What city skylines do you think underperform for their population?

[Dougler306]

Originally Posted by flar

Edmonton and Saskatoon shouldn't be mentioned in this thread, they have fine skylines for their pops. Montreal is fine, too.

With no skyline at all really, I think K-W takes the cake. St. Catharines and Oshawa are very weak. Windsor's isn't very good either. Hamilton and Ottawa have tons of buildings but their skylines are plateaus with too many non-descript 15-20 storey buildings.

I don't really expect metros under 200,000 to have much of a skyline.

Reginas population is either right on 200k or slightly over and our skyline is sick. I think our city gets so under noticed by the rest of the country, give it a few more years and regina shall be the plc to be

Prince albert has a terriable skyline, city only has roughly 35k tho, they have 3 towers= 2 apartements, the other is city hall

[Symz]

I was kind of hoping we could steer clear of the bigger cities like Edmonton, etc. etc. and keep it to the cities under 500,000, the cities we don't hear about as often.

I'm surprised by Quebec City's skyline for it's population size, but at the same time with the chateau Quebec City's skyline is still really great, and timeless.

[Symz]

Originally Posted by Dougler306

Reginas population is either right on 200k or slightly over and our skyline is sick. I think our city gets so under noticed by the rest of the country, give it a few more years and regina shall be the plc to be

Prince albert has a terriable skyline, city only has roughly 35k tho, they have 3 towers= 2 apartements, the other is city hall

I was really impressed when I saw the Regina skyline, I didn't know!

[Metro-One]

For cities under 500 000

I personally feel Halifax, Regina and Victoria (the last viewed best at street level) really punch above their weight in regards to skyline, urban density and the sheer sizes of their cores.

Cities such as Saskatoon, St. John's, Windsor and Kelowna (considering it is only around 170, 000) do themselves justice regarding their populations.

London I feel could be better, it is a tricky one to categorize.

K&W are terrible, as are Sudbury and Moncton IMO.

[The Chemist]

I think the only reason people might say Edmonton is because they're comparing it to Calgary. Understandable, being in the same province and being of very similar size, but really unfair to Edmonton because Calgary punches WAY above its weight when it comes to skyline. If Calgary wasn't used as a point of comparison, nobody would say Edmonton had an undersized skyline, because really, for a city of 1 million, Edmonton's skyline is pretty darned good. Could use a little more height (stupid airport) but the density is pretty decent.

[bolognium]

I don't really care for the premise of this thread. The visual quality of a city's skyline is almost always dictated by some extenuating circumstance.

For example, Kitchener-Waterloo doesn't have a great skyline for a city of 500,000. However, they have different competing districts and nodes. Many of their malls have large towers surrounding them. Waterloo is booming with apartment buildings and condos in its core. Kitchener's core is stellar if you consider just Kitchener's population of 200,000. Then there's Cambridge which is made up of three even smaller towns (Galt, Preston, Hespeler), each with their own downtowns and their own clusters of towers. If you squished all of these towers and highrises into the core of Kitchener it would absolutely look like a city of 500,000. Tough that the city grew organically and wasn't worried about the visual appeal of its skyline. All of K-W's nodes and districts also makes for an amazingly efficient transit system with many transfer areas and destinations.

Then take the important regional city of Halifax for example. With stunning vantage points from the water/Dartmouth and elegant bridges spanning the harbour, Halifax looks really impressive for its size. However, take away the beautiful bridges and awesome vantage points, and stick it in London's place down the 401 from Toronto at the bottom of a densely treed river valley. The city wouldn't look nearly as grand and remarkable (it'd probably look like London).

Meh, maybe I'm over-thinking this...

[Metro-One]

For the big cities, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver all punch waaaay aboe their size IMO (especially when you consider all of the suburban skylines in Toronto and Vancouver as well).

I do agree that Edmonton also has a good skyline for a city its size, as does Montreal.

While Ottawa does have a good sized core, it reminds me of a big Richmond (minus the Parliament buildings, of course), or a big Victoria (including the Parliament buildings, hehe). That is to say, it probably has a great urban fabric at street level, but not a huge skyline. And of course, having a huge skyline isn't everything.

[floobie]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

For the big cities, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver all punch waaaay aboe their size IMO (especially when you consider all of the suburban skylines in Toronto and Vancouver as well).

I do agree that Edmonton also has a good skyline for a city its size, as does Montreal.

While Ottawa does have a good sized core, it reminds me of a big Richmond (minus the Parliament buildings, of course), or a big Victoria (including the Parliament buildings, hehe). That is to say, it probably has a great urban fabric at street level, but not a huge skyline. And of course, having a huge skyline isn't everything.

I agree with all of this. Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver all have amazing skylines for their populations. Montreal and Edmonton's skylines more or less match with what I'd expect for cities of those sizes.

My answer to the thread's question would probably be Ottawa. But, indeed, a huge skyline, or a skyline at all, isn't a pre-requisite for being a great city.

