HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4361  
Old Posted May 15, 2017, 11:36 AM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is online now
gettin' rich!
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 32,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by koops65 View Post
Here is basically the same viewpoint, this time taken from my old computer, (but with the better video card) and it's hooked to the big screen TV. I get images that are 1920 X 946 pixels...

[IMG][/IMG]

And from the opposite direction:

[IMG][/IMG]
There are weak spots. On Yonge, between Charles and Wellesley is not as robust skyscraper density as to the north and south.

Minor gripe.
__________________
Learn Here about the 200 Skyscrapers U/C in Toronto The Toronto Skyscraper Blog
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4362  
Old Posted May 15, 2017, 8:47 PM
Gresto's Avatar
Gresto Gresto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by koops65 View Post
I took that screenshot from my laptop, which has a crappy video card.
That's with the graphics settings turned to max...
Oh, I see. Must be a CPU hog. Nice work either way. Most likely we'll all be in wheelchairs by the time all that comes to pass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4363  
Old Posted May 15, 2017, 8:49 PM
Gresto's Avatar
Gresto Gresto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by caltrane74 View Post
There are weak spots. On Yonge, between Charles and Wellesley is not as robust skyscraper density as to the north and south.

Minor gripe.
Also, between the CBD and Wellesley is a highrise gap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4364  
Old Posted Yesterday, 2:02 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 3,580
Given the pace of construction in Brentwood, I don't think this is too far off. Keep in mind this is a suburb (albeit a close in one).

Quote:
Originally Posted by n86 View Post
I found this image here on Shape Properties website.
http://shapeproperties.com/leasing/#...tion?_k=kdp5xs



It gives a better sense of the future vision and density of the Brentwood area. Wow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4365  
Old Posted Yesterday, 4:10 AM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 13,915
Don't worry. No one will be confused. It's undeniably high rise suburbia.
__________________
52 built and 25 under construction for a total of 77 towers over 150 metres.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4366  
Old Posted Yesterday, 1:24 PM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is online now
gettin' rich!
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 32,924
From Maldive/3D

He dropped in YSL - 345 meters
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads....17678/page-38
__________________
Learn Here about the 200 Skyscrapers U/C in Toronto The Toronto Skyscraper Blog
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4367  
Old Posted Yesterday, 6:51 PM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,269
^Soooo Awesome T.O.!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4368  
Old Posted Yesterday, 8:50 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notleygrad, Albertastan
Posts: 8,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Given the pace of construction in Brentwood, I don't think this is too far off. Keep in mind this is a suburb (albeit a close in one).
Le Corbusier would be proud....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4369  
Old Posted Yesterday, 8:55 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 4,816
To me it's not the number of towers or even the height but the quality of the buildings themselves.

If all these new Toronto towers are just more bland blue-glass then it just igves the city a skyline of a blob and helps it look souless, streile, and unimaginative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4370  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:45 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 28,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
Le Corbusier would be proud....
my thoughts exactly. Why give such a large parcel to a single developer for a single project? The result is always cookie cutter design (whether houses, or condo towers). London (Ontario) is plagued with boring twin buildings.
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4371  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:23 PM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is online now
gettin' rich!
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 32,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
To me it's not the number of towers or even the height but the quality of the buildings themselves.

If all these new Toronto towers are just more bland blue-glass then it just igves the city a skyline of a blob and helps it look souless, streile, and unimaginative.
Well, you clicked on the link so you know that is not the case.
__________________
Learn Here about the 200 Skyscrapers U/C in Toronto The Toronto Skyscraper Blog
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4372  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:28 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notleygrad, Albertastan
Posts: 8,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
my thoughts exactly. Why give such a large parcel to a single developer for a single project? The result is always cookie cutter design (whether houses, or condo towers). London (Ontario) is plagued with boring twin buildings.
It's a problem with how things are set up in much of the world now. It's more profitable for a developer to take a larger parcel of land and produce a massive, over-scaled development on it, with shitty human scale than to lot-split and give smaller lots to multiple developers, or even the same one, provided dense, human-scaled buildings are built. Only in pre-war areas of cities, where there exists a paradigm of smaller lot sizes does this old order seem to hold, even if it's chipped away. But new developments, from Vancouver to Wuhan to Johannesburg are like this. The only suburban TODs I really like in Greater Vancouver are North Van and New West, which are built around pre-war urban neighbourhoods. Metrotown has potential, though.

There's also the "missing middle" in Canadian cities. In that render above, why does it go from high-rise density, to dropping off a cliff to single-detached homes? Where are the mid-rise apartments, low-rise office buildings, walkups, townhomes, duplexes, etc? Skyscrapers for the sake of skyscrapers is something for Dubai and Doha to ponder.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:24 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.