Future Canadian Skylines - Page 219

caltrane74 · #**4361** Posted **May 15, 2017, 11:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

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.

Gresto · #**4362** Posted **May 15, 2017, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

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.

Gresto · #**4363** Posted **May 15, 2017, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

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.

logan5 · #**4364** Posted **May 24, 2017, 2:02 AM**

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

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.

WhipperSnapper · #**4365** Posted **May 24, 2017, 4:10 AM**

Don't worry. No one will be confused. It's undeniably high rise suburbia.

caltrane74 · #**4366** Posted **May 24, 2017, 1:24 PM**

From Maldive/3D

He dropped in YSL - 345 meters
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads....17678/page-38

craner · #**4367** Posted **May 24, 2017, 6:51 PM**

^Soooo Awesome T.O.!!

ue · #**4368** Posted **May 24, 2017, 8:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

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....

ssiguy · #**4369** Posted **May 24, 2017, 8:55 PM**

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.

MolsonExport · #**4370** Posted **May 24, 2017, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ue

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.

caltrane74 · #**4371** Posted **May 24, 2017, 10:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

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.

ue · #**4372** Posted **May 24, 2017, 10:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

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.

koops65 · #**4373** Posted **May 28, 2017, 10:05 PM**

I completed a huge portion of the city, the King West and Queen West zones. Lots of towers U/C in the area and tons of proposals too:

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Dominating the area is the 8 tower + Park-Over-the-Tracks ORCA project.
The Well is now in site prep I believe, or will be very soon...
Behind them are the 23 Spadina towers, Canada House?
The BIG project on King has been revised.
The King/Portland Centre, Minto Westside and the Harlowe are U/C.
One the far right is the just proposed 2 Tecumseth.
Also in there is the Waterworks Building Re-development.
On Spadina is the just proposed 101 Spadina, and just out of the OMB are 415 King West and 57 Spadina.
Behind them, in the Entertainment District, are a huge assortment of towers in various stages of development.

GeneralLeeTPHLS · #**4374** Posted **May 28, 2017, 10:34 PM**

Lovely work koops! Your work on this site and on this 3D render is incredible!

koops65 · #**4375** Posted **May 29, 2017, 8:19 AM**

Thanks!

caltrane74 · #**4376** Posted **May 29, 2017, 9:12 AM**

Did 415 King get the green light from the OMB?

koops65 · #**4377** Posted **May 29, 2017, 10:58 AM**

Yes, but the height was reduced to 145 metres.

caltrane74 · #**4378** Posted **May 29, 2017, 11:24 AM**

Quote:

Second on the Great Lakes

Toronto’s skyline ranks second among Great Lakes cities behind Chicago and ahead of Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee and Buffalo.

Toronto has 13 buildings over 700 feet and 30 over 550 feet, compared to 19 and 73 in Chicago.

Toronto’s tallest include First Canadian Place (978 feet), by Trump International Hotel and Tower (908 feet), Scotia Plaza (902 feet), Aura (892 feet) and TD Canada Trust Tower (856 feet).

In Detroit, the tallest buildings are the Detroit Marriott and the Renaissance Center (727 feet) and One Detroit Center (619 feet).

In Cleveland, they are Key Tower (947 feet) and Terminal Tower (771 feet) and in Milwaukee, U.S. Bank Center (601 feet) and 100 E. Wisconsin (549 feet).

http://ilbusinessdaily.com/stories/5...-skyline-dream

Nice Little Plug from Illinois Business Daily.

TallBob · #**4379** Posted **May 31, 2017, 8:54 AM**

Caltrane: i don't know where you got those figures, but Chicago has 120+ buildings over 500 feet! Not sure about 700' but 19 sounds pretty low.

porkmedallions · #**4380** Posted **May 31, 2017, 9:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallBob

Caltrane: i don't know where you got those figures, but Chicago has 120+ buildings over 500 feet! Not sure about 700' but 19 sounds pretty low.

It was in the link that he posted. From the Illinois Business Daily article.