PDA

View Full Version : Love it or hate it-- Calgary skyline screams home


Doug
Jan 6, 2008, 4:27 PM
Love it or hate it-- Calgary skyline screams home
What the city's evolving skyline says about who we are

Jennifer Allford, Calgary Herald
Published: Sunday, January 06, 2008


It disappears and magically reappears while you walk along Nose Hill. Busloads of Japanese tourists stop in Rosedale to take its picture, offset by the magnificence that is the Rocky Mountains. Driving north on Macleod Trail, it emerges suddenly, urgently even, as you ascend from the strip malls and car dealers of Erlton.

There are many different views of the Calgary skyline, and each tells part of the story of the city.

Any TV cameraman or woman will tell you the particular skyline shot they need to tell a certain story: if it's about hockey, the Saddledome is in the foreground; if alluding to the city's prairie roots, you shoot east from Broadcast Hill; many photographers flock to Scotchman's Hill for their money shot.

It seems Calgary's skyline is transformed every time he's looked through the lens over the past 30 years.

"I have shot the skyline so often, in every season, and it's always a little bit different," Genereux says. "There's always a different building -- and that's what the skyline always says to me: Calgary is always changing."

Constant change -- growth -- is, of course, a big part of Calgary's story. Over the decades it's resulted in a variety of shapes, heights, trends, proportions, textures and colours plus at least one structure that elicits a full range of opinions (are you one of those laughing with -- or at -- that stadium shaped like a saddle?).

The collection of buildings crammed between the Bow and Elbow rivers, 14th Street and 17th Avenue in the southwest, has evolved in fits and starts along with the city's economy. Cranes have heralded the booms; plentiful parking lots have told of the busts.

Pat Moore has seen it all.

The legendary community volunteer and self-described "dyed-in-the-wool Calgarian" has watched the skyline grow, even as parts of it have disappeared, for seven decades now.

"I remember the days when the skyline was the Palliser Hotel and the Robin Hood Mill," recalls Moore. "The mill disappeared and I don't know how many people have commented to me over the years about how they miss it."

Moore misses a lot of old buildings that were ripped down in the name of progress. And, she's not too fond of the plain corporate boxes that kept popping up to replace them in the '60s and '70s.

When Moore looks at Calgary's skyline, she sees an impatient teenager who doesn't reflect on the past or look ahead past Saturday night's date.

"We seem to follow the trends, which shows the lack of confidence westerners have. We want to look like Toronto rather than having confidence in who it is we are."

Moore is pleased with the growing aplomb she sees in the more unique shapes that touch the sky -- the Petro-Canada building and Bankers Hall -- and she's looking forward to seeing more interesting silhouettes in the sky as we grow past the teenage years.

The city has attempted to guide development of those silhouettes with plans and policies that date back to the Mawson Plan of 1914 (the grand vision for a "beautiful city" tanked with the economy of the day). The latest document, the 2005 Centre City Plan, sketches out a long-term vision and a number of ideas for developing the city's core.

There are policies to ensure lasting views of green spaces and landmarks; there are Sunlight Preservation Guidelines and a Shadow Sensitive Areas Concept, all meant to help create a "livable, caring and thriving place."

This "What Not to Wear" guide for our gangly teenager recognizes that the peaks and shadows, towers and glass tell a story about who we are. The skyline is a physical manifestation of the expectations and associations people have about the city where they live, work and/or play. The skyline is a big part of what the cool kids call our brand.

Stephanie Jackman, president of Blueprint Brand Strategies, explains: "A brand is the relationship between an entity and its stakeholders and it's created through interactions and personal experiences. Every organization has a brand, whether it is created deliberately or by accident, and a city is no exception."

Jackman sees the thriving economy in the skyline. She sees recreation with the rivers and the Talisman Centre. She sees Stampede Park and a western heritage. Jackman also sees growing pains.

"Calgary's skyline reflects the entrepreneurial spirit and vast opportunities available to a percentage of the population. It also reflects the challenges associated with a traditional city model that concentrates work and housing in different geographies, limiting the access to these opportunities and alienating portions of the population."

Look carefully; you can see difficult commutes to the core, skyrocketing house prices and social inequities in the skyline.

There are about 30,000 people who live downtown and another 120,000 people who work there. By 2025, there will be as many as 70,000 residents and 180,000 workers downtown. That could mean between 16 and 26 shiny new 30-storey towers by 2025.

There are a handful on the books now: Centennial Place I, City Centre I, Jameson Place. The Penny Lane Towers will mimic the mountains to the west. EnCana's Bow Tower will be named for the river. These projects -- conceived and built in an unprecedented boom -- reflect the bravado of the times.

The Encana project in particular has provoked much thumping of the chest.

