The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Are attitudes about what downtown should be changing in Vancouver? As Vancouver grows, I feel many of these developments will be looked at quite negatively. I wonder if it's even possible to buy out the lower floors and convert down the road. I imagine the economics of running a business on the lower floors would make this do-able. Getting condo owners to sell in order to redevelop the lower floors is another matter.

I can't say for certain, but I don't think so. It seems illogical, but people expect that their condo downtown will be in a quiet neighbourhood. It's slowly starting to get better but it'll take a while for development to start heading that way. You have to keep in mind that a city of 2.4 million really doesn't NEED retail at the bottom of every tower, especially with the amount of towers we build.

[ozonemania]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I actually agree with you. A big chunk of Vancouver's downtown core is made to be quiet for the residential district, which to me makes no sense because isn't the business the reason people choose to live downtown in the first place? But yeah, there are many areas of downtown that feel completely suburban, just with big apartment towers instead of houses.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have quieter areas in the downtown core. You can look to Manhatten in the areas between Midtown and Downtown and you find many examples of high density, quiet neighbourhoods. You're never that far from a bustling area tho.

That being said, the picture above of the quiet downtown neighbourhood in Van is a good example of a problem area in terms of urbanity. Pacific Blvd is just so wide and open that it kills pedestrianism. It's the closest thing downtown Van has to a freeway.

[Cruzer]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Majenta skies over Calgary skyline by Martin Thielmann, on Flickr

It's unimaginable how much Brookfield Place is going tower over SEC from this angle... and SEC is still a pretty decently tall tower. The Bow being about 21m. taller - and still a good full block east and further downhill (some would argue) still has a nice presence over SEC. Yet Brookfield Place (roughly the same distance in this shot as SEC or closer and further uphill) 32 metres!!!!!!!! Almost 100 feet taller than SEC! Now throw in Telus Sky which would teeter around The Bow's height from this angle... and that my friends is a city block on steroids. Let's not forget Kings on 4th either

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I can't say for certain, but I don't think so. It seems illogical, but people expect that their condo downtown will be in a quiet neighbourhood. It's slowly starting to get better but it'll take a while for development to start heading that way. You have to keep in mind that a city of 2.4 million really doesn't NEED retail at the bottom of every tower, especially with the amount of towers we build.

It's probably what helps Vancouver has such a successful downtown. Allowing people to have quiet streets encourages them to move into high density urban living rather than fleeing to suburbia.

Surely everyone agrees that quiet high density verticle 'sprawl' is better for everyone than actual sprawl?

[kool maudit]

sure, but least a streetwall, a row of stoops, recognizable doors.

this is quiet too but it's less alienating:

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Yes I know, but it's downtown. It should be retail, commercial, restaurants on the first 4-5 floors and residential above.

you could say the exact same thing about Cityplace in toronto no?
case in point;

photo: http://worldoftoronto.blogspot.ca/2011/02/cityplace-is-downtown-suburb.html

point is, not every single building needs to have a retail or commercial component just because it's 'downtown'.

[Nouvellecosse]

Cityplace does have business/retail spaces at the base of most buildings, it's just a new area still under development so they're not all occupied (or at least weren't when I was staying there in 2010).

But Cityplace definitely does need these things if it's going to be an attractive area, just as similar areas in other cities do.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Delirium

you could say the exact same thing about Cityplace in toronto no?
case in point;

photo: http://worldoftoronto.blogspot.ca/2011/02/cityplace-is-downtown-suburb.html

point is, not every single building needs to have a retail or commercial component just because it's 'downtown'.

i think isaidso would agree with you about cityplace. it's not some sort of toronto/vancouver thing.

that is a horrible, horrible urban street.

[Ramako]

Interestingly CityPlace is by Concord, a Vancouver-based developer with Vancouver, not Toronto, derived sensibilities.

[Delirium]

then why did toronto approve this development as is if it's sensibilities are superior? aren't most cityplace buildings designed by local architectural firms?

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by Delirium

then why did toronto approve this development as is if it's sensibilities are superior? aren't most cityplace buildings designed by local architectural firms?

Toronto's sensibilities aren't superior - just different. The cities present two different urban contexts. Local architectural firms designed the towers (except in the case of Parade which was designed by KPF out of New York), but the developer masterplanned the community and its layout, scale, mix of uses, etc. I guess their vision was that it be Toronto's version of Yaletown, but it's fallen short. Other masterplanned communities which have been envisioned/constructed in the city during this boom (e.g. Regent Park Revitalization, Pan Am Games Village) are superior in almost all respects. It would have been even worse if planning staff hadn't challenged Concord's original plans, but they indeed deserve some of the blame for not pushing hard enough.

