Canada's Tallest Skyscrapers (150M+) - Page 21

WhipperSnapper · #**401** Posted **Dec 24, 2017, 9:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

I think you mean BC has 15 since 2000, not Vancouver....

Not at all. They are all in Metro Vancouver. I've been consistent in referencing metro area from the start.

koops65 · #**402** Posted **Dec 25, 2017, 12:28 AM**

Well then, why isn't Toronto in the same category? All the towers in Mississauga and Vaughan should be added to Toronto's total.

WhipperSnapper · #**403** Posted **Dec 26, 2017, 8:05 PM**

I have. I'll explain.

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/...postcount=8657
"(metro)"

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/...&postcount=395
"I don't know if the city can do it alone."

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/...&postcount=390
this isn't as clear as I made an error. It is supposed to be in alphabetical order except for suburban cities that are separately grouped with their main cities.

caltrane74 · #**404** Posted **Dec 26, 2017, 9:51 PM**

To think Toronto has 28 towers under construction over 150 meters and there is a chance for another 5 to 15 starts this year boggles the mind. With a 3 year completion timeframe, that means 7 to 10 completions per year. And will be the case for the next 3 or 4 years at least.

WhipperSnapper · #**405** Posted **Dec 26, 2017, 10:54 PM**

Need over 10 a year to catch Chicago in a reasonable time frame.

koops65 · #**406** Posted **Dec 27, 2017, 8:28 PM**

That will help, but Chicago is building a fair amount too...

caltrane74 · #**407** Posted **Dec 27, 2017, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

That will help, but Chicago is building a fair amount too...

Chicago has 10 U/C right now over 150 meters. One of them is massive, like 362 meters. Chicago has only 36 towers UC over 12 floors.

However Toronto has 28 UC / (over 150 meters) as we noted and around 150 towers over 12 floors under construction in total.

koops65 · #**408** Posted **Dec 28, 2017, 4:46 PM**

A couple more years and it'll look like this perhaps:

[IMG]

[/IMG]

caltrane74 · #**409** Posted **Dec 28, 2017, 11:55 PM**

A couple more years and we won't even recognize Toronto anymore.

LeftCoaster · #**410** Posted **Jan 2, 2018, 11:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by losername

Does Calgary really have more 150 metre buildings built than all of BC. That seems hard to believe. Though it seems that will soon change with the under construction count, unless Calgary gets a few of it's proposal's going.

Still seems strange.

Not surprised at all, until only just over a decade ago nothing that tall was allowed. Vancouver's first 150m tower, One Wall, was built in 2001. The next allowed to break that plane was Shangri-La in 2008.

It's only very recently Vancouver allowed buildings over 150M and they are still heavily constrained.

Burnaby on the other hand will have more than Calgary in 10 years.

Black Star · #**411** Posted **Jan 3, 2018, 6:06 AM**

38584505815_63588a8ce3_o by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr

Original by Spi11, on Flickr

koops65 · #**412** Posted **Jan 3, 2018, 6:13 AM**

Edmonton is looking great! Amazing how a few towers can really beef up the skyline...

MolsonExport · #**413** Posted **Jan 3, 2018, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

Edmonton is looking great! Amazing how a few towers can really beef up the skyline...

yes, I would think it is the most improved Canadian skyline of the past decade.

WhipperSnapper · #**414** Posted **Jan 3, 2018, 3:41 PM**

I don't see it. The Ice District pairing are so tall they throw off the balance. It'll take a half dozen more 150 plus metre towers for those to begin paying off. The dozen other towers to go up are skyline infill at best. Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, etc. have all seen more dramatic and complimentary change.

MolsonExport · #**415** Posted **Jan 3, 2018, 3:45 PM**

Maybe, but the skyline went from mediocre and seemingly static to impressive. Hence the improvement. Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary were already impressive. Winnipeg (to me) was also more impressive.

WhipperSnapper · #**416** Posted **Jan 3, 2018, 4:05 PM**

Height is very important to skyline aesthetics but, density takes the cake for me. The Pearl did to Oliver what the Ice District pairing will do to downtown. It's so dominant it makes everything else lesser than it actually is. Simlar situation with Toronto's skyline circa 2001. All the dominant towers were so closely packed in the CBD that it made the skyline seem very small compared to the stats.

MolsonExport · #**417** Posted **Jan 3, 2018, 5:51 PM**

Fair enough, I too take density > height. Certainly for making a city core more interesting, density rules the roost.

e.g., I've been to Paris 8 times, and haven't yet made the (short) trek to La Defense, as I would rather wander the streets of the old core than gaze at relatively banal skyscrapers.

koops65 · #**418** Posted **Jun 8, 2018, 7:19 AM**

The List has been updated on page 1.

kool maudit · #**419** Posted **Jun 8, 2018, 8:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Fair enough, I too take density > height. Certainly for making a city core more interesting, density rules the roost.

e.g., I've been to Paris 8 times, and haven't yet made the (short) trek to La Defense, as I would rather wander the streets of the old core than gaze at relatively banal skyscrapers.

They're nice when you look down the Champs-Élysées though.

Jagators63 · #**420** Posted **Jun 9, 2018, 3:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

The List has been updated on page 1.

you made one mistake on that list so check # 13 2 carlton for heights.