The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II

[samne]

That Woodwards in Van looks like a classic already.

1 King W and 1 St. Thomas are top notch.

Pantages actually is kinda impressive in person. Just the sheer bulk of it.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

NDG, baby!

i never caught on.

but some people swear by it.

Tell us more. I actually think Monkland and the surrounding area feel a little bit Toronto-ish, probably due to the spaces between the houses. Though they're mostly duplexes and quadraplexes, so that's different.

Is it more "English"? Or kinda kewl? Or what?

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Gawd, just look at the density of that residential area behind it... so jealous.

Think that's something? Subdivision after subdivision of apartment buildings (not plexes) in Cote-de-Neiges:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/husseinabdallah/2351643414/in/photostream/

[SignalHillHiker]

Looks grittier but equally impressive.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by BIMBAM

Think that's something? Subdivision after subdivision of apartment buildings (not plexes) in Cote-de-Neiges:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/husseinabdallah/2351643414/in/photostream/

Nice, but where are all the 400 footers? Where are all the corporate glass temples? This doesn't count as 'real' density. It's old too, so wah wah wah.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

i have never been to calgary, but i am sure it offers a lot of doug (the forumer)-type corporate/outdoorsy dynamism and some truly amazing downtown architecture. it also probably has some nice, loose-jointed urban neighborhoods of the ottawa or halifax type, where you have a cool main street, some highrises, and also a lot of free-standing houses.

Apparently I missed a lot by spending the day in bed, but I would say this is pretty accurate. Outside of the beltline there are a couple neighbourhoods somewhat like Ottawa. The main streets are much more gappy with much less of a streewall - lots of post war street frontage with parking even in older areas.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Nice, but where are all the 400 footers? Where are all the corporate glass temples? This doesn't count as 'real' density. It's old too, so wah wah wah.

400 footers are crucial. That's how Hamilton blows Ottawa out of the water.

[ZeDgE]

Jesus, there is way to much salt in this thread lately. Watch the sodium levels guys.

[G.S MTL]

http://www.airphotomax.com/en/portfolio-2/montreal-images/#

[someone123]

I like how Montreal's skyline has a mix of old and new buildings and some good quality stuff from the 1960's and earlier. There aren't a lot of buildings like that in Canada.

People often get a bit ahead of themselves with Calgary. It has an exceptional skyline for a smaller city, but it's a bit of a stretch when people say it is amazing or awe-inspiring. It is actually pretty small in the scheme of things. The Bow would be something like New York's 30th tallest building, and it is only about 1/4 the height of the world's tallest. When it comes to Canadian skylines, except for maybe Toronto, I think discussions about building styles and variety make more sense than a preoccupation with height. The height never measures up to major world cities. Canadian cities however can be unique when it comes to something like visual styles, patterns of development, and so on. There's always going to be a taller building, but you can't find a downtown Montreal anywhere else in the world.

[G.S MTL]

photos taken January 2013













http://www.flickr.com/photos/wind-watcher/

[SignalHillHiker]

Great shots.

[G.S MTL]

photo taken 3 days ago



http://www.flickr.com/photos/wind-watcher/

[ZeDgE]

Calgary may have a few more taller building but Montreal skyline is so much more substantial. And dat density. The comparison stuff needs to go die in a fire. Two completely different cities.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

I like how Montreal's skyline has a mix of old and new buildings and some good quality stuff from the 1960's and earlier. There aren't a lot of buildings like that in Canada.

People often get a bit ahead of themselves with Calgary. It has an exceptional skyline for a smaller city, but it's a bit of a stretch when people say it is amazing or awe-inspiring. It is actually pretty small in the scheme of things. The Bow would be something like New York's 30th tallest building, and it is only about 1/4 the height of the world's tallest. When it comes to Canadian skylines, except for maybe Toronto, I think discussions about building styles and variety make more sense than a preoccupation with height. The height never measures up to major world cities. Canadian cities however can be unique when it comes to something like visual styles, patterns of development, and so on. There's always going to be a taller building, but you can't find a downtown Montreal anywhere else in the world.