The 58- storey Bow will trump its neighbour, the Petro-Canada Tower, to become the tallest office building in Canada west of Toronto. The building -- designed by internationally acclaimed architectural firm Foster + Partners -- is widely credited with putting Calgary's skyline on the world architectural map.

Not so fast, says Trevor Boddy, former Calgarian and architecture critic. While he likes the tower's design and concedes it will help define the skyline, he says hiring a big, famous architect isn't nearly as daring as it appears.

"It's easier to buy your reputation than earn one," reflects Boddy. "It's like relying on names when you shop at Holt Renfrew; like not picking by texture colour or fit, but picking by name. It represents insecurity and lack of confidence in innovative architecture more than some breakthrough."

Boddy says Calgary will know it's grown up architecturally when it can support a few provocative local mid-sized firms as well as the existing big corporate firms and the small creative ones.

He says what's already remarkable about Calgary's skyline is reflected not in architect's renderings, but in children's drawings that show impossibly tall towers surrounded by tiny bungalows.

"Calgary's always had a very unusual skyline and I don't know any other place in the world where single-family houses get that close to 40-storey towers."

Boddy hadn't thought much about this unique feature until a cab ride downtown in the 1970s with one of the most famous architects in the world, Rem Koolhaus.

Koolhaus was thrilled at the anomaly of buildings next to bungalows and Boddy recalls their conversation whenever he drives into the Calgary's core.

"Most cities have a belt of older buildings, or warehouses or apartment buildings around the core, but Calgary has that amazing kind of vista down a Kensington street to the wall of towers."

Paul Hardy lives on one of those streets in Kensington. When the acclaimed fashion designer looks across the river at the skyline -- specifically the matching gold and silver towers of Bankers Hall -- he sees commerce and consumerism.

"This is a very consumer-driven city; there is a lot of keeping up with the Joneses and high stress in this town," offers Hardy. "When you look at the skyline, there's almost a spirit of consumption you can see."

But Hardy also sees pure, aesthetic beauty. He likes what he calls "the rhythm of the skyline" particularly from the bluff in Rosedale. In design theory classes at art school, students were taught to squint at objects in order to see their purity.

The skyline passes Hardy's squint test: "When you look across, you see the negative space and it outlines a really nice balance."

Genereux's favourite shot of the skyline is from the Calgary Zoo's south parking lot: the river's in the foreground and the towers loom beyond. The cameraman -- who has spent years working on the road -- always finds Calgary's skyline welcoming: "It doesn't matter which major highway you drive in from or whether you're flying in, the first thing you see is the skyline. And it screams home."

It's a comforting sight.

Even with its teenage angst (complete with bouts of acne, the odd bad tattoo and ill-placed piercing), Calgary's skyline reflects the struggle to cope with the appetites, growing pains and stretch marks that accompany rapid growth.

"Good design always respects the past and reflects the future," adds designer Hardy.

When asked what Calgary's skyline would be if it were an item of clothing, he hesitates only for a second, before offering up, "It would be a clean, crisp, white shirt."

Let's hope our still-growing arms don't poke too far out of the sleeves.


© The Calgary Herald 2008

dansk
Jan 6, 2008, 4:59 PM
Nice article, and well written.

Coldrsx
Jan 6, 2008, 5:12 PM
great article

Rusty van Reddick
Jan 6, 2008, 6:02 PM
"Tallest west of Toronto." Again. Fuck.

"It's easier to buy your reputation than to earn it." Yes, because Boddy's beloved Vancouver would never rely on world-famous architects. Ya know, he reviewed Radiant City in the Globe a while back and I emailed him to correct him when he said "Calgary is the largest city in Canada" (Calgary is 36th, not even close to largest), and in the whole course of our interaction he never once mentioned that he'd ever lived in Calgary.

ScottFromCalgary
Jan 6, 2008, 6:14 PM
"Tallest west of Toronto." Again. Fuck.

My sentiments exactly. Why is it so fucking hard for someone at the Herald to report this fact correctly? I believe that more than one forumer has emailed the author regarding this matter and even received a reply back. Guess it just doesn't sink in with them.

Edit: The statement is technically correct, but only in the same way that saying "the CN tower is the tallest building in Canada west of Montreal" is correct. As most on here already know, Petro-Canada is already the tallest building west of Toronto, so its not like this is a new feat for Calgary. The Bow will take the title of tallest building in Canada outside of Toronto.

fusili
Jan 6, 2008, 6:16 PM
"Tallest west of Toronto." Again. Fuck.

"It's easier to buy your reputation than to earn it." Yes, because Boddy's beloved Vancouver would never rely on world-famous architects. Ya know, he reviewed Radiant City in the Globe a while back and I emailed him to correct him when he said "Calgary is the largest city in Canada" (Calgary is 36th, not even close to largest), and in the whole course of our interaction he never once mentioned that he'd ever lived in Calgary.

