Skyline w/limited activity or no skyline and more vibrant?

[SLO]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Man, people really like being next to water

Is that a surprise to ya?

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

no.

the great lakes do have tides, but they are measured in mere centimeters (1 - 5 cm) in most places, and thus are not of any real consequence like they are in oceanic tidal zones.

and even if the great lakes were subject to larger ocean-like tides, the mouth of the chicago river is controlled by a lock that would prevent any incursion of tidal water into the river.

because the flow of the chicago river was reversed a century ago, the river level is almost always lower than the lake level, so a lock is needed to control the flow of water from the lake into the river.

that said, the riverwalk is subject to very occasional flooding when we get extremely large rainfalls that can cause the river level to rise several feet.

Makes sense, I recall that now from a river tour. Great looking amenity.

[maru2501]

Barcelona > Dubai

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by SLO

Its those cities that get both, that are the stars, but option B is the winner

One of Philly's great charms is the fact that both of these types of settings are often wedged right in and next to one another. Mole Street in Center City is an especially funny example (spin the camera around 360).

https://goo.gl/maps/BTLwfPyFUFjmDgbY6

[homebucket]

Despite Toronto's inferior skyline:

Toronto >>>>>>> Jacksonville

https://goo.gl/maps/2Z2NZHf859E3dfs76

vs

https://goo.gl/maps/Csp1sBFRPtZjR9ND6

[Double L]

Functionally, a vibrant street level is just more important than a good looking skyline.

[GlassCity]

This is a question that came up from time to time in Winnipeg. Winnipeg has a sparse skyline as well as a geographically large but underdeveloped downtown. This led to the argument of do you want one 32 storey tower or four 8 storey towers? Or, to make it more catchy, skylines or streets? When like half the downtown is surface parking, I would say that getting rid of those dead zones and actually filling the place in should be the first priority. But that can be a hard pill to swallow for some as a city-building strategy when you see cities like Edmonton getting so much attention for their new towers.

[Razor]

You would think that by default of having a decent skyline, a city would also by vibrant at street level, just because a large skyline denotes a decent sized city with a diverse population. Does anyone have any examples of a city that does well with their skyline, but needs work on the vibrancy front?

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by Razor

You would think that by default of having a decent skyline, a city would also by vibrant at street level, just because a large skyline denotes a decent sized city with a diverse population. Does anyone have any examples of a city that does well with their skyline, but needs work on the vibrancy front?

Dubai?

[mhays]

20 of the 30 largest US cities' downtowns for starters.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Razor

You would think that by default of having a decent skyline, a city would also by vibrant at street level, just because a large skyline denotes a decent sized city with a diverse population. Does anyone have any examples of a city that does well with their skyline, but needs work on the vibrancy front?

Most American cities.

[Jasoncw]

I think the issue of "street life" is not as important or relevant as people make it out.

People don't stop existing once they walk inside of a building. Sure, in an office district there might not be a lot of street life during business hours, because people are busy doing their jobs at work, and not lounging around on the sidewalk. Those towers are full of thousands of people who are living their lives, and that's where the activity is.

"Street life" is more about the aesthetic or symbolism of activity rather than actual activity. It also tends to be more about affluent recreation and entertainment, than about substantive meat and potatoes activity.

So I would prefer in any case the building which has the most actual objective activity, and density, and efficiency, etc, whether or not that's the one that's the most picturesque or instagrammable.

[hauntedheadnc]

[

Originally Posted by Razor

You would think that by default of having a decent skyline, a city would also by vibrant at street level, just because a large skyline denotes a decent sized city with a diverse population. Does anyone have any examples of a city that does well with their skyline, but needs work on the vibrancy front?

Charlotte. Lovely to look at from afar, but their downtown is basically an office park with bars. I honestly can't fathom how you can have that many office workers, hotel guests, and residents in a downtown, and it have literally next to no retail at all.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

I think the issue of "street life" is not as important or relevant as people make it out.

People don't stop existing once they walk inside of a building. Sure, in an office district there might not be a lot of street life during business hours, because people are busy doing their jobs at work, and not lounging around on the sidewalk. Those towers are full of thousands of people who are living their lives, and that's where the activity is.

"Street life" is more about the aesthetic or symbolism of activity rather than actual activity. It also tends to be more about affluent recreation and entertainment, than about substantive meat and potatoes activity.

So I would prefer in any case the building which has the most actual objective activity, and density, and efficiency, etc, whether or not that's the one that's the most picturesque or instagrammable.

