HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2010, 10:18 PM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,778
Yeah I know I've voiced my opposition to supertalls in Vancouver for some time, BUT... now I'm thinking of those beautiful european cities with their skyline dominated by some cathedral or clock tower.

And the only way Vancouver can possibly handle a supertall is if it is so tall that it is conceived to the scale of nature itself; it doesn't relate to the buildings around it, but rather the mountains across the inlet.

Fantasy proposal of a 1300-foot Tower Verre where the Sears building is:






It won't be an office tower, but rather a monument filled predominantly with public uses and functions. One would be able to look up from almost anywhere within the forest of skyscrapers and see the "beacon" looming above it all and reflecting different colours from the sun at various times of the day. It has to anchor Robson square like a true monument, timeless, built to last 500 years, with the highest quality materials... glass made from gemstones or something...

This will not set a precedent; with a 1300-footer, I'm actually less inclined towards wanting other tall buildings. In fact, there should be new viewcones pointing towards the tower, preventing tall buildings from surrounding it, so that it maintains its dominance over the skyline.

Last edited by dleung; Nov 12, 2010 at 10:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2010, 10:21 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is online now
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sunnyside, Calgary
Posts: 15,579
That's pretty sweet, I like how you sell it.
__________________
Proud supporter of Naheed Nenshi as Mayor!
Bigtime Goes to Antarctica
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2010, 10:34 PM
hrisemiky hrisemiky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 230
thats cool but shangri-la looks to tall as it is
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2010, 10:40 PM
Chad Berry Chad Berry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: toronto
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
I have no idea what the hell is wrong with a lot of the forumers here (and so many Canadians in general). There's this whole entire culture of hate for anyone or anyplace in our country that happens to have it better than where or whoever you are. Being Canadians (just like the rest of you!), Torontonians end up finding ourselves apologizing for living here and slagging ourselves and our city just cuz there's so much negativity aimed at Toronto from all corners of the country... it's no wonder we end up voting in a vision-less moron as a mayor.

I live in Toronto, I don't think I live "in the centre of the universe" which seems to be some sort of slogan invented by people living elsewhere in the country. I like it here, just as much as I assume you like where you live. I can joke with you about where you live and I can joke about where I live in a friendly ribbing.. but over the past 9 years it's been the exact same BS on this forum where it seems to have almost become accepted policy that Toronto-bashing is ok.

On this forum, it seems that every time there's a thread about Toronto the Toronto-bashing Trolls come out demanding that these thread get shoved into some Toronto sub-forum and out of the Canada forum.

Quit the trolling and grow up. This includes some of you "old-timers" here.

As if you people haven't caused enough damage to the forum over the past few years driving almost all the Toronto forumers to UT & SSC. Where is the Toronto subforum you ask? We had one, it died because the Toronto posters left seeking friendlier skies, kicked out by their fellow Canadians REMEMBER??
Thank you!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2010, 10:56 PM
Chad Berry Chad Berry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: toronto
Posts: 58
And to all those forumers ridiculing the title, I said TORONTO because it's the only likely place to build a building of that size, it fits more naturally because of the surrounding 200+ buildings. Calgary may have a shot at this as well, but they need a larger skyline to balance it. And I highly doubt Montreal will build that high or vancouver. And I have no idea whatsoever why someone would suggest Edmonton????? Edmonton has a smaller skyline then Toronto's suburbs. Also, why was St.John's brought into this??? They have somewhere around 100,000 people, and that's the largest city in the entire province. They have no need for a building that size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2010, 11:11 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Berry View Post
And to all those forumers ridiculing the title, I said TORONTO because it's the only likely place to build a building of that size, it fits more naturally because of the surrounding 200+ buildings. Calgary may have a shot at this as well, but they need a larger skyline to balance it. And I highly doubt Montreal will build that high or vancouver. And I have no idea whatsoever why someone would suggest Edmonton????? Edmonton has a smaller skyline then Toronto's suburbs. Also, why was St.John's brought into this??? They have somewhere around 100,000 people, and that's the largest city in the entire province. They have no need for a building that size.
I brought up St. John's because it has by far the lowest vacancy rate of any city in Canada. Are there some SSP rules stating that I cannot mention this that I should no of? I never really understand why people dis Tornoto but you're making it pretty clear why.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2010, 11:29 PM
Traynor's Avatar
Traynor Traynor is offline
Back to Basics
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,232
I'll reiterate what I said earlier...