I think you have a typo here. I know Calgary is not the largest, that's for sure, but it must be at least top 6. Calgary's population is little under a million and if it was 36th, that means that there would be 35 other cities over a million, giving Canada a much larger population than it really has. Do you mean third largest?

Rob D
Jan 6, 2008, 7:40 PM
I think you have a typo here. I know Calgary is not the largest, that's for sure, but it must be at least top 6. Calgary's population is little under a million and if it was 36th, that means that there would be 35 other cities over a million, giving Canada a much larger population than it really has. Do you mean third largest?

Actually Calgary's population is a little over 1 million at 1,019,942 as of April 30, 2007. This number DOES NOT include the CMA which as of 2006 included an additional 88.000 people. Calgary's unofficial CMA numbers for 2007 would be just a little over 1.1 million. Calgary is Canada's 3rd largest city if you only count the population within the actually city boundaries. It is the 5th largest Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) after Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa-Gatineau. Edmonton is the 6th largest CMA. If the Alberta boom continues at the pace it has over the past several years, then Calgary and quite possibly Edmonton should overtake Ottawa-Gatineau as the 4th and 5th largest CMA's respectively and Ottawa-Gatineau will be in 6th place.

For what it's worth here is a link to Wikipedia listing the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_metropolitan_areas_in_Canada


Some Statistics Canada numbers from the 2006 census are mentioned below in the paste in from their web site.

Six census metropolitan areas had populations of more than 1 million: Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver and Ottawa–Gatineau, and, for the first time, Calgary and Edmonton. Combined, they were home to 14,110,317 people, or 45% of the total population.
The fastest growing census metropolitan area was Barrie, whose population rose 19.2% to 177,061 in 2006. It was followed by Calgary, whose population increased 13.4% to 1,079,310.

Rusty van Reddick
Jan 6, 2008, 7:58 PM
fusilli, he was referring to area, as was I. The largest (in area) "city" in Canada is Wood Buffalo. Calgary is 36th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_largest_cities_and_towns_in_Canada_by_area

frinkprof
Jan 6, 2008, 8:05 PM
^Are there any such lists that take into account built area (which is subjective in itself) rather than jurisdictional boundary?

Bigtime
Jan 7, 2008, 2:45 PM
Not so fast, says Trevor Boddy, former Calgarian and architecture critic. While he likes the tower's design and concedes it will help define the skyline, he says hiring a big, famous architect isn't nearly as daring as it appears.

"It's easier to buy your reputation than earn one," reflects Boddy. "It's like relying on names when you shop at Holt Renfrew; like not picking by texture colour or fit, but picking by name. It represents insecurity and lack of confidence in innovative architecture more than some breakthrough."

Boddy says Calgary will know it's grown up architecturally when it can support a few provocative local mid-sized firms as well as the existing big corporate firms and the small creative ones.

A great article but this whole section had me sort of shaking my head trying to figure out this critics comments about "buying reputation".

So it's a bad thing that Encana went and got Foster to do the Bow? When in his opinion are we allowed to put on our big boy pants and be worthy of thinking of having an international architect design a building here?

I've shopped at Holt Renfrew, not just to name drop but because of the fits, textures and quality of garments available there. If the stuff doesn't meet those criteria I'm not just going to buy something that is uncomfortable because it is Holt. I bought a suit, something I'm wearing out to business functions and other events and wanted great quality, just like Encana wanted the same feel in their new space. So what makes Calgary any different then me, if you know what you want you go out and get it.

As to the last paragraph, can some of you on here name some of these provocative mid sized firms that we need to have before we are allowed to grow up? I know we have a few, but they are in the minority surrounded by the crap the places like Gibbs Gage shit out on us with regular timing. Perhaps we needed a Foster & Company to jumpstart these places into becoming a provocative firm?

Just my thoughts on it.

Me&You
Jan 7, 2008, 3:50 PM
...

As to the last paragraph, can some of you on here name some of these provocative mid sized firms that we need to have before we are allowed to grow up? I know we have a few, but they are in the minority surrounded by the crap the places like Gibbs Gage shit out on us with regular timing. Perhaps we needed a Foster & Company to jumpstart these places into becoming a provocative firm?

Just my thoughts on it.

I agree with this. If the locals aren't going to step up, bring in an outside firm; show the locals just how shitty of a job they're doing, maybe provide a kick in the pants.

