the intersection go by their address now as their official name.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

this is an ambitious project, and glad to see it. architecturally seems like a slightly missed opportunity to go just a hair bigger and create a strong new high point for the skyline, like philadelphia with the comcast innovation center tower. no doubt this will stand out but it could have been more like a sears tower pinnacle i think, if the budget was that big.

A bit of context on this one. This was originally planned at, like, only a dozen or so feet taller than the RenCen. And, quite frankly, that this is planned at all is nothing short of amazing. Five years ago, no one was talking about developing a legit skyscraper on this site. The plan had always been to simply reuse the foundations of the existing garage, which would have limited the height to something much, much shorter, and it would have likely been more than just two buildings.

This is all to say folks would have been happy if something even 300 feet would have been built on this massive block. To get something that is significantly taller than what was there before and of such quality is a huge win. Actually, the scale is kind of ridiculous versus the surrounding buildings. And, more than that, the developer is debating on whether to add a hotel component to the tower. It may be taller, yet.

[chris08876]

Hopefully Detroits new tallest will be the first of many.

I guess in NJ, 99 Hudson will become a new tallest for Jersey City. Not to mention it looks stunning.

Newark is on its way to get a new tallest if the momentum continues.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

an honorable mention for Charlotte. A 640' blast from the postmodern past. Currently U/C, it will be the 4th tallest.

Charlotte partyin' like it's 1989!

[LMich]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Hopefully Detroits new tallest will be the first of many.

I guess in NJ, 99 Hudson will become a new tallest for Jersey City. Not to mention it looks stunning.

Newark is on its way to get a new tallest if the momentum continues.

Not a new tallest, or even third tallest, but the Monroe Blocks development is soon to start site prep a few blocks away. The office tower will be 536 feet, which would make it the fifth tallest tower in the city should the Hudson Site be completed.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

It’s always been known as it’s adddress, all the towers at the intersection go by their address now as their official name.

I see that the city stopped calling it the TD Tower and are instead just going by it's address but at least the Richardson Building still has a name.

Speaking of the Richardson Building, I just read on wikipedia that, "In 2011, the CBC moved its digital television transmitters for CBWT-DT and CBWFT-DT to the Richardson Building, on a new antenna that raised the pinnacle of the building to 151.8 metres (498 ft), once again making it the tallest structure in Winnipeg"

Huh? I didn't know that

Did you?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by mhays

Edmonton's image is probably going to grow...a skyline can really help a city. In Edmonton's case it's not really on my radar in the US (different for hockey fans presumably) so cues like that can be important at those occasional touch points.

Edmonton has been quietly growing in Calgary's shadow for a long time. In some ways it's the Philadelphia of Canada. The city had a high profile back in the 1970s/80s when it was Alberta's biggest city, its sports teams seemed to win everything, and they built what was at the time the biggest shopping mall in the world. After that Edmonton seemed to drift off people's radar in Canada. I suppose it was never on people's radar in the US.

The recent growth spurt is doing wonders for its image. The new arena they built for the Oilers looks superb and the recent growth spurt in the skyline is changing people's perception of the place. Edmonton really isn't that tiny any more. They're forecast to hit 1.8-1.9 million people by 2030.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I suppose it was never on people's radar in the US.

FWIW, the great one and that giant mall definitely made edmonton enter the consciousness of this young american back in the '80s.