The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Tone

I take that the ''Mission'' area would be located south of the Beltline around the white dome i supposed.

Yeah the white dome is the Talisman Centre, and it's just east of Mission (in an area called Erlton).

[ZeDgE]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

That's the west for you, cities are fairly isolated out here. It's about 7 hours to Regina, 12 or 13 to Winnipeg and 10 to Vancouver. Forget about big US cities, they are way too far. The only ones you could make it to in a day are Salt Lake and Seattle, and those are probably both about 13 hours.

Spokane is 7-8 hrs.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

LMAO...There is no big 4, using the # of highrises in the downtown core as a measure is ridiculous, by that standard cities like Madrid and Berlin if located in Canada wouldn't even make the "big 4"...

There is a big 3, and even that's a stretch, it's more of a compromise as many would say there's only a big 2 then everything else, with Vancouver somewhere in between

I don't know about Big 2. The population difference between Toronto and Montreal is rather significant and growing. There's really only a Big 1. The Only 1. The 1 and Only.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

TO 6M 50% larger than Mtl
Mtl 4M 60% larger than Van
Van 2.5M 90% larger than Calgary

TOR and VAN have been growing faster than MTL for a while. VAN may have hit a rough patch economically, but TOR continues to pull away from MTL.

Moreover, if we look at absolute numbers, TOR is 2M bigger than MTL, and MTL is only 1.5M bigger than VAN.

TOR and MTL should not be clubbed together, TOR is in its own league.

But anyways, the Big 3 makes sense for other reasons. It kind of splits Canada into three traditional areas; East, Ontario, and West. And each city is sort of the metropolitan capital for these respective regions. It's like how India used to have a Big 4 (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai), even though Chennai is half the size of the other cities; but it was used because the cities represented the metros of four distinct regions (North, West, East, South respectively). Things have kind of changed up in India now, though, with rapid urbanization and the growth of other cities (especially in the South, with Bangalore and Hyderabad).

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

TOR and VAN have been growing faster than MTL for a while. VAN may have hit a rough patch economically, but TOR continues to pull away from MTL.

Moreover, if we look at absolute numbers, TOR is 2M bigger than MTL, and MTL is only 1.5M bigger than VAN.

TOR and MTL should not be clubbed together, TOR is in its own league.

But anyways, the Big 3 makes sense for other reasons. It kind of splits Canada into three traditional areas; East, Ontario, and West. And each city is sort of the metropolitan capital for these respective regions. It's like how India used to have a Big 4 (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai), even though Chennai is half the size of the other cities; but it was used because the cities represented the metros of four distinct regions (North, West, East, South respectively). Things have kind of changed up in India now, though, with rapid urbanization and the growth of other cities (especially in the South, with Bangalore and Hyderabad).

if you look south,

Dallas is 2 million+ bigger than San Francisco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

2 millions is not much when you compare all the cities in North America.

[Doug]

Hasn't municipal zoning and the Internet more or less pushed the small number of remaining head shops into industrial parks and crappy strip malls?

Stephen Ave in Calgary used to be full of the them. I got my mom to take me to one when I was 12 so that I could buy a Pink Floyd poster.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by ozonemania

Wow, I think I regret this post... sorry guys.

This is just a discussion we had a couple weeks ago, no worries.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Doug

Hasn't municipal zoning and the Internet more or less pushed the small number of remaining head shops into industrial parks and crappy strip malls?

Stephen Ave in Calgary used to be full of the them. I got my mom to take me to one when I was 12 so that I could buy a Pink Floyd poster.

Wrong thread. Responded to in the correct thread though.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

Well, I've got chance to move to move to Calgary next month. It'll be my fourth city in three years (Christ that feels weird to type). Right now I'm in London which is a third the size of Calgary. However my theory is that with London being so close Toronto and Detroit it actually feels bigger than it is due to that proximity. It'll be interesting to see how Calgary feels due to it being so isolated from other large cities. Even Edmonton is 4 hours away - a trip which at the very least takes some planning ahead of time. At the same time, due to that isolation it could very well be that Calgary feels bigger than its size since everything would be centralized there. I'm excited to see, assuming I get the job there.

Go for it.

I was very impressed with Calgary. Granted, I was only there for an extended business trip - but I'm told those who visit for a short time generally have a worse impression of the city than those who stay awhile.

Nothing wrong with London, either, though. In that region, I'd be most excited to try Hamilton. I suspect it has a really strong sense of self due to its unique location/history in regard to Toronto.

But I definitely wouldn't turn down a chance to spend a few years in Calgary if I was still hopping about the mainland.

[franktko]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Montreal skyline would probably rival Tortonto if they didn't have the height restriction, but we can't change the past. And I don't think Montreal is going to take that height restriction down.

I don't believe that, there is just no demand for tons of office space. If it was the case, there would be tons of towers in the 150m+ range...

[Acajack]

Montreal isn't really a skyline lover's city. I mean it has one, and it has quite a few decent-looking buildings, and a great view of downtown from Mont Royal. But it's one of the things you think of first when you think of Montreal.