Hmm, I'm finding this post a bit contradictory. On one hand you say that we shouldn't be too impressed by the size of Calgary's skyline since it isn't that unique in a global context, but then say that we should be impressed by Montreal due to the "mix of old and new buildings and some good quality stuff from the 1960's and earlier" since "There aren't a lot of buildings like that in Canada."

But this is something that really isn't very unique in a global context either. Many cities around the world have layers of old and new buildings, and there are definitely cities that have many older and more significant historical layers than Montreal. So doesn't that really only make Montreal unique in Canada too?

In a global context, I have to wonder if a city like Calgary isn't just as unique, since the whole "super dense skyline completely dominated by international-style office blocks" thing tends to be fairly limited to newer parts of NA (Houston, LA Dallas, Seattle, Minneapolis), and to a lesser extend Australia (Sydney, Perth). And the NA examples, except for Seattle, don't seem nearly as dense to be honest.

London. NYC, Boston. Philadelphia. Baltimore, Warsaw. Moscow, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Televiv, even Halifax, may have less in common with Calgary than with Montreal. Even many cities that have few older buildings in the skyline differ by having a lot more residential (ie HK, Panama, Vancouver, Miami, Singapore, etc).

When it comes down to it, if we should be impressed with the contextual uniqueness of Montreal's layers, then we should be impressed by the contextual uniqueness of Calgary's skyline too.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

On one hand you say that we shouldn't be too impressed by the size of Calgary's skyline since it isn't that unique in a global context, but then say that we should be impressed by Montreal due to the "mix of old and new buildings and some good quality stuff from the 1960's and earlier" since "There aren't a lot of buildings like that in Canada."

But this is something that really isn't very unique in a global context either.

I don't care about the abstract idea of layering or the fact that Montreal has a wider array of buildings than some other city, I like the specific buildings and urban setting in Montreal.

In a global context, I have to wonder if a city like Calgary isn't just as unique, since the whole "super dense skyline completely dominated by international-style office blocks" thing tends to be fairly limited to newer parts of NA (Houston, LA Dallas, Seattle, Minneapolis), and to a lesser extend Australia (Sydney, Perth). And the NA examples, except for Seattle, don't seem nearly as dense to be honest.

This may be true (I'm not sure it is -- Denver looks a lot like Calgary) but I wasn't trying to argue that Calgary isn't unique. I'm just questioning how interesting it really is to obsess about scale in a city that at the end of the day isn't really that big.

[MTLskyline]

These are some of the best shots I've ever seen of the Montreal skyline. It definitely looks best from the east.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

Apparently I missed a lot by spending the day in bed, but I would say this is pretty accurate. Outside of the beltline there are a couple neighbourhoods somewhat like Ottawa. The main streets are much more gappy with much less of a streewall - lots of post war street frontage with parking even in older areas.

I agree with you and kool maudit. Prairie cities like Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg have some Ottawa-ish areas in their older central areas. It's not as extensive as Ottawa because the cities are younger and developed later (and the post-war development with more curvy streets and bigger setbacks begins closer to downtown in the West), but yeah there is a similar feel for sure.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't care about the abstract idea of layering or the fact that Montreal has a wider array of buildings than some other city, I like the specific buildings and urban setting in Montreal.



This may be true (I'm not sure it is -- Denver looks a lot like Calgary) but I wasn't trying to argue that Calgary isn't unique. I'm just questioning how interesting it really is to obsess about scale in a city that at the end of the day isn't really that big.

For the record, I actually think that Calgary's skyline could arguably be said to be more impressive than Montreal's.

But although I realize that this is a skyscraper thread on a skyscraper forum, this alone doesn't mean that Calgary has superior urbanity or is even a more ''happening'' place.

[logan5]

But although I realize that this is a skyscraper thread on a skyscraper forum, this alone doesn't mean that Calgary has superior urbanity or is even a more ''happening'' place.

I don't think anybody thinks that. I wonder which city would be considered the most urban after the first 3? Maybe little old Victoria?