Rusty van Reddick
Jan 7, 2008, 5:11 PM
If the stuff doesn't meet those criterias

A plural of a plural- man, you take criteria seriously! :)

Bigtime
Jan 7, 2008, 5:48 PM
A plural of a plural- man, you take criteria seriously! :)

It was too early in the morning for me Furry, thanks for the catch!

freeweed
Jan 7, 2008, 6:20 PM
A plural of a plural- man, you take criteria seriously! :)

Be happy it wasn't criteria's.

wild wild west
Jan 7, 2008, 6:24 PM
Edit: The statement is technically correct, but only in the same way that saying "the CN tower is the tallest building in Canada west of Montreal" is correct. As most on here already know, Petro-Canada is already the tallest building west of Toronto, so its not like this is a new feat for Calgary. The Bow will take the title of tallest building in Canada outside of Toronto.

I still consider Petro-Canada the tallest outside of Toronto. 1250 Rene-Levesque may have a ~100-foot pole that is barely visible to the naked eye whose top is about 35 feet taller than the roof of PCC, but fact remains that the roof of PCC is 52 feet higher than the roof of 1250. Thankfully Encana will effectively put the "tallest outside Toronto" debate to rest for at least the foreseeable future.

I was somewhat disappointed in the article. There was nothing factual which I didn't already know (in fact, a number of errors such as lumping City Centre 1, which doesn't even have a current rendering released yet, in with a bunch of other towers which are already under construction). I bought yesterday's newspaper specifically to read this article only to have it hit the recycling box 10 minutes after I got home.

Daver
Jan 7, 2008, 6:37 PM
"Tallest west of Toronto." Again. Fuck.

"It's easier to buy your reputation than to earn it." Yes, because Boddy's beloved Vancouver would never rely on world-famous architects. Ya know, he reviewed Radiant City in the Globe a while back and I emailed him to correct him when he said "Calgary is the largest city in Canada" (Calgary is 36th, not even close to largest), and in the whole course of our interaction he never once mentioned that he'd ever lived in Calgary.

Anyone over 12 years old relates the "size" of a city with population,not area.

Especially regarding your point.

freeweed
Jan 7, 2008, 8:26 PM
Anyone over 12 years old relates the "size" of a city with population,not area.

Especially regarding your point.

On the contrary, when you're discussing urban sprawl I'd automatically assume "size" meant the actual geographical footprint. In relation to the population, obviously, but sprawl is pretty much by definition talking about the outwards growth of a city. Not its population growth.

It's all about context. ;)

Aylmer
Jan 7, 2008, 10:27 PM
I wonder why Calgary is still a wee bit smaller that Ottawa:

You have higher buildings, larger sprawl yet we still seem to be holding on to the 4th place without any real reason to even have a million people!

Mabe there are mole-people living underground!!!

Me&You
Jan 7, 2008, 11:12 PM
I wonder why Calgary is still a wee bit smaller that Ottawa:

You have higher buildings, larger sprawl yet we still seem to be holding on to the 4th place without any real reason to even have a million people!

Mabe there are mole-people living underground!!!

Great contribution

Aylmer
Jan 7, 2008, 11:14 PM
Just wondering...

Big Sky
Jan 7, 2008, 11:17 PM
I wonder why Calgary is still a wee bit smaller that Ottawa:

You have higher buildings, larger sprawl yet we still seem to be holding on to the 4th place without any real reason to even have a million people!

Mabe there are mole-people living underground!!!

The million + people in Ottawa is the count for the whole Ottawa/Gatineau Region which is actually larger than Calgary in area, so it's actually more sprawled out. The older inner city part of Ottawa is more dense though.

We have higher buildings mainly because Ottawa has sort of an un-official height limit..something to do with the Peace Tower, and has lead to half of it's office space being out in the suburbs. Calgary which has the same amount of office space overall, has the vast majority of it in the downtown area, and thus the tall towers.

Rusty van Reddick
Jan 7, 2008, 11:24 PM
Calgary is smaller than Ottawa because Calgary has fewer people.

The question you should be asking is how soon Calgary will overtake Ottawa despite Ottawa's 200 year head start.

Aylmer
Jan 7, 2008, 11:25 PM
Ah!

Yeah the height limit is unnoficial law but the city *HIGHLY RECOMENDS* that buildings do not overshadow the parlement.

Aylmer
Jan 7, 2008, 11:28 PM
Calgary is smaller than Ottawa because Calgary has fewer people.

The question you should be asking is how soon Calgary will overtake Ottawa despite Ottawa's 200 year head start.


Quit quarraling: The two cities will probably just go through alternations of population supriority until we are both destroyed by falling Llamas.

(Sorry, too much chocolat.)

Rusty van Reddick
Jan 7, 2008, 11:32 PM
(Sorry, too much chocolat.)

You were supposed to finish your chocolate last week!

Aylmer
Jan 7, 2008, 11:40 PM
No!

I eat my christmas candy December, January and March
I eat my halloween candy November, June, July, August, September but not October
I eat my easter chocolat in April and May.