This is quite an unusual perspective. Streetlife is the most important factor in urbanism. It doesn't matter how many people are in a building if they don't impact the common realm. It's what distinguishes a proper high street from a highway Walmart.

[dc_denizen]

Vancouver bc and Calgary

Bothe punch above there weight skyline wise

But Calgary has high office vacancies (encana moving to Denver, etc), many of the towers are partially empty , harming the street life experience . Plus it’s just not that big a city and the population lives mostly in sfh

Vancouver has too many investor owners that spend a small portion of their time in the city. Plus it’s too expensive for many mom and pop businesses .

[Razor]

Originally Posted by 10023

Most American cities.

Yes..I noticed that in a few of their large cities I've visited sans NYC. I just thought that our timing was bad when we visited their respective cores.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Vancouver bc and Calgary

Bothe punch above there weight skyline wise

But Calgary has high office vacancies (encana moving to Denver, etc), many of the towers are partially empty , harming the street life experience . Plus it’s just not that big a city and the population lives mostly in sfh

Vancouver has too many investor owners that spend a small portion of their time in the city. Plus it’s too expensive for many mom and pop businesses .

I've heard that about Calgary, but Vancouver surprises me..I only assumed that it would have a real vibrant after business hours downtown..You are correct though, Calgary really isn't a large city despite it's winning skyline.

Originally Posted by toddguy

Dubai?

I can only imagine.

[Jasoncw]

I'd emphasize my point that people don't stop existing once they walk into a building.

Let's say there's a concert. And it's outside. If you put 4 walls and a roof around it, has that spot suddenly become less lively? Is it now an anti-urban deadzone because the liveliness is happening indoors?

Or what's more lively? A street where there's a bunch of restaurants serving 1000 people a night, but indoors, or a street where there's a few foodtrucks serving 100 people, outdoors?

And how does "street life" really matter, outside of specific times that a person is looking for entertainment or recreation?

Let's say a person is walking home from work, to a transit station. Sure, walking through what feels like a zombie apocalypse would detract from quality of life, and so would things like bad sidewalk quality and things like that, but does someone really have to walk through mardi gras every day?

[BillM]

Originally Posted by Razor

You would think that by default of having a decent skyline, a city would also by vibrant at street level, just because a large skyline denotes a decent sized city with a diverse population.

This was probably true at one time.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

I'd emphasize my point that people don't stop existing once they walk into a building.

Let's say there's a concert. And it's outside. If you put 4 walls and a roof around it, has that spot suddenly become less lively? Is it now an anti-urban deadzone because the liveliness is happening indoors?

Or what's more lively? A street where there's a bunch of restaurants serving 1000 people a night, but indoors, or a street where there's a few foodtrucks serving 100 people, outdoors?

And how does "street life" really matter, outside of specific times that a person is looking for entertainment or recreation?

Let's say a person is walking home from work, to a transit station. Sure, walking through what feels like a zombie apocalypse would detract from quality of life, and so would things like bad sidewalk quality and things like that, but does someone really have to walk through mardi gras every day?

Street life is what creates the spontaneous interactions and serendipity that make urban life both interesting and the source of most human culture and advancement.

For example, where you have foot traffic you have pop-ups and independents. Where you have to drive to the place (with the destination in mind) and go inside, you get chains. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule in both cases but the idea generally holds. This doesn’t mean food trucks vs actual restaurants - people walking in and out of shops provide vibrancy and street life too. It’s shopping malls that don’t.

That’s to say nothing of the more intangible benefits of different people interacting in unplanned ways, in a less controlled environment.

Frankly I find it odd that someone on this forum would even question the idea. If you have the chance to live in a place with an active city center at some point in life, you’ll come to understand the difference.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

I think the issue of "street life" is not as important or relevant as people make it out.

People don't stop existing once they walk inside of a building. Sure, in an office district there might not be a lot of street life during business hours, because people are busy doing their jobs at work, and not lounging around on the sidewalk. Those towers are full of thousands of people who are living their lives, and that's where the activity is.

"Street life" is more about the aesthetic or symbolism of activity rather than actual activity. It also tends to be more about affluent recreation and entertainment, than about substantive meat and potatoes activity.

So I would prefer in any case the building which has the most actual objective activity, and density, and efficiency, etc, whether or not that's the one that's the most picturesque or instagrammable.

It's not either, or. Streets aren't empty in some cities because everybody is locked in an office building all day, while they are partying on the street all day in others.