SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   The Great Canadian Skyline thread for CMAs 1 million and under (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=163051)

Metro-One Jan 3, 2009 1:10 AM

Me too, i love the word metro! (As one may tell from my name) hehe

mmmatt Jan 3, 2009 1:16 AM

CMA (Census Metropolitan Area) is the offical term used by Stats Canada for a metro area.

There are 33 CMAs in Canada, to be a CMA a metro area must have an "urban core" of around 100,000 people.

MolsonExport Jan 3, 2009 1:31 AM

Long live McKenzie seeds!

Cambridgite Jan 3, 2009 3:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 4002730)
Well Yellowknife does have a population under 20 000, and Kitchener is nearly double Peterborough. For a 500 000 CMA is is pretty lame. They must have one of the, if not the lowest tower per capita ratio of any greater area over 100 000 in Canada.

Keep in mind that, within the urbanized core, there are 5 downtown cores. I showed the 3 largest (the two others are in Cambridge). Rather than one core expanding out and consuming all the others, they more or less grew together. And even besides that, the tri-city area is very decentralized and expansive. Even if you forget about the downtown cores, there are numerous nodes of activity from regional shopping centres, power centres, intense retail strips, office parks, university districts, major apartment clusters. It's a pretty large place that the downtown photos alone don't do any justice to. Ironically, it feels like a much larger metropolitan area when you're driving around in the suburbs and could easily pass for the hustle and bustle of any suburban area around a large city like Toronto. I would say pretty much the only small town features about the area are the lack of an old, developed, solid downtown core.

Other non-downtown skylines.

Fairview Park Mall area off in the distance, looking from the eastside of downtown.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2224/...f0a3babd_b.jpg

King/University - King/Columbia skyline. A cluster of apartment buildings to the north of uptown Waterloo and Wilfred Laurier University.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...Picture241.jpg

Victoria Hills skyline (the hood) in West Kitchener.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...Picture026.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...Picture024.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 4002730)
And don't take this as a negative spin on the whole area, just in the aspect of urban density.

Don't worry, I'm not one of the other Waterloo Region forumers who will remain nameless. :haha:

touraccuracy Jan 3, 2009 7:55 AM

Edit: didn't see the other thread for suburbs http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=163085

Distill3d Jan 3, 2009 4:52 PM

if someone can include Burlington, than the cities that make up Metro Vancouver (ie: Burnaby, North Vancouver etc) are fair game.


North Vancouver, city: 45,165 (photo credit: me)
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j1...k/100_0912.jpg

vid Jan 4, 2009 11:44 AM

But North Vancouver is Vancouver, it just has a separate government. Same thing for Burlington. It's part of the same urban area as Hamilton. It's basically a part of Hamilton that is separate from it by an imaginary line.

Spocket Jan 4, 2009 12:36 PM

Ultimately I wonder if Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge/Guelph isn't actually a better model even if by accident. With everything being more evenly distributed throughout the region , the classic North American urban planning problems are probably considerably less pronounced.


Cambridgite (and anybody else in that region) is this the case ?

Distill3d Jan 4, 2009 4:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid (Post 4005971)
But North Vancouver is Vancouver, it just has a separate government. Same thing for Burlington. It's part of the same urban area as Hamilton. It's basically a part of Hamilton that is separate from it by an imaginary line.

Burlington is part of both the GTA and Hamilton isn't it?

flar Jan 4, 2009 5:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distill3d (Post 4006092)
Burlington is part of both the GTA and Hamilton isn't it?

Yes it is. The GTA is made up of Toronto plus the regions of York, Halton, Peel and Durham. Burlington is in Halton Region so it is included in the GTA. Burlington is also included in Hamilton's CMA and Hamilton's UA (urban area) by Statistics Canada. Burlington is generally considered part of Greater Hamilton.

Aylmer Jan 4, 2009 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar (Post 4003377)

I'm really sorry, but that is the saddest skyline I have ever seen.