The western portions of the site (still incomplete) have been shaping up to be better, but only because of a desperate intervention by the city's planning and architectural community to stop the madness: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home...ce-east-and-west-divide/article14272499/

[SignalHillHiker]

When I lived in Winnipeg, a coworker said she didn't want to see the surface parking lots downtown built upon because it would block the views across them, and make the Downtown feel claustrophobic.

I didn't even know what to say, really. My sensibilities are the opposite. Surface parking lots make me feel like I'm about to fall off the earth.

Regarding City Place, I'm sure it'll be tweaked and adjusted and build in and over throughout the years ahead. It'll eventually have Toronto trimmings on its Vancouver bulk and will be a busy, interesting neighbourhood. I wouldn't worry too much. It's not Markham. It's still dense and urban to the point that it will effortlessly fill in and be improved.

[middeljohn]

Cityplace and basically all of Mississauga's "city centre" is not my idea of urban. It's just vertical sprawl. No personality.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

vertical sprawl

I love that.

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by kw5150

The Bow is almost the same height as Aura in Toronto. Not small at all.

LMAO, um no... Aura is over 100ft TALLER than the Bow. I never said The Bow was small, I said that picture in particular made Calgary's skyline seem smaller than it is. Relax.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

When I lived in Winnipeg, a coworker said she didn't want to see the surface parking lots downtown built upon because it would block the views across them, and make the Downtown feel claustrophobic.

I didn't even know what to say, really. My sensibilities are the opposite. Surface parking lots make me feel like I'm about to fall off the earth.

I can see why someone would like views and open space, but surely she'd rather see them converted to something attractive like parks or public squares. Ugly asphalt may make a space seem open, but isn't ugly just as bad as claustrophobic?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Ramako

Toronto's sensibilities aren't superior - just different. The cities present two different urban contexts. Local architectural firms designed the towers (except in the case of Parade which was designed by KPF out of New York), but the developer masterplanned the community and its layout, scale, mix of uses, etc. I guess their vision was that it be Toronto's version of Yaletown, but it's fallen short. Other masterplanned communities which have been envisioned/constructed in the city during this boom (e.g. Regent Park Revitalization, Pan Am Games Village) are superior in almost all respects. It would have been even worse if planning staff hadn't challenged Concord's original plans, but they indeed deserve some of the blame for not pushing hard enough.

I think the more important distinction here is "planned by private corporation vs. planned by municipal government" rather than "Toronto vs. Vancouver" planning sensibilities. Concord Pacific has much less of vested interest in creating a quality, lasting urban neighbourhood than the City of Toronto or its various agencies do.

Which is why it's important that cities not sell off large parcels of land and give developers near-free reign to do as they see fit.

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Regarding City Place, I'm sure it'll be tweaked and adjusted and build in and over throughout the years ahead. It'll eventually have Toronto trimmings on its Vancouver bulk and will be a busy, interesting neighbourhood. I wouldn't worry too much. It's not Markham. It's still dense and urban to the point that it will effortlessly fill in and be improved.

That's the problem though - these master-planned, large-scale neighbourhoods can't develop organically and "fill in". Not without the wholesale demolition of skyscrapers or at least extensive (and expensive) renovations (see for example: all the decrepit post-war public housing projects around the world that were easier to just tear down and start over rather than attempt to improve them). The trees will fill in, the streets will eventually fill up with people and businesses, and streetscaping can always be improved with little effort, but poor urban form is not an easy fix. It's imperative that these sorts of developments be impeccably designed from the start.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That's the problem though - these master-planned, large-scale neighbourhoods can't develop organically and "fill in". Not without the wholesale demolition of skyscrapers or at least extensive (and expensive) renovations (see for example: all the decrepit post-war public housing projects around the world that were easier to just tear down and start over rather than attempt to improve them). The trees will fill in, the streets will eventually fill up with people and businesses, and streetscaping can always be improved with little effort, but poor urban form is not an easy fix. It's imperative that these sorts of developments be impeccably designed from the start.

I worry you're right... but I just... have to believe. The thought of everything outside of Empire Avenue here ALWAYS looking the way it does today hurts my soul.

[Chadillaccc]

http://www.avision.ca/sizeA-massive-pano...a-images-chris-collacott-avision.ca.html

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

http://www.avision.ca/sizeA-massive-pano...a-images-chris-collacott-avision.ca.html

That's a great shot.