Toronto 2 Queen West | 34.44m | 7s | Cadillac Fairview | Zeidler

BTW this should be in the clear in terms of shadowing for NPS. BAC is 215 meters and is 195 meters away, while this is 210ish and will be 220 meters away.
 
bleu said:
taal, got your point, but there is no such thing as X is 4 times smaller than B. I don't know why people keep saying things like that. When A is 25% the size of B, we say A is 75% smaller than B, not 4 times smaller, which would result in A being a negative size.
Click to expand...

Hi there! Math teacher here, just wondering how taking a dimension (necessarily positive) and multiplying by a fraction (1/4 in this case) yields a negative number? And who is this "we" you speak of that calls things 75% smaller? I think I'd break out the red sharpie if I saw that written on a test.
 
DtTO said:
So this building will be rental and not condos? As much as I want it to go ahead at this height, I'm positive the city will come back with shadowing rubbish. Oh, and there's always the need to have a tapering skyline since organically formed skylines are cancerous and (apparently) less pleasant to view from Etobicoke.
Click to expand...

This should probably clear the shadowing problem on NPS and the tapering policy shouldn't affect it either. I get the shadowing policy on parks, prominent public spaces & such but the tapered skyline policy is ridiculous IMO. I think this is a great place for a proposal like this, and I'm liking that more apartment rentals are being built and proposed in the past few years given the obvious shortage downtown.
 
whatever said:
Hi there! Math teacher here, just wondering how taking a dimension (necessarily positive) and multiplying by a fraction (1/4 in this case) yields a negative number? And who is this "we" you speak of that calls things 75% smaller? I think I'd break out the red sharpie if I saw that written on a test.
Click to expand...

4 times = 400%. 4 times smaller = 400% smaller
X is 4 times smaller than B = X is 400% smaller than B

Which means A = B * (1-400%) = B * (-300%)= -3B
Keep in mind you are wrong in multiplying by 1/4. Being 4 times smaller means being 400% smaller. You are a math teacher, you should know better :D

Just like when you said X is 50% smaller than Y, X = Y *(1-50%)= 0.5Y.

It is a common mistake people make. Your being a math teacher didn't much. It is probably precisely why kids say senseless things like this.
Fortunately I didn't learn math in Canada.

way off the topic but I thought I should explain. Math education in Canada is simply subpar.
 
Bleu, even with all those neighbourhoods of mere houses, the old 37 sq. mi. city of Toronto has a density of 20,000 people per sq. mile. That's more dense than any city proper in the U.S. and Canada save NYC. The current 240 sq. mi. city of Toronto has a density of 11,630 people per sq. mile given the most recent estimate which put the city population at 2,791,140.
 
bleu said:
4 times = 400%. 4 times smaller = 400% smaller
X is 4 times smaller than B = X is 400% smaller than B
Click to expand...

4 times = 300%

1 time does not equal 100%... 1 time equals 1. Something is 2 times when it equals 100%. For example, when something is 100% more, it is double (or 2x or 2 times). So when something is 4 times, it is 300%, NOT 400%.

bleu said:
It is a common mistake people make. Your being a math teacher didn't much. It is probably precisely why kids say senseless things like this.
Fortunately I didn't learn math in Canada.
Click to expand...

Yep. I did.
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
Circa 1972

f0124_fl0002_id0151-woolworths-yonge-queen-1972.jpg


Now

Screen-shot-2012-12-10-at-4.03.52-PM.png
Click to expand...

Interesting to note of that portion of 2 Queen W north of the corner portion- the windows look a bit different, but is it a remnant of Eaton's?
 
bleu said:
Keep in mind you are wrong in multiplying by 1/4. Being 4 times smaller means being 400% smaller. You are a math teacher, you should know better :D
Click to expand...

Ah, I understand now. If X is n times the size of Y it logically follows that Y is 1/n times the size of X. I'm quite correct in pointing out that the inverse of 4 is 1/4, and you are simultaneously doing terrible, awful things to math, English, and logic. You've just demonstrated the foolishness of combining comparative adjectives with percentages.

But this is off-topic, I desist.
 
Not sure what the whole spiel is. It's a harmless generally accepted and understood figure of speech.

Otherwise on more pressing matter, recent Zeidler renditions would define rather tolerable but RCMI-level humdrum-ness.
 
jje1000 said:
Interesting to note of that portion of 2 Queen W north of the corner portion- the windows look a bit different, but is it a remnant of Eaton's?
Click to expand...

It's an addition to the structure, Eaton's main store was further north.
 
I see it now, it would also be interesting to see how that extension once looked like- POMO?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top