The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II - Page 185

Chadillaccc · #**3681** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 4:34 PM**

Height restrictions:

Vancouver - Beauty/views
Montreal & Ottawa - Symbolic
Edmonton - Proximity to airport

and a bunch of other cities around the country have height restrictions in certain areas of their cores in order to prevent certain public spaces from being shadowed. Toronto, Calgary, etc.

Vertigo3000 · #**3682** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Height restrictions:

and a bunch of other cities around the country have height restrictions in certain areas of their cores in order to prevent certain public spaces from being shadowed. Toronto, Calgary, etc.

Collingwood has a 3 story height limit in downtown because they think "that density is for Toronto" the reason why a five story condo is going under so much public hate. They almost didn't build the new public library because the shelter on the roof added to much height.

Towards Blue Village, there was a 9 story building proposed to go beside a current 8 story, and their reason was because of it's proximity to the wetlands would harm it and because "leave the mess that Toronto is to have housing styles that are a mess". People hate height in collingwood

. The next year, the last wetland along South Georgian bay was buldozed and a golf course- housing development with massive yards went up on that wetland. Very sprawl favoured town

Mrs Sauga · #**3683** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 5:47 PM**

I feel like every Canadian city is afraid of height. Compared to the US anyway.

Vancouver and Montreal are building tons of buildings yet nothing will ever go past 200m.

Nothing will go over 150m in Edmonton.

Nothing goes over 100m in Regina, 130m in Winnipeg, 300m in Toronto, 120m in Ottawa, 100m in Halifax.

While the US has tons of cities with a 200m building, even freaking Tulsa Ohio!

Calgary is kind of an exception, but even their "super projects" (The Bow and that blue glass box I forgot the name of) aren't THAT tall.

Toronto seems to be waking up though.

Ottawa is the only city that really shouldn't be building tall.

The_Architect · #**3684** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

Ottawa is the only city that really shouldn't be building tall.

I'd add QC to that as well.

kw5150 · #**3685** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 6:31 PM**

Thank god. I like our stubby skylines. We dont have a big ego to prove I guess. Calgary has a table top skyline which is perfect. Nothing dominates which has a very democratic appeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

I feel like every Canadian city is afraid of height. Compared to the US anyway.

Vancouver and Montreal are building tons of buildings yet nothing will ever go past 200m.

Nothing will go over 150m in Edmonton.

Nothing goes over 100m in Regina, 130m in Winnipeg, 300m in Toronto, 120m in Ottawa, 100m in Halifax.

While the US has tons of cities with a 200m building, even freaking Tulsa Ohio!

Calgary is kind of an exception, but even their "super projects" (The Bow and that blue glass box I forgot the name of) aren't THAT tall.

Toronto seems to be waking up though.

Ottawa is the only city that really shouldn't be building tall.

Mrs Sauga · #**3686** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 6:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Architect

I'd add QC to that as well.

I actually wouldn't mind skyscrapers in Quebec, as long as its NEAR the historic downtown but not AT downtown. Kind of like how Paris has La Defense.

I haven't been to QC, but from maps/pics/streetview, it seems like St Foy is like North York, a linear row of highrises surrounded by suburbia. I'd prefer an urban cluster of highrises, closer to downtown.

Mrs Sauga · #**3687** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 6:35 PM**

I HATE how our skylines are all tabletops!

I don't think Calgary is really that flat, its got some peaks.

I'd love to see a 200m rise above Edmonton's plateau of similar height highrises, or a 180m skyscraper rise above Winnipegs table top skyline.

softee · #**3688** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

I feel like every Canadian city is afraid of height. Compared to the US anyway.

Yet Canadians metros always seem to have more hi-rises than American metros of similar size, although they tend to be mostly residential in Canadian cities.

Calgarian · #**3689** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 6:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

I don't think Calgary is really that flat, its got some peaks.

CAlgary is definitely getting to be more of a tabletop, 225-Sixth will be pretty much the same height as the Bow and Suncor, and with Bankers Hall and EAP1 at about the same height, we are definitely starting to see a plateau effect.

