Mike in TO
Senior Member
Big Daddy,
That may be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen written on this forum - and i've been on here for over 10 years... "Lacking Balls"?? This is easily one of the most ambitious projects on the entire planet right now - no one in the real world cares about this so called "super-tall" status - all that is is some kind of arbitrary number that a few internet skyscraper geeks seem to believe is important. Heights are not ever going to be based on a meaningless number of 1000 feet - if it ends up being 997 feet and costing $1 billion by arguably the most famous living architect does that mean it's a "ball less" project, but if a 3 foot $100 flagpole is attached that it will mean something special? Or if another substandard tower built on the cheap by a sub-par architect reaches that magic 1000 foot number that Toronto is special because it has a "super-tall". An arbitrary height number has nothing to do with planning or city-building, but sure I guess it means something to people that like city vs city lists. Can we please just stop talking about or caring about this meaningless term?
Travis3000, proximity to the CN Tower isn't going to have any bearing on discussions with the planning department, nor should it with council. That's not really a planning consideration.
That may be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen written on this forum - and i've been on here for over 10 years... "Lacking Balls"?? This is easily one of the most ambitious projects on the entire planet right now - no one in the real world cares about this so called "super-tall" status - all that is is some kind of arbitrary number that a few internet skyscraper geeks seem to believe is important. Heights are not ever going to be based on a meaningless number of 1000 feet - if it ends up being 997 feet and costing $1 billion by arguably the most famous living architect does that mean it's a "ball less" project, but if a 3 foot $100 flagpole is attached that it will mean something special? Or if another substandard tower built on the cheap by a sub-par architect reaches that magic 1000 foot number that Toronto is special because it has a "super-tall". An arbitrary height number has nothing to do with planning or city-building, but sure I guess it means something to people that like city vs city lists. Can we please just stop talking about or caring about this meaningless term?
Travis3000, proximity to the CN Tower isn't going to have any bearing on discussions with the planning department, nor should it with council. That's not really a planning consideration.