:)

Cambridgite Jan 4, 2009 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket (Post 4005990)
Ultimately I wonder if Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge/Guelph isn't actually a better model even if by accident. With everything being more evenly distributed throughout the region , the classic North American urban planning problems are probably considerably less pronounced.


Cambridgite (and anybody else in that region) is this the case ?

Depends what you mean be "the classic North American urban planning problems" (maybe you could specify). We certainly have the problems of urban sprawl, traffic congestion, and car dependance no less than most Canadian cities. I think it actually makes it even harder to pull off a functional transit system when you don't have one downtown core with a very large number of people working there. The largest is downtown Kitchener with only 12,000 workers (though will probably be around 16,000 when the Lang Tannery is renovated and moved into). However, one kind of accidental stroke of luck we have is that we have many major destinations forming a line. This is the impetus behind the current iXpress bus service and future LRT line. So while downtown Kitchener may not warrant an LRT line in itself, it lines up with 2 or 3 other downtowns (depending on the route chosen), 2 or 3 major indoor malls (depending on the route chosen), 2 universities, another major activity area, and 1 or 2 hospitals (depending on the route chosen). Collectively, this builds a spine that has a lot of potential to be built onto further. Think of the Yonge Street corridor in Toronto or Peachtree Street in Atlanta, but less significant.

Another consequence of this urban form is that you have a region with a less cohesive identity. On one hand, this adds more interest to the Region than a single downtown, inner city, with suburbs around it. On the other hand, people in the different cities don't see themselves as relating to their neighbour cities as much (whereas Burnaby is an obvious suburb of Vancouver). If you take Cambridge for example, most people in Cambridge do their shopping and other regular errands in Cambridge and don't venture further than the very southern parts of Kitchener very often unless they happen to work there or have some other extenuating circumstance (maybe if there's a concert or they're visiting friends, etc). In my case, I wouldn't know a great deal about the other neighbour cities if I wasn't doing my schooling in Waterloo. Even with Guelph, I barely ever go there, but I do know people who commute to school there, go to Guelph bars and clubs, and work in Guelph. However, they are in a separate regional municipality, so our transit systems are not co-ordinated. The hope is that GO transit can take on that role as they move west from the GTA.

sparky212 Jan 4, 2009 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist (Post 4006171)
I'm really sorry, but that is the saddest skyline I have ever seen.

:)

It looks better if you go to the boat launch. But it's still sad for a city that size.:haha:

softee Jan 4, 2009 10:35 PM

^ It would be pretty good if the buildings were closer together. Sarnia only has about 80K so it's not bad for a city that size.

sparky212 Jan 5, 2009 2:51 AM

the cement block on the left is brought to you by tricar. Building commie blockes for your satisfaction for over 10 years.

boden Jan 5, 2009 3:16 AM

Brockville, Ontario, Pop. 21,000. I think it has a pretty decent "mini-skyline" for such a small city. It is a really nice place too.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3278/...b5b8c1d1_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/...654ae9cf_o.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3271/...0d4736d0_o.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/...652c1510_b.jpg

Distill3d Jan 5, 2009 3:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist (Post 4006171)
I'm really sorry, but that is the saddest skyline I have ever seen.

:)

then you've never seen Grande Prairie...

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j155/starfcuk/GP.jpg

photo source: google earth.

flar Jan 5, 2009 3:19 AM

At least Sarnia has a decent highrise, Kenwick Place.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2...rnia/00044.jpg


There are really no tall buildings southwest of London (other than Windsor of course). There are a few "high rise" apartments in Chatham and Wallaceburg but I don't think any of them are more than 12 storeys. So Sarnia has a kick ass skyline for that part of the country.

Metro-One Jan 5, 2009 8:52 AM

Need some pics of Kamloops, Nanaimo and Kelowna on here.

Elmira Guy Jan 5, 2009 9:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boden (Post 4006843)

Nice pics!

I did my teaching placement in Brockville. I thought it was a nice little city too!


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.