We are all going to be shocked that Canada's first Supertall will end up in Niagara Falls. It will be a combination Casino/Hotel/Observation tower.

Mark my words... You wait and see.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2010, 11:36 PM
Chad Berry Chad Berry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: toronto
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
I brought up St. John's because it has by far the lowest vacancy rate of any city in Canada. Are there some SSP rules stating that I cannot mention this that I should no of? I never really understand why people dis Tornoto but you're making it pretty clear why.
Yeah, but Toronto actually needs to build up, we've been building into the Greenridge or whatever it's called

Last edited by Chad Berry; Nov 13, 2010 at 12:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 12:31 AM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW Laurasia
Posts: 2,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Berry View Post
And to all those forumers ridiculing the title, I said TORONTO because it's the only likely place to build a building of that size, it fits more naturally because of the surrounding 200+ buildings. Calgary may have a shot at this as well, but they need a larger skyline to balance it. And I highly doubt Montreal will build that high or vancouver. And I have no idea whatsoever why someone would suggest Edmonton????? Edmonton has a smaller skyline then Toronto's suburbs. Also, why was St.John's brought into this??? They have somewhere around 100,000 people, and that's the largest city in the entire province. They have no need for a building that size.
Hmm, as one of those that took umbridge to your original focus on Toronto (and this from someone born and bred in the Smoke), the reasons for building a supertall DO exist in city's other than Toronto. These reasons are demand, zoning, constraints (land availability) plus hubris. While the concentration of these requirements is greatest in Toronto THEY DO EXIST ELSEWHERE! Missie, the Falls (<< added as per above post), Calgary and others do have a chance to build a 300+M building before Toronto - perhaps the odds aren't high, but they are greater than zero.

BTW, symmetry of a skyline has NO BEARING on a developer building a supertall. They don't sit around a table planning to spend $500M just to balanace out a nice skyline.

Again, as someone from Toronto, I was offended that initially it was felt that only Toronto should partake in this discussion. With the new thread title this now warrants inclusion in the Canada section.

PS. It the Oakridges, not Greenridges
__________________
Calgary: We do more DP's per capita than anyone else!!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 12:36 AM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW Laurasia
Posts: 2,709
Now as to who will see the first 300+M bldg in Canada?? I'm betting 70% on Toronto and 30% Surrey.

The likely Toronto Canadidate will be a mixed use resi-office as though there is office demand, it's not enough to warrant roughly 1.5-2M in one structure.

Surrey on the other hand will be partially due to demand but moreso hubris. Lots of SE Asia money wants to make an impact. So I'm guessing another mixed use resi-office with 1M office and 30 floors of condo.

Calgary will not likely see anything under consideration in this size for 20+ years as the market is happy in the sub 250M range. Hubris is surprisingly low in real estate here (now anyway) and there is no office demand coming down the pipe for anything bigger.

Missie is a dark horse though. But I guess Missie will count as Toronto!
__________________
Calgary: We do more DP's per capita than anyone else!!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 12:38 AM
Martin Mtl's Avatar
Martin Mtl Martin Mtl is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,980
You can take Montreal out of the discussion. There is a height limit in this city. Anything taller than 200 meters (take or leave a few meters, depending where you build) is not permitted.
__________________
- Mais vous êtes fou monsieur!
- Pas du tout! C'est vous qui ne l'êtes pas!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 12:42 AM
Chad Berry Chad Berry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: toronto
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
Hmm, as one of those that took umbridge to your original focus on Toronto (and this from someone born and bred in the Smoke), the reasons for building a supertall DO exist in city's other than Toronto. These reasons are demand, zoning, constraints (land availability) plus hubris. While the concentration of these requirements is greatest in Toronto THEY DO EXIST ELSEWHERE! Missie, the Falls (<< added as per above post), Calgary and others do have a chance to build a 300+M building before Toronto - perhaps the odds aren't high, but they are greater than zero.

