Tarazet
New Member
Shenzhen has 16 completed over 300 metres with 5 more to be completed this year and next. There are 120 buildings taller than 200 metres.
Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
matthew921
New Member
I went to Shanghai and Shenzhen recently, it’s like New York City on steroids. Don’t even kid yourself, we are light years behind.
leftfieldto
Active Member
Only behind, if you consider Shanghai and Shenzhen as an example that we would aspire to. Frankly, I find that thought horrifying.
travis3000
Active Member
Im sure the city will grant them some type of increase like they did with The One. Not sure if they will get the 345m they are requesting. Someone with more knowledge of the council would be able to answer better than me.
allengeorge
Senior Member
New York is more than supertalls - Manhattan really overwhelms you with density. There's just buildings everywhere and just tons of retail and street life as a consequence. Toronto feels much...thinner...in comparison.
SkylineHorizons
New Member
Who said we're even trying to? Shanghai has a population of over 26 million, Shenzhen 17+ Toronto has less than 3.
It'd be embarrassing for Shanghai and Shenzhen to only be at Toronto's level skyscraper-wise, but good for them that they actually punch their weight now. Still wouldn't want to live there in a million years.
Torontoemerald68
New Member
Thank you for your comment!
Parkdalian
Senior Member
Sorry, don't mean to yuck anyone's yum, but I can't believe there are some people who even *care* about the number of "supertalls." As if any people - aside from people on this forum - use the word "supertalls" when they talk about this city or other cities. When people on this forum talk about supertalls it's like hearing people getting worked up about the square footage of the university they went to.
Bjays92
Senior Member
Height geeks like supertalls ok.
Tarazet
New Member
There are skyscraper enthusiasts around the world and the term ‘super tall’ is definitely not limited to members of this forum. Why would you feel the need to insult those whose interest is in building heights, especially on a forum partly dedicated to skyscrapers? I’ve travelled to 54 countries and photographed buildings in over 300 cities. There is something majestic about skyscrapers. I’m surprised you don’t understand the appeal of that.
Northern Light
Superstar
While I don't generally express myself in the same manner, I too have been critical of height fan-boys.
The reason is not an aversion to height, nor a desire to insult.
Rather its two-fold; first, I view any obsession about anything as bad. I don't care if its the opposite sex, the same sex, tall buildings, model trains, sports teams, musicians or actors etc etc. Its ok be to be interested, and appreciative of any number of things, but obsession is bad. Two, there are real adverse consequences to a height-at-any-cost worldview.
Height itself is not a problem, per se, but pedestrian wind conditions are, shadowed school yards and parks are; the ability to evacuate a building in the event of a fire is; the cost to construct it (affordability is), the impacts on traffic/congestion/transit are etc etc.
Which isn't a writ large opposition to tall buildings, many of which I support. Its an opposition to myopic, obsessive thinking that somehow another 10m, or 10 storeys will make the world a better place. Probably not, and certainly not merely because of the height for its own sake.
I prefer to see posters express nuanced views, as politely as possible, on any and all subjects; but those who oppose nuanced thinking (whether that's anti-height, or obsession w/same) can be a source of frustration.
Tarazet
New Member
Your comments are fair, but that’s not really what my reply was about. Of course the designers of buildings need to assess all the issues you listed and there are some who couldn’t care less about those issues in the interest of height, but the post that I commented on made no mention of that. Like you, I prefer a more nuanced approach to the topic and I was surprised that the poster equated a person’s interest in supertalls with their university’s square footage and seemed to think that the term ‘supertall’ was limited to members of this forum. I just felt that his comment needed a reply.
Northern Light
Superstar
Hold on........LOL
Those population numbers may be technically accurate by looking at the size of the named municipality, but they are not at all accurate.
Shanghai is 6,200km2 and change or roughly 10x the geography of the City of Toronto.
The fair comparison is the GTA (Greater Toronto area) which is only slightly larger at 7,000km2 and change.
The population of that geography is just over 6.7M in 2021 (so almost certainly over 7M today)
Shanghai is unquestionably more populous but the disparity is not what you made it out to be.
***
Metropolitan Shanghai is 40,000,000 people or roughly the population of Canada, spread over 14000km2 and change, or about 1/2 the area of the Greater Golden Horsehoe.
The GGH's population is in the range of 10.5M
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Personally, I think we're comparing apples to watermelons here. We're Toronto, not Shanghai, not Manhattan nor Kuala Lumpur. Our urban fabric and density is mostly unique to our own...however far from perfect it maybe. So can we give this a rest...
...and moar pics of these buildings please! And thnkx!
...and moar pics of these buildings please! And thnkx!
The Preservationist
Active Member
I would say my preference to building size would be most influenced by the architectural expression and material quality. As for density, I've done two work stints in Manhattan, its fascinating to visit but the lack of light, personal space, and living cost need to be considered.