Coldrsx · #**3690** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

Nothing will go over 150m in Edmonton.

This, at 161m, would like to disagree. 102 Street Centre has gone through design committee and is moving forward slowly but surely.

(http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af354/XTendEdmonton/Epcor%20Tower/Manulife2_Skyline2.jpg)

Hybrid247 · #**3691** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

Ottawa is the only city that really shouldn't be building tall.

Why's that? I live in Ottawa and I hate the stubby-table-top look of our downtown core. If it weren't for the height restriction I'm sure it would open the possibility for better designs for new buildings. As things are now, even if a developer were to construct a nice building at the current height limit, it would just be hidden amongst all the buildings that stand at the same height, so what's the point. There's not a single building in downtown Ottawa that stands out because of that...

isaidso · #**3692** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Architect

I'd add QC to that as well.

I'm not convinced of that. Their experience with the skyscraper in the 70s wasn't good and has left locals viewing all high rise development in a negative light. London shows how amazing a mix of a historic core and good high rise architecture can be.

Unfortunately, Quebec City likely won't get passed its initial bad experience and the core will turn into a museum rather than a properly functioning modern downtown. The ban on high rises in the core and the shift to Ste. Foy is a big mistake, imo.

isaidso · #**3693** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 7:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

This, at 161m, would like to disagree. 102 Street Centre has gone through design committee and is moving forward slowly but surely.

Agree, Edmonton will likely develop like Calgary has. Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, and Quebec City have very severe height restrictions that simply don't make sense.

The logic is flawed since their height restrictions don't protect any of the views they're designed to protect. Besides, who spends their day with their head in the air. It's the buildings of the city that engage us on a daily basis. People that want to look at mountains or water go to the mountains and water.

Coldrsx · #**3694** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 7:22 PM**

Not to mention that the 150m limit was a NAVCAN imposed one for the Municipal airport... which is closing and already has one runway out of operation.

The CCA zoning allows for 150m with up to 200m discretionary.

kool maudit · #**3695** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 7:39 PM**

"tulsa, ohio"?

vegeta_skyline · #**3696** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

This, at 161m, would like to disagree. 102 Street Centre has gone through design committee and is moving forward slowly but surely.

He was wrong about nothing breaking 150 but 161 is not exactly a huge jump by any means.

esquire · #**3697** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Not to mention that the 150m limit was a NAVCAN imposed one for the Municipal airport... which is closing and already has one runway out of operation.

The CCA zoning allows for 150m with up to 200m discretionary.

Is the Muni-related height limit really the big bogeyman that it's made out to be when only two buildings in Edmonton are built up to the 150m limit (Epcor at 149m and Manulife at 146m)?

That argument would be more believable if there were > 10 buildings built up to 150m as opposed to just one or two.

Calgarian · #**3698** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 8:04 PM**

What is the average height in Edmonton like compared to Vancouver? both seem to have similar height for most towers, and a 200m tower in Ed would probably dominate like Shangri-La does in Vancouver.

Coldrsx · #**3699** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 8:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegeta_skyline

He was wrong about nothing breaking 150 but 161 is not exactly a huge jump by any means.

For us it signifies a milestone and 11m is nothing to scoff at.

Coldrsx · #**3700** Posted **Feb 22, 2013, 8:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Is the Muni-related height limit really the big bogeyman that it's made out to be when only two buildings in Edmonton are built up to the 150m limit (Epcor at 149m and Manulife at 146m)?

That argument would be more believable if there were > 10 buildings built up to 150m as opposed to just one or two.

Keep in mind that in the late 70s, early 80s there were multiple proposals in the 140-160+ range that did not go ahead for a variety of reasons, height restrictions being one of them.

Would we see 200m if the restrictions were fully removed tomorrow, no. Do we have demand like Toronto or Calgary, no.

But there are multiple proposals out there that might want to try for new tallest or 150+ if they had the opportunity.

They now do.