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.
Let's get a supertall (300-600m) before a megatall (600m+). One step at a time.
And yes, megatall is now a new category made by the council of tall buildings or whatever they're called. I guess with so many towers now over 300m a new category had to be created.
__________________
I'd rather be homeless than live in a condo...but I do like watching attractive ones get built...like Woodwards, 42 in Waterloo, and anything by Daoust/Saucier+Perotte/Nomade/aA/Teeple
300 metres is great, but it should be at least 304.8 metres to the roof (1000 feet), just to shut up any American naysayers...
You're right. As muc as some of us ate to admit it, the supertall is a concept established in the US and as always been 1000 ft. A fact that's easy to forget when living in the land of metric.
You're right. As muc as some of us ate to admit it, the supertall is a concept established in the US and as always been 1000 ft. A fact that's easy to forget when living in the land of metric.
Toronto definitely needs something in the 400m-450m range. Or maybe a little higher on a par with, for example from the picture posted above, the Shanghai WTC. Then with the addition of a few more towers in the 300-350m range, the skyline will begin to look even more impressive on the world stage.
Prev
Linear Mode
