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)?
 
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)?
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.
 
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.
It would be apparently taller in the skyline, when say viewed from the west.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
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.
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.

1 Bloor W is apparently 117 m elevation, 1 Yonge is 78m, so 39m elevation difference.

edit: thanks!
 
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.

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.

 
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.

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
 
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)?
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
 

Back
Top