[Symz]

Originally Posted by floobie

indeed, a huge skyline, or a skyline at all, isn't a pre-requisite for being a great city.

Indeed! No one said a skyline is a requirement for any city, and like blognium said there are some other contributing factors that can make a skyline seem grand, like natural geography etc.

It can also be said there are political reasons, environmental, etc as to why a city's skyline is what it is.

I was just curious about people's perceptions.

[haljackey]

One people haven't really mentioned thus far is Halixax.

That city is essentially the metropolis of eastern/Maritime Canada. With that kind of regional importance, I would like to see a more significant skyline in that city.

Compare Halifax to London: both cities have similar populations yet London has a more impressive skyline even though it isn't nearly as important location-wise. If Halifax were to get a couple 100m+ towers (or maybe one around the 150m mark) that would really help out the city.


Now, for everyone complaining about Kitchener having a poor skyline for it's size, realize this. While the Kitchener metro area is nearing 500k (around the population of both London and Halifax), the metro is very sprawled and jointed. There is no central hub since all these cities have grown into each-other to form a metro area. Kitchener itself has an ok skyline for it's 200k population + metro influence. If these cities were more centralized I'm sure the skyline would be more prominent.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

I think the only reason people might say Edmonton is because they're comparing it to Calgary. Understandable, being in the same province and being of very similar size, but really unfair to Edmonton because Calgary punches WAY above its weight when it comes to skyline. If Calgary wasn't used as a point of comparison, nobody would say Edmonton had an undersized skyline, because really, for a city of 1 million, Edmonton's skyline is pretty darned good. Could use a little more height (stupid airport) but the density is pretty decent.

Precisely.

[architect1]

Cities I have been in and live near. Id say

Hamilton because of its the arm put of the gta and niagara region,
Windsor because of its fall in industry and its just blah,
Bradford down town core is now all university,
London to spread apart so far, st cats its been the same since I was a baby 130,000 for the last 20 + years,
Id say Brampton due to it has 500,000 and doesn't even have a heavy down town core like Hamilton,
I also forgot Montreal through my eyes its un change ugly and just a bigger version of Hamilton

[koops65]

Kitchener, as a 230 000 city is about what you'd expect, Waterloo, with 120 000 has taller buildings than Kitchener does, Cambridge, with 140 000 is pathetic. As a whole, all 3 together are pathetic. I've lived there most of my life. The regional and city govts. always seemed opposed to building tall, but things are slowly changing for the better.
Thats just the skyline of course, as a city I think its great.

[Razor]

Just re-thinking Ottawa..I agree, when you look at some angles it shows just how dense and packed in the downtown is...It just doesn't have the height, and it's true there is a lot of condos and some government buildings in the burbs..I feel that both Vancouver and Calgary really punch above their weight.
Vancouver has an awesome skyline for a city of 2.5 million..You would think it was Hong Kong sized. Same with Calgary..For a small city it packs way above it's weight...I seen some angles of Edmonton on here, and Edmonton looks good.Some people may think I'm crazy, but in some ways Toronto under performs..It's metro is what 6 million?, and I think Vancouver gives it a good run...It could be those distant Lake shots though...Looking at the C.N tower.Doesn't fo it justice.
I realize that metroToronto has a few cores(.Flar's shots of T.O from the Plane is making me re-think what I just said ha.) Do yourself a favour...To truly appreciate Montreal the city, never mind the sky-line..Just visit it, and soak it in from street level. It's skyline doesn't tell the tale.

[Denscity]

Cities that overachiever: Vancouver, burnaby (four skylines and it's only a suburb), Yellowknife, Calgary.
Underachievers: abbots ford, kw, Ottawa.

[Rico Rommheim]

Anyone who thinks Edmonton's skyline is underachieving is out of their mind. Fantastic density and size for a city it's size. And even the height isn't bad. Not every city has 200m+ buildings. Not every city has to.

[matt602]

Definitely Hamilton comes to mind for this list. The biggest hindrances to Hamilton's skyline are the industries, geography and lack of modern architecture. The only real decent view you can get of downtown Hamilton is either from the mountain brow or from Dundas. Looking at downtown from the lake or from the East can be very uninspiring. Hamilton's tallest is a 43 story apartment building from the 1970's that looks like an oversized airport traffic control tower. Hamilton does however have the density downtown... it just isn't pretty to look at.

[Waterlooson]

Over achievers: Vancouver, Calgary, Regina.
Under achiever: K/W/C

[Razor]

How about cities that are on par ..or look the way they should for their size

I would have to say Hamilton, Edmonton, and Winnipeg.

Through pics., they look pretty much like the size of city they actually are are IMO.

[caltrane74]

Over achieving city: Niagara Falls

Population :90k
Tallest skyline outside the top 4 cities in the country.

I know it's a resort city, but so are Wasaga Beach and Whistler and they don't have skylines.