Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

Tarazet said:
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.
Click to expand...
A skyscraper, like any building, can be beautiful and worthy of photographs and visits. What I find mindboggling is anyone caring about whether this or any particular skyscraper is a "supertall" or how many "supertalls" we have in the city, and where we rank on the number of "supertalls." The whole definition is arbitrary. It's just point-scoring and means nothing. As if, for instance, Rome or Paris are deficient cities because they lack supertalls.

Go ahead and travel the world and photograph buildings. No one is insulting you. But know that many people find the talk about supertalls mindnumbing because it doesn't really capture what is important, inspiring and wonderful about the cities that the supertalls happen to be in.
 
Parkdalian said:
A skyscraper, like any building, can be beautiful and worthy of photographs and visits. What I find mindboggling is anyone caring about whether this or any particular skyscraper is a "supertall" or how many "supertalls" we have in the city, and where we rank on the number of "supertalls." The whole definition is arbitrary. It's just point-scoring and means nothing. As if, for instance, Rome or Paris are deficient cities because they lack supertalls.

Go ahead and travel the world and photograph buildings. No one is insulting you. But know that many people find the talk about supertalls mindnumbing because it doesn't really capture what is important, inspiring and wonderful about the cities that the supertalls happen to be in.
Click to expand...
I feel it is about the process of watching them be built more than the actual buildings themselves. I literally live on this and the ones page why? Because I want to see how a 300-m building gets built. I want to marvel at the engineering that goes into making something that monolithic. I also feel that we take pride and watching others work on these projects as well. And we also like to be coach quarterbacks in some cases. But I will say Toronto can build as many super talls and if they want to throw a mega tall and there as well, I won't complain. I don't live in Toronto so it doesn't affect me but I am definitely loving watching everything as it goes up. I don't even mind concord sky that much
 
Interesting that when the conversation blunders to the number of supertalls we have, or the number of figures we make, it's all just euphemistic compensation for the same thing lol.

Back on topic.....if Sky Tower gets approved for 344m, will The One still be taller at 328m overall (ie relative to sea level)?
 
limer said:
Interesting that when the conversation blunders to the number of supertalls we have, or the number of figures we make, it's all just euphemistic compensation for the same thing lol.

Back on topic.....if Sky Tower gets approved for 344m, will The One still be taller at 328m overall (ie relative to sea level)?
Click to expand...
That's like saying 2 story house is taller on top of a hill than the same house at a bottom of a valley. That is, the observational height will change, but the building does not in fact get taller.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
That's like saying 2 story house is taller on top of a hill than the same house at a bottom of a valley. That is, the observational height will change, but the building does not in fact get taller.
Click to expand...
It would be apparently taller in the skyline, when say viewed from the west.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
UtakataNoAnnex said:
That's like saying 2 story house is taller on top of a hill than the same house at a bottom of a valley. That is, the observational height will change, but the building does not in fact get taller.
Click to expand...
Yes...I understand that. I'm curious which building would be a technically higher peak in the city. Mount Everest isn't the tallest mountain, it's just the tallest peak, and people put value in that.

afransen said:
1 Bloor W is apparently 117 m elevation, 1 Yonge is 78m, so 39m elevation difference.
Click to expand...

edit: thanks!
 
Rascacielo said:
Amazing that walking up from the lake to Yonge & Bloor is like going from ground floor to the 12th floor of a typical Toronto residential tower. It's hardly noticeable, except when you're cycling.
Click to expand...

Topographic maps are pretty neat. I like the pretty evident shores of what was called Lake Iroquois around St Clair, when the water level was much higher.

en-ca.topographic-map.com

Toronto topographic map, elevation, terrain

Average elevation: 113 m • Toronto, Golden Horseshoe, Ontario, M6K 1X9, Canada • Despite its deep ravines, Toronto is not remarkably hilly, but its elevation does increase steadily away from the lake. Elevation differences range from 76.5 metres (251 ft) above sea level at the Lake Ontario shore...
en-ca.topographic-map.com en-ca.topographic-map.com
 
afransen said:
Topographic maps are pretty neat. I like the pretty evident shores of what was called Lake Iroquois around St Clair, when the water level was much higher.

en-ca.topographic-map.com

Toronto topographic map, elevation, terrain

Average elevation: 113 m • Toronto, Golden Horseshoe, Ontario, M6K 1X9, Canada • Despite its deep ravines, Toronto is not remarkably hilly, but its elevation does increase steadily away from the lake. Elevation differences range from 76.5 metres (251 ft) above sea level at the Lake Ontario shore...
en-ca.topographic-map.com en-ca.topographic-map.com
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've always valued the idea of ancient Lake Iroquois lapping upon the hills of Sunnybrook and toward what's now around the DVP, down to the lake. And of course, down to Davenport/Dupont to the west. It's difficult to visualize, but it's an interesting way to humble oneself in light of the power of mother nature over thousands of years.
I really feel like more people should now about this, considering how influential is has been to city building in some ways. Anyways, the different height elevations along Yonge really allow for some interesting height peaks to form in our skyline, especially into the future with taller buildings going up in places previously maintained as lowrise communities.
 
Today:

20230630_142501.jpg
 
limer said:
Interesting that when the conversation blunders to the number of supertalls we have, or the number of figures we make, it's all just euphemistic compensation for the same thing lol.

Back on topic.....if Sky Tower gets approved for 344m, will The One still be taller at 328m overall (ie relative to sea level)?
Click to expand...
You can say that The One will be higher than Sky Tower, but calling The One taller will be factually incorrect.
 
A number of posts that veered somewhat tangentially further and further off topic have just been deleted from this thread, particularly the ones that got personal. Don't get personal in a negative way please, understand that others may view things differently for their own good reasons... and please try to stick to the facts (the project), m'am.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top