Future Canadian Skylines - Page 60

someone123 · #**1181** Posted **Jan 23, 2012, 11:54 PM**

I do think that the Bow would more or less fit into that skyline picture. There is an interesting consistency to the architecture of the major Tokyo office towers.

chrisallard5454 · #**1182** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Actually Calgary has 3 towers.....over 200 meters.

Just proves Mr. Sandbags point.

Travis007 · #**1183** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 1:39 AM**

Tokyo is a pretty unreal city, definitely one of my life missions as an urban enthusiast to visit.

Ramako · #**1184** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 1:59 AM**

Massey Tower will be the first major tower built in the nearby vicinity of Yonge-Dundas Square and will do an excellent job in filling in the gap in Toronto's skyline between the CBD and the cluster around Aura.

Travis007 · #**1185** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 2:20 AM**

The Yonge/Dundas radius is filled with redevelopment possibilities to enhance this section in the skyline:

-The Forever 21/former Gap location on the NW corner of Yonge/Dundas remains a possibility for redevelopment based on earlier circulating rumours.

-21 Dundas Square, project already in the pipeline

-The World's Largest Bookstore, large chunk of valuable land

-If they can combine the site of the burnt down Empress Hotel with the HMV building, they can build something of significant height

-Various parking lots along Dundas East

Ramako · #**1186** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 2:29 AM**

Indeed. It's very conceivable that within our lifetimes Toronto will have a nearly unbroken skyline of ~200 metre towers running from the lake all the way to Yorkville. Very Manhattan.

TallBob · #**1187** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 3:31 AM**

Calgary, in all sincerity, does'nt even belong in this discussion! Maybe in 50 -60 years, but the oil sands will pretty much be dried up by then. So I doubt it even then.

bkd · #**1188** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 3:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.sandbag

I totally get why there are fewer posts from other cities then TO and Calgary. Its not worth posting here, it just gets drowned out....

suburbanite · #**1189** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 4:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallBob

Calgary, in all sincerity, does'nt even belong in this discussion! Maybe in 50 -60 years, but the oil sands will pretty much be dried up by then. So I doubt it even then.

Even by the most conservative estimates of recoverable barrels, if 5 million barrels were produced a day then the oil sands could theoretically last for 100 years.

floobie · #**1190** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 5:02 AM**

Well this thread got amusing rather rapidly. I love Calgary's skyline. But, comparing it to Tokyo... I don't see it.

But, what I really came here to say: Every post this thread receives without a shiny new rendering to drool over makes posters throughout the Canada forum sigh in exasperation. And I totally see the irony in me pointing that out without contributing a rendering of my own.

Wigs · #**1191** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 6:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

You might find that funny but what I find sad is that Buffalo's(the city, not CMA) per capita income in 2009 was $20,003

City limits are irrelevant. example: Toronto. It's a metro of 5+ million, not just a city of 2.5 million (or the former city which is 700-800k)
Buffalo punches far above its weight for per capita GDP.

There was just no reason for caltrane to slag Buffalo. That was my main point even if I had to use a recent list to prove it

That being said I appreciate caltrane's photos and contributions to this forum.

Toronto is a great city with a great skyline!

All of my dad's family is from there. My dad grew up "off the Danforth" and went to U of T.

whiteford · #**1192** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 9:18 AM**

there is no doubt that Tokyo has a better skyline than calgary, but what was in that particular picture was no where near as good as calgarys skyline i dont care what anyone says. when you are going to say it has a better skyline then show its darn skyline for gods sakes. dont just show some little piece of it that has no chance of looking better. any moron knows that there is no comparison and that Tokyo has a much more massive skyline and better. so show that and dont run calgary down by showing some little insignificant piece of that skyline. that is just insulting my city.

whiteford · #**1193** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 9:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

How could you possibly say that? The buildings are taller than Calgary's, there is more density, tons of buildings and some pretty damn cool architecture (Mode Gakuen Cocoon Tower im looking at you).

It's pretty homeristic of you to say the skyline isn't even close to as striking. In fact it's downright ridiculous.

it matters not. that particular photo dose in no way look even close to being as impressive as calgarys skyline. like i say show the whole thing and then you have a calgary whooping skyline. no need to belittle calgarys skyline that way.

caltrane74 · #**1194** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 11:39 AM**

Rendering of Massy Tower with Dundas Square

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanadianNational

Shore! 680 ft / 200m.

(model extremely hypothetical in form)

CN did an updated rendering at 680 feet

Here you go

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthr...tarini)/page26

RyeJay · #**1195** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Even by the most conservative estimates of recoverable barrels, if 5 million barrels were produced a day then the oil sands could theoretically last for 100 years.

The oil sands project does not have 100 years to produce. The global energy market will have long moved onto other resources by then.

And if you have any doubt of this, I will allow our severe summers, when the symptoms of climate change are most obvious, to speak for themselves as to just how quickly the entire world is going to desperately yearn to get off the use of fossil fuels.

And if you need winter-time convincing, go live somewhere in the American south, like Alabama.

suburbanite · #**1196** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 5:30 PM**

I was referring to the statement that the oil sands will have "dried up" in 50 years. Whether or not it will be economical or logical to still produce oil at that point is a different discussion.

Chadillaccc · #**1197** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 6:57 PM**

This thread has become a fucking joke.

Calgarian · #**1198** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 7:25 PM**

Comparing any Canadian city to Tokyo, a metro that has the population of our entire damn country, is absolutely ludicrous! Maybe if you combined them all together it could approach a fair comparison.

Prometheus · #**1199** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Comparing any Canadian city to Tokyo, a metro that has the population of our entire damn country, is absolutely ludicrous! Maybe if you combined them all together it could approach a fair comparison.

So your definition of a "better skyline" is a function of population size or sheer number of buildings, regardless of dimension, proportion, aesthetics, balance and overall composition? Therefore, cities like Mexico City, Calcutta, Lagos, Cairo, etc., have better skylines than Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto?

Interesting.

Andrewjm3D · #**1200** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 10:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Comparing any Canadian city to Tokyo, a metro that has the population of our entire damn country, is absolutely ludicrous! Maybe if you combined them all together it could approach a fair comparison.

I don't think they were being compared to the size of Tokyo's skyline, only that in a few short years T.O will have more buildings >200m then Tokyo. Not to shabby for a Canadian City.