The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

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.

That's a little different then. Cityplace is a single development made up of monolithic towers - it's something that can't be redeveloped or changed without demolishing massive towers - a rather cost-prohibitive prospect.


http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/01/construction-continues-concord-adex-parade-cityplace


What you're talking about is just general suburbia, comprised of all sorts of different developments with different ownerships. In which case, it's a little easier to redevelop the big box stores and strip malls that line suburban arterials into something more urban (but realistically, probably more poorly designed than Cityplace). The residential street grid (or lack thereof) and the single-use planning found there however, is something that we're likely going to be stuck with for the foreseeable future, as are certain larger, anti-urban developments. Still, what exists now is not what must exist forever - post-war auto-centric suburbs can still urbanize to some degree. It's a long process, but it's possible.

Take for example, Highway 7 in York Region. About as suburban as it gets. As of a few years ago it appeared as depicted on the left, now it's undergoing the urbanization process and will probably look something like that on the right in a few years time:




Or there's Vaughan City Centre, which is currently a suburban industrial hellscape:


http://www.ibigroup.com/projects/interchange-lands-vaughan-metropolitan-centre


But will turn into a high-density business district and commercial/residential area. It'll still be plagued with problems of suburbia - it'll still be surrounded by freeways and industrial wastelands and suffer from monolithic mega-block planning, but, at least it's an improvement.




http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...-urban-core-from-scratch/article7340028/

[SignalHillHiker]

Ahh, I get it. Thanks!

Really nice buildings in that last render, too. Simple but elegant in a way.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Beedok

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?

Yeah, vertical sprawl is better just not downtown. Around SkyTrain stations in the suburbs? No problem.

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 just don't get that. Downtown is supposed to feel busy and claustrophobic. Obviously living there isn't for everyone, but doesn't everybody want to at least visit and experience "the city" every now and then?

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That's the problem though - these master-planned, large-scale neighbourhoods can't develop organically and "fill in".

imo, Cityplace suffers from the same problem as Concord place. this sums it up perfectly (excerpt from the book Dream City)



in fairness though, both were built from large swaths of vacant land so 'instant urbanism' was inevitable. there was no other choice.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Delirium

imo, Cityplace suffers from the same problem as Concord place. this sums it up perfectly (excerpt from the book Dream City)



in fairness though, both were built from large swaths of vacant land so 'instant urbanism' was inevitable. there was no other choice.

The problem isn't "instant urbanism" so much as it is specific design choices in these and other Concord-type developments. Mainly their unengaging, monotonous street interaction and repetitive, mediocre architecture.

Conversely, Vancouver's Olympic Village is a much better example of a successful "instant" neighbourhood. It's a little sterile, sure, but that's to be expected. It's far from perfect too, but it at least solves some of the problems found in others in offering a more inviting environment.



http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Faculty/Researc.../Social_Economy/Vancouvers_Green_Economy

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I just don't get that. Downtown is supposed to feel busy and claustrophobic. Obviously living there isn't for everyone, but doesn't everybody want to at least visit and experience "the city" every now and then?

While there can be too many parking lots in many downtowns a few are good. Parks would be better, but those don't make much money. So a parking lot is a nice chance to not feel pressed between a wall (which often is door less and windowless on some sides) and a street. It also lets you look around and see how big the city is. A claustrophobic downtown is poorly designed. You don't have space to admire the grandeur of the city. I definetly thing Hamilton and Winnipeg need infill, but there's some parts of Ottawa where you don't feel like you're in a big city because you can only see a small region around you. Room to see the city stretching off is a positive.

[kool maudit]

the problem is building width. look at the three blocks here:



you walk for 200 meters or so and see three things. that's not a high number. something like this, while still residential and quiet, is far more varied from a pedestrian standpoint:



many people are concerned about building height, but it is building width that deadens cities.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

many people are concerned about building height, but it is building width that deadens cities.

That's a very simple yet great observation.

[leftimage]

Most of the buildings in this shot have popped up in the last 2 years. Taken today in Point-Saint-Charles. (Montreal)

[MonkeyRonin]

6th Floor by They Shall Not Pass!, on Flickr


Multipass by ZensLens, on Flickr


The falling snow by ZensLens, on Flickr


I can see my car by ZensLens, on Flickr

From the Skylon Tower:


Toronto Sky Line by heiko1972, on Flickr

[1ajs]

[MonkeyRonin]

ZensLens also dumped a nice little batch of some of his favourites of his shots on SSC:

Originally Posted by ZensLens

Chasing clouds by ZensLens, on Flickr


Under cover by ZensLens, on Flickr


Amongst the giants by ZensLens, on Flickr


Under the jib downtown by ZensLens, on Flickr


City views by ZensLens, on Flickr


King St all aglow by ZensLens, on Flickr


From the park by ZensLens, on Flickr


Like a blanket by ZensLens, on Flickr


The city, she loves me by ZensLens, on Flickr

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=112051019

[MonkeyRonin]

Rooftopping in Vancouver



http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=100234&currpage=3


http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=100234&currpage=3


http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=100234&currpage=3


http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=100234&currpage=3


http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=100234&currpage=2


http://s40.photobucket.com/user/VTRN/media/wbroadway_zps917f4e28.jpg.html


http://s40.photobucket.com/user/VTRN/media/Fireworks029_zpsda2d71a2.jpg.html


http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=100234&currpage=1


http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=100234&currpage=1

[whiteford]

canada's big cities are amazing. toronto calgary and vancouver look fantastic.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

From the Skylon Tower:


Toronto Sky Line by heiko1972, on Flickr

Some awesome pictures on this page, but these two take the cake. Especially the Skylone one.

[travis3000]

Montreal is also pretty sick

[isaidso]

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'.

What difference does it make what city it's in? If it falls short, it falls short. Not every single building needs to have retail or commercial, but you certainly put it at grade if you've got 20+ floors above and it's downtown. We're not talking about row houses on a side street.

And yes, I've never been a fan of City Place. It's a tremendous let down on so many levels. City Place may be downtown, but it may as well be Mississauga. This is NOT urban and NOT why people move to a big city downtown. They move downtown to avoid places like the above. What a snooze fest.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Beedok

While there can be too many parking lots in many downtowns a few are good. Parks would be better, but those don't make much money. So a parking lot is a nice chance to not feel pressed between a wall (which often is door less and windowless on some sides) and a street. It also lets you look around and see how big the city is. A claustrophobic downtown is poorly designed. You don't have space to admire the grandeur of the city. I definetly thing Hamilton and Winnipeg need infill, but there's some parts of Ottawa where you don't feel like you're in a big city because you can only see a small region around you. Room to see the city stretching off is a positive.

Well then you're saying that Manhattan was poorly designed, or hong kong,even Tokyo.Granted their might be a few parking lots but they are very hard to find and even if you find them they will be filled up. Also instead of using parking lots the majority of parking comes from parkades

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Well then you're saying that Manhattan was poorly designed, or hong kong,even Tokyo.Granted their might be a few parking lots but they are very hard to find and even if you find them they will be filled up. Also instead of using parking lots the majority of parking comes from parkades

Hong Kong has loads of open space. They build so tall because there's a lot of places they can't build at all. Tokyo meanwhile is mostly a midrise city and they seem to have a decent number of parks (and possibly parking lots if my random probe of the city in google streetview was an at all accurate sampling). Manhattan has Central Park, so that provides one very good spot for viewing, and I'm sure it has an okay number of other parks.

[WhipperSnapper]

Manhattan has amazing urban parks and its share of surface parking lots too