Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

It depends. Some people in any industry go to work everyday, use the technical terms in that business, then go home and don't think about it. Others spend more time talking with laypeople about what they do and come to recognize the distinct terms laypeople use when talking about their industry. But they wouldn't use laypeoples' terms while at work--unless laypeople came up with something really useful for them.
 
Mike in TO said:
In my years in the industry I've never once heard the term "super-tall". It is an arbitrary figure that only seems to be discussed on Internet forums. I would hazard a guess that most people in the architecture, design, building, planning professions have never heard of super-talls or mega-talls or whatever other terms there are out there... and I'd hazard a further guess that Mirvish has never heard nor would care about the arbitrary figure and maybe even Gehry May not be familiar with this imaginary line that internet skyscraper enthusiasts seem to think matters - for them the fact that the project surpasses FCP as Canada's tallest is likely the only line that they care about and for the planning department that shadow not hitting the Queen sidewalk is a line that they care about. These are two real lines that exist in the Toronto context.... 1000 feet doesn't really mean anything...
Click to expand...


Well, the term is out there and perhaps we have made it after all.

Here is alink to the Highrise and Supertall Proposals page at SkyscraperPage

Here is a link to the "Supertall Construction" Page at SkyscraperPage

Here is a llink to the "Supertalls" at SkyscraperCity

Here is a definition provided by the "Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat" (CTBUH)

D72D0878-AA0E-4D34-8C10-0010A1D80D93.png



61193183-3C6E-4BBD-9154-C75539A596ED.png


p.s. the majority of the buildings in the background are now either built or under construction.
 
Last edited:
Ok this megatall moniker is starting to get a bit much. Supertall was somewhat innovative, though not sure if they were the originators of the term. Are they planning on putting labels for buildings at every 300m interval? Talk about unnecessary. I mean now there's already a building under construction that will be 1000m tall, what category are they going to say that's in, Kilotall? Gigatall? And what are they going to use for the cut off? 900m as per every 300m or suddenly jump 400m to 1000m? yesh
 
vegeta_skyline said:
Ok this megatall moniker is starting to get a bit much. Supertall was somewhat innovative, though not sure if they were the originators of the term. Are they planning on putting labels for buildings at every 300m interval? Talk about unnecessary. I mean now there's already a building under construction that will be 1000m tall, what category are they going to say that's in, Kilotall? Gigatall? And what are they going to use for the cut off? 900m as per every 300m or suddenly jump 400m to 1000m? yesh
Click to expand...

It could go on forever, eh? Lol.

I don't think it's unnecessary to categorise buildings by height. New context is always welcome. Architecture is an art form as well, so an amount of discussion around buildings isn't going to be centred on the primary functions of the infrastructure itself -- but rather, by comparison to other buildings in other cities in other countries, perhaps in past time frames, etc...

What I do think is silly and unnecessary, though, is to assume developers care about how the online community is categorising their work. If there are no financial reasons to meet the metrics of whatever cultural label anyone wishes to apply -- it's silly to wonder why developers "tease" the markets and the public by *almost* building supertalls.

The re-categorisation of buildings will continue, just as it continues for music; just as it continues for animal and plant species.
 
The M+G West tower WILL BE A SUPERTALL, at 304.6m.
The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (of which I am a member) using the metric system for measuring and defining height categories.

http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/HeightStatistics/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Successive terms will not be applied in future for every large increment of heigh, except perhaps the km+ category (which we will soon see with the Kingdom Tower in Jeddah).
The destinations of "supertall" and "megatall" are not arbitrary, but describe a huge destination in architectural design, structural design, vertical transportation, and layout that occur when a building exceeds the range of 300 or 600 metres. Achieving heights like these require create a wholly different set of environmental condition around which the building will be designed.
These include sky lobbies, increased elevator banks, multiple mechanical levels, and aerodynamic form.
 
The destinations of "supertall" and "megatall" are not arbitrary, but describe a huge destination in architectural design, structural design, vertical transportation, and layout that occur when a building exceeds the range of 300 or 600 metres. Achieving heights like these require create a wholly different set of environmental condition around which the building will be designed.
These include sky lobbies, increased elevator banks, multiple mechanical levels, and aerodynamic form.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly accurate - the threshold of 300m and 600m does not suddenly induce new requirements on design. Whether Mirvish+Gehry is 295m or 305m would for example make very little material difference.

AoD
 
Big Daddy said:
I didn't say it was their target, but 1,000 feet has always been a goal for those building very tall buildings and it does seem odd to stop so close. It would be easy to tweak the roof element for example to reach the 1,000 foot (yes, nice catch RyeJay, you're right, that's imperial) mark.

I personally hope they do.
Click to expand...

A goal for who?
1000 feet is never some sort of threshold for anything. The idea of feet as discussed before, is more relevant for about 3 countries in the world.
Not that whether it is technically a supertall matters for this project, and if it does, 304 meters is a super-tall.

Plus 300m is not such a big deal, NYC is building a bunch
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-skyline-in-2020-2014-7
 
Plus 300m is not such a big deal, NYC is building a bunch
Click to expand...

OT - A friend of mine works on 432 Park Ave and worked on One57 as well - he posts great pictures on his Facebook.
 
Canadian Chocho said:
How wonderfully sensationalist by taking things out of their historical context. In any case, he certainly isn't winning me over as fan. What he may consider as a "vulgar relic" is a very current and necessary institution for some - you know, those that don't have pricey art collections. I really wonder what Ed would think of all of this, too bad we'll never know.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I'm surprised he doesn't understand the cultural impact his father's store has had on Toronto.

I realize it's a block that demands something that supports greater density, but I'd take Honest Ed's over another generic condo every single time.
 
Maybe consider that "people in the field" regard this Internet-fanboy obsession with supertalls the same way that professors have traditionally regarded using encyclopedias (from Britannica to Wikipedia) as primary research material...
 
adma said:
Maybe consider that "people in the field" regard this Internet-fanboy obsession with supertalls the same way that professors have traditionally regarded using encyclopedias (from Britannica to Wikipedia) as primary research material...
Click to expand...

Wow, is that supposed to be an analogy? I mean it doesn't make logical sense...
Anyway, aren't the people who finance, design, and construct Supertalls 'in the field', sort of?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top