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

IMG_0406.jpeg


IMG_0407.jpeg


IMG_0408.jpeg


 
You know what's weird? That you would post on a forum that pays homage to buildings, mostly taller ones, as is the current normal, to voice a contrarian opinion. Maybe this isn't a website suited to your tastes.
This is a silly post and we both know it. As was the OP's height fetish post. Maybe you need to broaden your perspective that quality development goes way beyond height.
We have posters on this site that defend new useless highways.

Sometimes the people on this site aren't as forward thinking as you would expect for a place discussing urban issues
What a wack take that height alone is forward thinking.
Skyscrapers are not a sine qua non of great cities. Many great cities have very few. I happen to be a skyscraper aficionado, but I don't agree that they are an essential feature of urbanity.
Thank you for the sane take.
Then it really is your loss. Wanting striking new buildings to be tall enough for you to see from your digs is a curious yardstick to use.
It's been an assortment of.. takes from that one.
 
This is a silly post and we both know it. As was the OP's height fetish post. Maybe you need to broaden your perspective that quality development goes way beyond height.

Height fetish post....seriously???

You make it sound like associating urbanism with big, bustling cities and soaring skylines is some kind of foreign concept.

That association is extremely common. When many people hear “urbanism,” they picture places like dense downtowns, dramatic skylines, and lots of activity. That mental image didn’t come out of nowhere. For decades, popular culture, tourism marketing, and even architecture media have equated “urban” with tall buildings, financial districts, and iconic skylines.

While "urbanism" doesn't technically mean that, let's not be "silly" — many people absolutely view urbanism that way.

That will be final response to this and I'll move on.
 

Back
Top