I can't eat it all in one shot!

Calgarian
Jan 8, 2008, 12:21 AM
Calgary is smaller than Ottawa because Calgary has fewer people.

The question you should be asking is how soon Calgary will overtake Ottawa despite Ottawa's 200 year head start.

5 years max.

Aylmer
Jan 8, 2008, 12:34 AM
By then Ottawa will have grown (they expect araound 1,5-1,6 million by 2016)!

Corndogger
Jan 8, 2008, 2:55 AM
Calgary is smaller than Ottawa because Calgary has fewer people.

The question you should be asking is how soon Calgary will overtake Ottawa despite Ottawa's 200 year head start.

Statistics Canada unrealistic interpretation of Calgary's metro area is probably the reason we are behind right now. I think we passed them five years ago if you include areas that any other country would include in a region's CSMA (or whatever the correct acronym is for Canada). More important than this is when are we going to start getting our fair share of federal funding? Considering the amount of money we pay into the system it would be nice if we could get at least 50% of it back.

craner
Jan 8, 2008, 3:48 AM
The 58- storey Bow will trump its neighbour, the Petro-Canada Tower, to become the tallest office building in Canada west of Toronto

"Tallest west of Toronto." Again. Fuck.


Also, why add "office" here - it implies that there are other types of towers taller (residential, mixuse, ??). I know I'm being picky here but it's just something I noticed being a skyscraper nerd and all.;)

Calgary should just build the tallest in the country and we wouldn't have to worry about this.:cool:

craner
Jan 8, 2008, 3:51 AM
Statistics Canada unrealistic interpretation of Calgary's metro area is probably the reason we are behind right now. I think we passed them five years ago if you include areas that any other country would include in a region's CSMA (or whatever the correct acronym is for Canada). More important than this is when are we going to start getting our fair share of federal funding? Considering the amount of money we pay into the system it would be nice if we could get at least 50% of it back.

I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why Okotoks isn't included in Calgary's CMA. :shrug:

Rusty van Reddick
Jan 8, 2008, 4:40 AM
I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why Okotoks isn't included in Calgary's CMA. :shrug:

well, you can't have CMAs with noncontiguous areas, and if we included Okotoks we'd have to include all of MD Foothills, and Foothills includes rural areas without the necessary level of interaction w/ Calgary to be parts of its CMA, so basically they throw the Okotoks baby out with the Foothills bathwater.

ScottFromCalgary
Jan 8, 2008, 4:58 AM
I still consider Petro-Canada the tallest outside of Toronto. 1250 Rene-Levesque may have a ~100-foot pole that is barely visible to the naked eye whose top is about 35 feet taller than the roof of PCC, but fact remains that the roof of PCC is 52 feet higher than the roof of 1250. Thankfully Encana will effectively put the "tallest outside Toronto" debate to rest for at least the foreseeable future.


Agreed.

Calgary should just build the tallest in the country and we wouldn't have to worry about this.:cool:

EnCana was going to until the shadow Nazi's at City Hall kiboshed it. "We must have our sunlight on this block during early winter, even though we know we won't have it for the rest of the winter!"

shreddog
Jan 8, 2008, 5:23 AM
By then Ottawa will have grown (they expect araound 1,5-1,6 million by 2016)!
Actually, the city was in hot water last year since all of it's estimates were way too optimistic on growth. See http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/289150896379081.php and http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?k=75121&id=0376d07e-7121-42f1-a176-396a375e5630

Since 2001, the Ottawa CMA has been growing at less than 9000 a year. Calgary on the other hand has been growing at over 20000 year. In 2006, the Calgary CMA grew by over 30000 whereas Ottawa grew by under 8000.

Current estimates by Stats Can and CMHC is the difference between the two cities is now less than 28000. At current growth rates - including the slow down in Calgary is likely to pass Ottawa's population in late fall of 2009.

As for the two cities trading spots - ah no. In the past 50 years Ottawa has only grown faster than Calgary once. Fully expect that when the Calgary population surpasses Ottawa, it won't be looking back.

shreddog
Jan 8, 2008, 5:27 AM
I wonder why Calgary is still a wee bit smaller that Ottawa:

You have higher buildings, larger sprawl ...

Sorry, but sprawl in Ottawa is arguably way larger than that of Calgary. There is nothing in the Calgary CMA that remotely compares to the drive from Buckingham to Stittsville. Not by a long shot. Ditto from the drive from Kanata to Rockland.

craner
Jan 8, 2008, 5:36 AM
well, you can't have CMAs with noncontiguous areas, and if we included Okotoks we'd have to include all of MD Foothills, and Foothills includes rural areas without the necessary level of interaction w/ Calgary to be parts of its CMA, so basically they throw the Okotoks baby out with the Foothills bathwater.