BTW, symmetry of a skyline has NO BEARING on a developer building a supertall. They don't sit around a table planning to spend $500M just to balanace out a nice skyline.

Again, as someone from Toronto, I was offended that initially it was felt that only Toronto should partake in this discussion. With the new thread title this now warrants inclusion in the Canada section.

PS. It the Oakridges, not Greenridges
I know other places could build supertalls as well, I'm just saying that Toronto is where it will most likely be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 12:57 AM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is online now
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 9,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Berry View Post
And to all those forumers ridiculing the title, I said TORONTO because it's the only likely place to build a building of that size, it fits more naturally because of the surrounding 200+ buildings. Calgary may have a shot at this as well, but they need a larger skyline to balance it. And I highly doubt Montreal will build that high or vancouver. And I have no idea whatsoever why someone would suggest Edmonton????? Edmonton has a smaller skyline then Toronto's suburbs. Also, why was St.John's brought into this??? They have somewhere around 100,000 people, and that's the largest city in the entire province. They have no need for a building that size.
They key here is that you need to be inclusive in the debate in the Canada forum. If it is specifically a Toronto thread, then it goes into the Ontario section where people from Toronto can discuss in detail. There are several cities in the push for taller buildings so to exclude others ambitions else is a bit conceited. The modified title makes things more clear and make less people offended.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 1:00 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
I brought up St. John's because it has by far the lowest vacancy rate of any city in Canada. Are there some SSP rules stating that I cannot mention this that I should no of? I never really understand why people dis Tornoto but you're making it pretty clear why.
Regina is lower. The most info I could find was that in Q1 of 2010 St. John's was at 4.6%, meanwhile as of a news article from Oct. 6, 2010, Regina is sitting at 2.9%. And a 90m office tower that is going up pretty much has all space spoken for already and they are still doing site preparations/excavation.

For a lot of cities a supertall would be a very interesting thing, although chances of it happening are pretty much non-existant. St. John's would look out into the ocean... Saskatoon would have great views of the Saskatchewan River Valley, Regina would have flat prairie as far as you can see, except to the north - if you are up high enough - you might be able to see a bit of the Qu'Appelle Valley system.

However, like someone other people mentioned... I think the only contenders here are Toronto, Montreal (although I guess a MTL poster just mentioned the restrictions), Calgary, and Vancouver. But who knows... Edmonton or Missie could surprise people. I still think it will be a long time before Canada gets into this range though... If we didn't do it during our expansion we underwent prior to the recession, I don't know how long it will take until the timing is right and investors line up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 1:46 AM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is online now
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Liver & Onions
Posts: 21,424
You are all forgetting about Drummondville.
__________________
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. -Donald Rumsfeld
Didn't you notice on the plane when you started talking, eventually I started reading the vomit bag?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 2:05 AM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 7,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traynor View Post
Cities all over the world have observation towers that are eventually surpassed in height by other structures (Ahem....cough... Calgary Tower) and yet the observation tower remains a tourist attraction. So the CN Tower is irrelevant in Toronto's quest for a Supertall. Furthermore, many cities in China are building observation towers right up close to Supertalls... Shanghai and Guangzhou come to mind.
Well, in Shanghai the observation tower came well before the supertalls - the Oriental Pearl was built in 1994, while Jin Mao came in 1999, SWFC in 2008, and Shanghai Centre won't be done until 2014. I think that the Pearl's attraction to tourists is still pretty high, though with Jin Mao, SWFC, and Shanghai Centre all having observation decks, I'd say its share of tourists is going to decline significantly.
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 2:20 AM
RTD RTD is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 857
I think Winnipeg, in a few years, could also become a contender. Our economy has been growing stronger over the years, and now are population is growing at record levels. With the introduction of CentrePort Canada that will see a huge influx businesses set up shop in the city, this will be a catalyst to help drive the economy even faster, attracting more offices to the downtown core, and eventually building more skyscrapers. And when we boot out the Socialist provincial goverment next year, I feel that things will really get rolling in this province!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 2:59 AM
davidivivid's Avatar
davidivivid davidivivid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ville de Québec City
Posts: 2,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
Regina is lower. The most info I could find was that in Q1 of 2010 St. John's was at 4.6%, meanwhile as of a news article from Oct. 6, 2010, Regina is sitting at 2.9%. And a 90m office tower that is going up pretty much has all space spoken for already and they are still doing site preparations/excavation.
According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as of june of this year:

