The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II

[Witty Nickname]

Skyline par Witty Nickname, on ipernity

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by dleung

I'm gonna be that "you-forgot-to-count-x" guy who reminds you that West Van has 77 highrises per 100,000

I knew I was forgetting a couple! Thanks.


Also just of note, I was only doing cities with 10 or more per 100 000.

[dleung]

^^lol I was just joining the pick-apart-the-stats bandwagon

[Metro-One]

If only there was some way to give the edge back to Toronto... hmm, to the proposals!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I haven't been to Victoria (yet, need to get down there), but that is unexpected! I didn't expect Victoria to have many high-rises at all!

It's just because Victoria has such a small city limits which contains under a quarter of the metro area that it's per capita measure seems high.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If only there was some way to give the edge back to Toronto... hmm, to the proposals!

[Surrealplaces]

From last week's forest fire smoke

Calgary smokey cityscape by Surrealplaces, on Flickr


Calgary Smoke by Surrealplaces, on Flickr

[middeljohn]

I think a more accurate measurement would be average highrise height per 100k people. The reason being that, hypothetically, if a city of 100,000 all lived in one building, they would be 1 highrise/100k, which would give an impression that it's very sprawled out. Total highrise height divided by population should be more accurate.

[caltrane74]

The fact that Victoria and Toronto are basically tied shows how useless this measure is..

[travis3000]

Yeah such a dumb list. Like Victoria VS Toronto? LOL. Ok then.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

I think a more accurate measurement would be average highrise height per 100k people. The reason being that, hypothetically, if a city of 100,000 all lived in one building, they would be 1 highrise/100k, which would give an impression that it's very sprawled out. Total highrise height divided by population should be more accurate.

It would be good in some ways, and iffy in others. I was more wondering about the amount of area covered by the skyline, not population density.

Originally Posted by caltrane74

The fact that Victoria and Toronto are basically tied shows how useless this measure is..

Have you seen Victoria's skyline? It's impressive for its size. I thought it would suffer from a focus on mid-rises, but apparently not. I suppose you'd feel the measure was just as useless if we were trying to see if Toronto had more highrises per capita than Chicago or Vancouver?

[middeljohn]

Delete

[middeljohn]

Based off data from here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=211628

Total highrise height:

1. Toronto - 31 207 meters
2. Calgary - 9292 meters
3. Montreal - 6655 meters
4. Vancouver - 5075 meters
5. Edmonton - 1846 meters
6. Winnipeg - 590 meters
7. Ottawa - 325 meters

Toronto should come out on top by a wide margin (these are just for the core cities)

[Metro-One]

No more useless than any other measuring system we have discussed. In fact this one is pretty straight forward, the number of tall buildings / people living in an area. Using the metro populations is a better estimate as was done for Metro Vancouver and Metro Toronto.

I am sure if Toronto came on top the tune would be a little different. Can't win ever stat.

This is no more silly (in fact a little less arbitrary) than # of meters of 150m, 100m, 80m, 35.6m, etc.. lists

Again, from the list above, at what height did you cut it off, 100 meters? 50 meters?? 12 stories (the common definition of a high rise)

[Chadillaccc]

That list is for a cutoff of 100 meters. The traditional definition of a highrise is 35 meters, with skyscrapers at 100 meters.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Beedok

It would be good in some ways, and iffy in others. I was more wondering about the amount of area covered by the skyline, not population density.



Have you seen Victoria's skyline? It's impressive for its size. I thought it would suffer from a focus on mid-rises, but apparently not. I suppose you'd feel the measure was just as useless if we were trying to see if Toronto had more highrises per capita than Chicago or Vancouver? ;)

Toronto didn't win this time, so the methodology must be flawed, or pointless

[Chadillaccc]

Photos by Polish forum moderator Wroclaw during his visit to Calgary last week!

Originally Posted by Wroclaw

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Beedok

It would be good in some ways, and iffy in others. I was more wondering about the amount of area covered by the skyline, not population density.



Have you seen Victoria's skyline? It's impressive for its size. I thought it would suffer from a focus on mid-rises, but apparently not. I suppose you'd feel the measure was just as useless if we were trying to see if Toronto had more highrises per capita than Chicago or Vancouver?

I don't doubt "Victoria's skyline? It's impressive for its size", but, the height cut off it's arbitrary.

[Chadillaccc]

With Victoria's tallest height (66 meters) set as the minimum height for buildings in the calculations, we have...


Vancouver - 44
Toronto - 26

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

With Victoria's tallest height (66 meters) set as the minimum height for buildings in the calculations, we have...


Vancouver - 44
Toronto - 26

Toronto only has 26 buildings over 66 meters? I'm not sure I understand this one...