Thanks Furry.
So why can Airdrie be included ? Also, I'm not sure if Cochrane is included in Calgary's CMA or not?:shrug:

eemy
Jan 8, 2008, 5:46 AM
Thanks Furry.
So why can Airdrie be included ? Also, I'm not sure if Cochrane is included in Calgary's CMA or not?:shrug:

This isn't a mystery. I recommend reading the definition for a CMA (http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/reference/dictionary/geo009a.cfm). Stats Canada is quite transparent about their methodology.

Rusty van Reddick
Jan 8, 2008, 5:51 AM
Thanks Furry.
So why can Airdrie be included ? Also, I'm not sure if Cochrane is included in Calgary's CMA or not?:shrug:

Cochrane is, yes. Airdrie is surrounded by MD Rockyview but I guess it just has less of a rural, detached from Calgary aspect- Rockyview is estate homes; Foothills is farms and ranches and as I say, there are (apparently) too many residents of Foothills who don't work in Calgary (or any part of the Calgary CMA) to warrant its inclusion in the CMA.

clynnog
Jan 8, 2008, 1:21 PM
Sorry, but sprawl in Ottawa is arguably way larger than that of Calgary. There is nothing in the Calgary CMA that remotely compares to the drive from Buckingham to Stittsville. Not by a long shot. Ditto from the drive from Kanata to Rockland.

Driving from Buckingham to Stittsville would involve driving through agricultural lands between Buckingham and Masson/Angers and the easterly edges of the former City of Gatineau. The end of that drive gets a bit blurry as Kanata and Stittsville are starting to merge together.

In terms of Kanata to Rockland, the drive through rural areas is even more pronounced at the Rockland end as it is probably a 15-20 minute drive from Place D'Orleans until Rocklands big box mess appears in the line of sight.

Ottawa may be a long sprawl east to west, but north south it is more compact and contained. It is hemmed in at the north end by the river (and if you include Gatineau its northern limits are quite contained due to the Gatineau Hills and canadian shield).

shreddog
Jan 8, 2008, 2:18 PM
Driving from Buckingham to Stittsville would involve driving through agricultural lands between Buckingham and Masson/Angers and the easterly edges of the former City of Gatineau. The end of that drive gets a bit blurry as Kanata and Stittsville are starting to merge together.

In terms of Kanata to Rockland, the drive through rural areas is even more pronounced at the Rockland end as it is probably a 15-20 minute drive from Place D'Orleans until Rocklands big box mess appears in the line of sight.

Ottawa may be a long sprawl east to west, but north south it is more compact and contained. It is hemmed in at the north end by the river (and if you include Gatineau its northern limits are quite contained due to the Gatineau Hills and canadian shield).
The point of my example was to highlight the extent of sprawl in Ottawa in response to someone's misguided opinion that Calgary was worse. It is very interesting to note that the "compact sprawl" of Ottawa north to south, basically Ch. Chelsea on Hwy 5 south until Manotick is the same size as Calgary's north to south sprawl - which happens to be Calgary's most spread out, non-compact sprawl.

freeweed
Jan 8, 2008, 2:22 PM
Just because this thread really turned stupid - if Calgary were Ottawa, we'd HAVE to include Okotoks. Because the Saddledome would be located there. :P

shreddog
Jan 8, 2008, 2:43 PM
^^ As one of the culprits of that stupidity, I'm sorry. It's just that I'm in Ottawa at least once a month and I put up with their BS so much that I sometimes just lose it.

Back to the skyline, what is the furthest point out (distance wise) that someone has seen the buildings from? In the SW I believe you can make out PCC and the peaks of BH from hwy 22 and 22x. In the north I think it may be just south of Carstairs on the hill on the east side. On the east and south ???

Bigtime
Jan 8, 2008, 2:59 PM
Back to the skyline, what is the furthest point out (distance wise) that someone has seen the buildings from?

In the north I think it may be just south of Carstairs on the hill on the east side.

I would agree with that, that hill just before Carstairs blocks any view you could get of PCC before it.

wild wild west
Jan 8, 2008, 4:03 PM
^^ As one of the culprits of that stupidity, I'm sorry. It's just that I'm in Ottawa at least once a month and I put up with their BS so much that I sometimes just lose it.

Back to the skyline, what is the furthest point out (distance wise) that someone has seen the buildings from? In the SW I believe you can make out PCC and the peaks of BH from hwy 22 and 22x. In the north I think it may be just south of Carstairs on the hill on the east side. On the east and south ???


I think you can see the skyline from the east a couple km out of Strathmore.

Bassic Lab
Jan 8, 2008, 4:23 PM
^^ As one of the culprits of that stupidity, I'm sorry. It's just that I'm in Ottawa at least once a month and I put up with their BS so much that I sometimes just lose it.