"the centres with the lowest vacancy rates were Québec City (0.4 per cent), Regina (0.8 per cent), Winnipeg (1.0 per cent), and St. John’s (1.1 per cent). At a provincial level, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador posted the lowest vacancy rates at 1.0 per cent and 1.1 per cent, respectively."

http://www.cmhc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere...06-15-0815.cfm

In the last few years, office towers and condominium complexes have multiplied in Quebec city and many more towers are supposedly going to be built in the next few years. That being said, many people here (urgh...) seem to have strong allergic reactions to anything taller than 17 stories high, which is the current height limit. Fortunately, city regulations are changing as we speak but we will never, never see a supertall in Quebec City!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 3:13 AM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidivivid View Post
According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as of june of this year:

"the centres with the lowest vacancy rates were Québec City (0.4 per cent), Regina (0.8 per cent), Winnipeg (1.0 per cent), and St. John’s (1.1 per cent). At a provincial level, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador posted the lowest vacancy rates at 1.0 per cent and 1.1 per cent, respectively."

http://www.cmhc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere...06-15-0815.cfm

In the last few years, office towers and condominium complexes have multiplied in Quebec city and many more towers are supposedly going to be built in the next few years. That being said, many people here (urgh...) seem to have strong allergic reactions to anything taller than 17 stories high, which is the current height limit. Fortunately, city regulations are changing as we speak but we will never, never see a supertall in Quebec City!!!!!!
That report is for residential not office.

As of October there is no class A office space left in St. John's, I don't no about the overall rate though.

The city has only approved one office "tower" and it will only include I think 6 floors of office space so I doubt it will do much for the vacancy rate or help with the ever increasing cost of office space.

Update: Here is a June report on St. John's vacancy rates.
Quote:
The current vacancy rates in Greater St. John’s are: Class A 0%; Class B 4.68%; Class C 9.22%; Overall 3.86%.
https://www.turnerdrake.com/survey/attachments/85.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 3:18 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidivivid View Post
According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as of june of this year:

"the centres with the lowest vacancy rates were Québec City (0.4 per cent), Regina (0.8 per cent), Winnipeg (1.0 per cent), and St. John’s (1.1 per cent). At a provincial level, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador posted the lowest vacancy rates at 1.0 per cent and 1.1 per cent, respectively."

http://www.cmhc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere...06-15-0815.cfm

In the last few years, office towers and condominium complexes have multiplied in Quebec city and many more towers are supposedly going to be built in the next few years. That being said, many people here (urgh...) seem to have strong allergic reactions to anything taller than 17 stories high, which is the current height limit. Fortunately, city regulations are changing as we speak but we will never, never see a supertall in Quebec City!!!!!!
Yes, I saw that article, but that's all about apartment rentals, not office buildings, which is the figure I was looking at. Office or combination office/condo buildings are the only buildings that have a chance at having a supertall; so that's why I ignored the apartment statistics.

There are a few buildings going up in Regina now/in the near future... and thankfully, there generally isn't any resistance to height... however; nothing over 100m has been proposed unfortunately. It's not like we have mountains or huge historic buidlings that we would be blocking here. And the legislature is completely apart from the central business district in a huge park, so it's view is always preserved. We do have the problem with a horrible clay bed though requiring very intense preparation work for towers the size we actually do have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
That report is for residential not office.

As of October there is no class A office space left in St. John's, I don't no about the overall rate though.

The city has only approved one office "tower" and it will only include I think 6 floors of office space so I doubt it will do much for the vacancy rate or help with the ever increasing cost of office space.
The Regina class A vacancy rate is around or just under 1%, so even if St. John's is at virtually zero, there is still almost no comparable difference from Regina.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:35 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.