Unless you are from St-Glinglin-de-Whateveux and have never seen a skyscraper before.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Go for it.

I was very impressed with Calgary. Granted, I was only there for an extended business trip - but I'm told those who visit for a short time generally have a worse impression of the city than those who stay awhile.

Nothing wrong with London, either, though. In that region, I'd be most excited to try Hamilton. I suspect it has a really strong sense of self due to its unique location/history in regard to Toronto.

But I definitely wouldn't turn down a chance to spend a few years in Calgary if I was still hopping about the mainland.

I lived in Calgary for a year when I was 9 (I've moved a lot lol) and really enjoyed it. This was before I was a geography nerd (although some of the signs had already started appearing, I had already started keeping a mental list city populations for example, haha) and as a kid everything seems huge. That said, the city is now almost 500,000 larger vs 1997 when I was there.

Hamilton is a hell of a fun place to love if you're not too picky about niceties and fancy-schmancy. I lived there last year while operating a business from home. I had three bars within 5 min walking distance, a Wal-Mart within 10 min walking distance, a whole bunch convenience stores in that radius too. It was nice cause I could still go into Toronto to get my downtown fix and it was close to Oakville so I could visit my parents whenever I felt like it.

The thing about Hamilton is that if you're a pretentious dickwad the city will reject you. You can get away with that in Toronto, but not in Hamilton. Most people I met there are blue collar guys working on the floor, making decent wages but not rich. Houses are much cheaper than Toronto, gas is often 5-10 cents cheaper as well.

Eventually I'd like to give each of Canada's major cities a try. Toronto will always be home, and truthfully, it's where I'll probably end up settling down when I feel ready to do the wife and kids thing. But for now I'm enjoying going from place to place. I think it's incredibly limiting and small-minded for people to stay in the same city or area their entire life without giving other places a try first.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I was very impressed with Calgary. Granted, I was only there for an extended business trip - but I'm told those who visit for a short time generally have a worse impression of the city than those who stay awhile.

Really? I find everywhere I've been the exact opposite to be true. When you spend a couple days in a city you have total tourist glasses on and see mainly the good, but once you live there longer the "honeymoon phase" wears off, the novelty goes away and you are left with a much more honest impression of the place.

If you still like somewhere after living there for a few years then it is truly for you.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

The thing about Hamilton is that if you're a pretentious dickwad the city will reject you. You can get away with that in Toronto, but not in Hamilton.

Music to my ears.

Reminds me of an old folk song:

If you can't live your life with ease and grace
And try to grab another fellow's place
If you can't raise a smile and carry through
Don't come where we're at, stay where you're to

I really like that in a city. Winnipeggers were like that too. No qualms.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Really? I find everywhere I've been the exact opposite to be true. When you spend a couple days in a city you have total tourist glasses on and see mainly the good, but once you live there longer the "honeymoon phase" wears off, the novelty goes away and you are left with a much more honest impression of the place.

If you still like somewhere after living there for a few years then it is truly for you.

That's how I think too... but SO MANY people have expressed surprise to me that I loved Calgary on a short visit. "Usually takes a bit longer than that" I've been, oh, I don't know how many times. And by Calgarians!

[ozonemania]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Montreal isn't really a skyline lover's city. I mean it has one, and it has quite a few decent-looking buildings, and a great view of downtown from Mont Royal. But it's one of the things you think of first when you think of Montreal.

Unless you are from St-Glinglin-de-Whateveux and have never seen a skyscraper before.

Oh I think Montreal deserves more credit than that! Montreal might suffer from having fewer strategic, iconic skyline viewpoints like some other cities do, but I find it very impressive.

I have to say tho, where Montreal's skyline really underwhelms is when flying into the city by plane. It really does look deceptively flat and unremarkable. I'm not sure why I always get that perception whenever I go to Montreal.

[KnoxfordGuy]

I find Montreal is at it's best when your in the thick of it, walking the streets. Not from above as much.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by KnoxfordGuy

I find Montreal is at it's best when your in the thick of it, walking the streets. Not from above as much.

Montreal and Ottawa are both much better at street level than you would think from an aerial shot.

[floobie]

This "Big 4" stuff:

Are we talking population or "visual impact of main skyline"?

If the former, yeah, "Big 4" makes no sense at all. If Calgary is included here, Edmonton should be too, so it should really be "Big 5". (Edit: Ack! And Ottawa! Apologies ) But, the gulf between Calgary and Vancouver feels too vast to comfortably lump in, to me. And, it just keeps going from there? Why not Winnipeg as well? And so on. The Big 3 are most definitely in a league of their own, in terms of population.

If the latter, I think it does. Toronto's skyline is in a league of its own. But, I'd argue that Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal are all in the same ballpark. Vancouver is shorter but dense and laterally extensive. Calgary has the most height and density packed into a smaller area. Montreal has a bit of height and (at least by my perception) a decent lateral extent, but not nearly as much continuous density of height.

So, my position:

Big 4 by population - nope
Big 4 by skylines - yep

[HomeInMyShoes]

Ottawa gets so little love.