Back to the skyline, what is the furthest point out (distance wise) that someone has seen the buildings from? In the SW I believe you can make out PCC and the peaks of BH from hwy 22 and 22x. In the north I think it may be just south of Carstairs on the hill on the east side. On the east and south ???

Due south the skyline is first visible where highway 2 splits into 2 (Deerfoot) and 2A (Macleod). It is a view that always says home to me when coming into Calgary, you can see the main downtown cluster along with the Macleod strip leading to it. I imagine it might be visible from points further south at the top of some of the hills but I'm not actually aware of any location that allows this. A similar situation probably exists across most of the west side where the hilly terrain would mean the view would alternate between visible and blocked.

I'd have to say one of my favourite places to see the city is from near Crowchild just west of downtown, where the downtown cluster is seen with a stepped affect due to the west end condos and three smaller clusters are visible to the north, centred on SAIT, Foothills, and the U of C.

As for the Rockyview versus Foothills discussion, it has to be remembered that the former is far more urbanised. The southwest of Rockyview is full of acreages and there are three major towns (Airdre, Cochrane, Chestermere) that are all closely interlinked with Calgary. This all outweighs the fact that most of the MD is still farmland. Foothills, on the other hand, is only recently seeing signifigant acreage development, and of the two major centres only Okotoks is closely linked to Calgary while Highriver is still more of a rural town instead of a suburb. Highriver was also the larger town until quite recently. In any case it should only be a matter of time until the spread of acreages, the growth of Okotoks, and the turning of Highriver into a suburb facilitate the addition of Foothills to the Calgary CMA. After that it will probably be a very long time until any other MDs or counties would be considered as any thing close to being part of the Calgary metro, although some commuting will always exist, especially from Wheatland Country (Strathmore).

Aylmer
Jan 8, 2008, 10:25 PM
what is BS?

Jay in Cowtown
Jan 9, 2008, 2:13 AM
EnCana was going to until the shadow Nazi's at City Hall kiboshed it. "We must have our sunlight on this block during early winter, even though we know we won't have it for the rest of the winter!"

Ahhh Fuck, you had to remind me!

Oh what a 1000 foot skinny Bow woulda looked like!?!?... will someone please put a bounty of those assholes' heads!

The Chemist
Jan 9, 2008, 3:44 AM
Agreed.



EnCana was going to until the shadow Nazi's at City Hall kiboshed it. "We must have our sunlight on this block during early winter, even though we know we won't have it for the rest of the winter!"

I don't believe that they would have. A 300m tall Bow would have cost substantially more than the 240m version we're getting, and given that they needed to get the costs down already I doubt we would have seen a 300m Bow make it to construction, shadow Nazis or none.

If EnCana really wanted a 300m tall HQ tower, they would have picked a lot that was better suited to such a tower.

freeweed
Jan 9, 2008, 5:02 AM
^^ As one of the culprits of that stupidity, I'm sorry. It's just that I'm in Ottawa at least once a month and I put up with their BS so much that I sometimes just lose it.

No worries dude(tte). You weren't who I was talking about. I'm referring to the idiots who I honestly think have a script running against every Canadian construction thread. The minute their city gets mentioned, no matter the context, they get emailed instantly and fire up their Blackberry to make an instant post trying to start some infantile fight. Shit guys, we better go watch the Seattle threads and make sure no one is saying bad things about Calgary!

Back to the skyline, what is the furthest point out (distance wise) that someone has seen the buildings from? In the SW I believe you can make out PCC and the peaks of BH from hwy 22 and 22x. In the north I think it may be just south of Carstairs on the hill on the east side. On the east and south ???

I've seen the downtown skyline pretty clearly from the top of Moose Mountain, about 50km as the crow flies (it looks very much like Mos Eisley did from a distance in the first Star Wars, incidentally). I'm told you can see it reasonably easily from the top of Yamnuska, 70km away. Not sure if that's what you were thinking of though. ;)

Jordan2
Jan 9, 2008, 10:18 AM
The city of Calgary is already larger in terms of population than Ottawa-Gattineau, in a few years Edmonton and Calgary's CMA's will easily pass Ottawa to take 4th place and 5th place respectively.

Aylmer
Jan 9, 2008, 12:41 PM
A boom can come as sudently as it can go!

Me&You
Jan 9, 2008, 1:23 PM
A boom can come as sudently as it can go!

Sweet, because this one's been a good 10 years now.

