A Quick Question About Height

[dleung]

IMO, almost always equal height for twin towers. It's the honest thing to do.

Especially when the project looks like this:

Foster's proposal for WTC

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by dleung

IMO, almost always equal height for twin towers. It's the honest thing to do.

And what do you mean by that? How are twin towers differing in height less honest?...

[eemy]

I guess if they aren't equal heights they aren't really twins?

[RyeJay]

...then call them fraternal twin towers.

[floobie]

There are a few examples of same height twins I like. In Calgary, Bankers Hall qualifies. Worldwide, the Petronas Towers are an obvious example. But, beyond that, differing heights look a lot better to me.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

And what do you mean by that? How are twin towers differing in height less honest?...

If it's the exact same design, changing up the heights is in most case a contrived attempt to add variety, hence inherently dishonest. Unless the project is phased and the market crashes while constructing the second tower...

IMO, instead of watering down the effect of twin towers by rotating their plans or offsetting their locations on site, the twin-ness should be emphasized to add meaning as an urban artifact:

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by dleung

If it's the exact same design, changing up the heights is in most case a contrived attempt to add variety, hence inherently dishonest. Unless the project is phased and the market crashes while constructing the second tower...

IMO, instead of watering down the effect of twin towers by rotating their plans or offsetting their locations on site, the twin-ness should be emphasized to add meaning as an urban artifact:

You picture example shows us towers that simply mirror each other. Nice, I suppose. Unfortunately it lacks the necessary context: as these twins are not located directly beside a massive observation tower with which they must compliment, or ignore (and risk a visual clash, which would be Oxford Place's relationship with the CN Tower).

I don't see how having slightly different heights between two towers as somehow being artificial, or forcing variety. The purpose is in consideration of surrounding structures, to which most developers pay attention.

And just what would constitute enough difference, design-wise, to remove this subjective claim of 'contrived variety'? ...The addition of a spire? ...A different podium? ...Different glass colour?

[DrNest]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

And just what would constitute enough difference, design-wise, to remove this subjective claim of 'contrived variety'? ...The addition of a spire? ...A different podium? ...Different glass colour?

The antenna on the north tower of the old WTC in NYC was an obvious example of a slight variance, that instantly made it recognisable which of the twins you were looking at.

As for glass, I can't think of any examples around the world where there are twin towers which would be identical other than for different glass colour. I would like to see an image of what the Oxford proposal would look like if, say, one tower was green and one was red.

[RyeJay]

It's a good thing these two buildings have different coloured glass; otherwise, their difference in height would be..."contrived"?


Twin Towers in St. John's, NL, Canada by Bencito the Traveller, on Flickr


Oops!! Looks like Halifax missed the marked and forgot that different glass colour is required if they want towers of varied height...


Twin Towers in Halifax, NS, Canada by rwkphotos, on Flickr

[Wharn]

I sorta prefer varied height, but with a relatively small difference. This way the towers look "related" but are sufficiently different so as not to create the impression of an architectural monoculture. Given the sheer number of carbon-copy glass condos that have gone up in recent years, any variation is good.

Using the same design language but with a slightly blueprint (think Volkswagen Jetta vs. Volkswagen Passat) would also be nice. An example of this would be the TD Twin towers in London, which use both of the aforementioned design cues:



Please ignore the huge urban planning mistake in the foreground. Instead, note the unattractiveness of equal-height twins in the background.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Wharn

Please ignore the huge urban planning mistake in the foreground. Instead, note the unattractiveness of equal-height twins in the background.

Woah....

Umm, are there plans to renovate those dogs? (P.S.: I love London, ON. No offence meant!)

[DrNest]

Originally Posted by Wharn

Please ignore the huge urban planning mistake in the foreground. Instead, note the unattractiveness of equal-height twins in the background.

It's not the equal heights that make those background twins look so ugly, but more their hideous facade.

As for the red and blue towers in St. John's, I hadn't seen them before. I do like the contrasting colours, but still believe they would look equally as good had the towers been the same height.

[Nouvellecosse]

I prefer equal twins if they form the pinnacle of the skyline and are dominant enough that they'll likely do so for some time, while I prefer unequal twins if they're a non-dominant part of a larger skyline.

In Toronto's case, the towers would clearly not dominate the CN, so equal wouldn't be preferable. However, unlike in the posted examples, I feel the taller tower should be on the downtown side with the shorter one between it and the CN.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Woah....

Umm, are there plans to renovate those dogs? (P.S.: I love London, ON. No offence meant!)

Renovate? Nope, in fact as far as I can tell we're just putting up more of 'em. There's a whole boatload of concrete commieblocks that just went up at Wonderland and Oxford (aka most Russian intersection in the city), and a lot of the new construction downtown looks... quite different from the original renders, and very similar to these. The problem is the city is so desperate for development, they'll approve just about anything.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Wharn

Renovate? Nope, in fact as far as I can tell we're just putting up more of 'em. There's a whole boatload of concrete commieblocks that just went up at Wonderland and Oxford (aka most Russian intersection in the city), and a lot of the new construction downtown looks... quite different from the original renders, and very similar to these. The problem is the city is so desperate for development, they'll approve just about anything.

That's confusing, as modernised buildings made from other materials (including glass) that conform to LEED standards are cheaper in the long-term to maintain and operate, especially because they save on power and water usage.

Does London, ON have legislation that outlines project requirements? (heights, set-backs, acceptable materials, landscaping, etc...)

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

That's confusing, as modernised buildings made from other materials (including glass) that conform to LEED standards are cheaper in the long-term to maintain and operate, especially because they save on power and water usage.

Does London, ON have legislation that outlines project requirements? (heights, set-backs, acceptable materials, landscaping, etc...)

I'm sure they conform to LEED standards, just not the highest ones, and in the cheapest way possible. As far as I know there are no height restrictions, I'm sure the city has some sort of by-law regulating the other things that you mentioned, but judging from what has gone up recently it must be pretty lax.