So you're saying we better watch out, there's only 10 years left?

shreddog
Jan 9, 2008, 2:21 PM
I've seen the downtown skyline pretty clearly from the top of Moose Mountain, about 50km as the crow flies (it looks very much like Mos Eisley did from a distance in the first Star Wars, incidentally). I'm told you can see it reasonably easily from the top of Yamnuska, 70km away. Not sure if that's what you were thinking of though. ;)
Yep it is visible from Yam. Also Fable, Pigeon, Allan, Big Sister, Galetea, Grotto, Rae and others I can't remember right now.

No I was thinking more road like. I know you can see the city lights from just after the top of Scott Lake Hill, but because of the river valley I don't think you can see the CDB until just after the hill after the Hwy 22 interchange. Funny given the hundreds of times that I've done that drive, I'm drawing a blank on when the CBD is visible. (While I know that you can see the bldgs down at Richmond and Sarcee from Jumping pound ridge, but I don't believe you can see the core)

freeweed
Jan 9, 2008, 2:27 PM
Yep it is visible from Yam. Also Fable, Pigeon, Allan, Big Sister, Galetea, Grotto, Rae and others I can't remember right now.

No I was thinking more road like. I know you can see the city lights from just after the top of Scott Lake Hill, but because of the river valley I don't think you can see the CDB until just after the hill after the Hwy 22 interchange. Funny given the hundreds of times that I've done that drive, I'm drawing a blank on when the CBD is visible. (While I know that you can see the bldgs down at Richmond and Sarcee from Jumping pound ridge, but I don't believe you can see the core)

Yeah, I can't say that I remember seeing downtown from anywhere west of 22. To be honest, due to the ridge that COP sits on (name escapes me), I don't even know that you can see downtown from that hill either.

Your question is making me re-visit an earlier thought I had last year, that is, where will the Bow sit in the skyline from various angles. As I drive/bus around the city I find myself looking towards the PCC area and trying to imagine what it will look like in 2010. And getting extremely excited. Pretty much my favourite view of downtown is from up on Sarcee as it descends the aforementioned ridge, and the Bow will really compliment downtown from that angle, if mostly hidden. :banana:

shreddog
Jan 9, 2008, 2:58 PM
Yeah, I can't say that I remember seeing downtown from anywhere west of 22. To be honest, due to the ridge that COP sits on (name escapes me), I don't even know that you can see downtown from that hill either.
Paskapoo. Actually, because the CBD is a little north of the "COP ridge" I do think it is visible from the hill east of 22. I know what I'll be checking this saturday!

Your question is making me re-visit an earlier thought I had last year, that is, where will the Bow sit in the skyline from various angles. As I drive/bus around the city I find myself looking towards the PCC area and trying to imagine what it will look like in 2010. And getting extremely excited. Pretty much my favourite view of downtown is from up on Sarcee as it descends the aforementioned ridge, and the Bow will really compliment downtown from that angle, if mostly hidden. :banana:
Well when the Bow was first announced I was really stoked that pretty soon (couple years) you won't be able to see PCC when driving into the core on Memorial from Deerfoot. Think about that when next doing that drive.

The Chemist
Jan 9, 2008, 3:09 PM
Yep it is visible from Yam. Also Fable, Pigeon, Allan, Big Sister, Galetea, Grotto, Rae and others I can't remember right now.


It's also visible from the summit of Mt. Bogart (the big tall one behind Mount Allan, above Ribbon Falls). I saw it clearly from there last summer.

RWin
Jan 9, 2008, 4:07 PM
Calgary should just build the tallest in the country and we wouldn't have to worry about this.:cool:

They'd still say it was the tallest west of Toronto.

wild wild west
Jan 9, 2008, 4:17 PM
/\Haha! Zing!

freeweed
Jan 9, 2008, 4:42 PM
They'd still say it was the tallest west of Toronto.

It would also be the tallest west of Regina.

Think about THAT for a second.

Aylmer
Jan 9, 2008, 5:28 PM
what is BS?:shrug:

Bigtime
Jan 9, 2008, 5:46 PM
It's bullshit buddy :D

Jay in Cowtown
Jan 9, 2008, 6:40 PM
Yeah, I can't say that I remember seeing downtown from anywhere west of 22. To be honest, due to the ridge that COP sits on (name escapes me), I don't even know that you can see downtown from that hill

You can't see downtown from anywhere west of Stoney Trail interchange on Trans Canada, you can see it on #22 south of Cochrane for about 5 kms.

I've often wondered how tall a building would have to be downtown to be seen from the hill (Edges Hill) on Trans Canada just east of #22-#1 Overpass.

ScottFromCalgary
Jan 14, 2008, 6:15 AM
:shrug:

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t279/scottr49/bullshit.jpg

Ayreonaut
Jan 14, 2008, 6:41 AM
I could see Calgary from some mountain I climbed near the Eden Valley Reserve past Longview. Don't know how far away this would be.
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4084/calgarydistanceud9.jpg