The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II - Page 490

Chadillaccc · #**9781** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 3:24 PM**

The exact same calculation I did last time.

Vancouver - 44 buildings over 66 meters per 100 000
Toronto - 26 buildings over 66 meters per 100 000

caltrane74 · #**9782** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 3:59 PM**

ok. I see. All good then.

Beedok · #**9783** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

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

Any cut-off height is arbitrary.

caltrane74 · #**9784** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

Any cut-off height is arbitrary.

True enough. You could say with a 150 meter cut off, then Toronto would have the most per 100,000 people, or a 200 meter cut off. But I just left it as is, because it's more about density than it is about skyline impact.

Surrealplaces · #**9785** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 6:27 PM**

Calgary Cityscape by Surrealplaces, on Flickr

Chadillaccc · #**9786** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 7:28 PM**

200 meter cutoff

Toronto - 0.67 /100 000 people
Calgary - 0.33

dleung · #**9787** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 11:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

The exact same calculation I did last time.

Vancouver - 44 buildings over 66 meters per 100 000
Toronto - 26 buildings over 66 meters per 100 000

Vancouver has a whackload of towers just under 300' (90m) b/c of the viewcones, and Toronto has a lot of 1960's apartment blocks around 18-20 floors (50-60m), hence the numbers here are particularly favorable to Vancouver compared to 100m or 35m cutoffs.

Toronto has the highest percentage of people living in highrises as the towers each contain many more residents. It doesn't mean the stats are bullshit

, it just means that the built form in Vancouver has a finer grain, as we already know.

vanman · #**9788** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 11:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

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

Incredible to think that lush canopy did not exist just over a 100 years ago.

vanman · #**9789** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 11:39 AM**

Metrotown pano.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Silver very visible from this angle. Metrotown bathing in sunshine on a cloudy Sunday evening. Imagine Modello and Gold House filling the gap on the right side soon.

middeljohn · #**9790** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 12:36 PM**

What is Metrotown like on streetlevel? Similar to Mississauga city centre?

Delirium · #**9791** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 1:14 PM**

Condoland

Photo by Aion on Flickr https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3870/14537066838_81bfdc0388_h.jpg

Chadillaccc · #**9792** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 1:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by middeljohn

What is Metrotown like on streetlevel? Similar to Mississauga city centre?

It's better than MCC by a very significant margin. The entire street of Kingsway is streetfront retail throughout the area, with cool shops, and the interesting/weird Crystal Mall (chickens hanging upside down and inside out in the windows :S ) and tons of people walking around, rather than just going to the mall. The area also includes the Burnaby Central Library and a couple of very nice parks. Beresford (a street where several major towers are UC currently) will also be turned into a retail high street.

The major regretable thing about Metrotown is of course the parking lot at the mall, just as with Mississauga. However, there are concrete plans to eliminate the parking, including the redevelopment of the Sears and accompanying parking lot with 7 towers

Delirium · #**9793** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 1:35 PM**

^ very true however, even though Metrotown mall is larger than Square one (both in stores and sq/ft), its parking lot footprint is significantly smaller than Square one. Makes for a more compact city centre.

Photo http://www.collierscanada.com/services/P...4ec&bid=1b0781bd49034f419627c014f9bb46d7

vs

Photo http://medias.photodeck.com/a77cf5d4-85bb-11e2-9ca4-f9fe78e83571/BD-154_xlarge.jpg

1overcosc · #**9794** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 1:44 PM**

MCC is not really the best example of great suburban intensification in Toronto... in fact I'd argue its one of the worst. North York City Centre & Downtown Markham are much better. Thornhill City Centre and Vaughan Centre are now starting to emerge so we'll see what happens with them. I predict Thornhill will be a flop as its not a major transit node like the others are.

I'll go out on a limb and claim that North York City Centre is the best example of urbanized suburbia in all of Canada.

Beedok · #**9795** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 1:54 PM**

I'd say that downtown Burlington is a pretty darned impressive one of the relative size. It's thorough enough that you'd never guess the town had only ~3 000 inhabitants in 1941.

Chadillaccc · #**9796** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 1:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

MCC is not really the best example of great suburban intensification in Toronto... in fact I'd argue its one of the worst. North York City Centre & Downtown Markham are much better. Thornhill City Centre and Vaughan Centre are now starting to emerge so we'll see what happens with them. I predict Thornhill will be a flop as its not a major transit node like the others are.

I'll go out on a limb and claim that North York City Centre is the best example of urbanized suburbia in all of Canada.

We were only talking about a comparison between Mississauga and Metrotown, not which suburb is the best in the nation.

caltrane74 · #**9797** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 2:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

We were only talking about a comparison between Mississauga and Metrotown, not which suburb is the best in the nation.

Well, Mississauga has Port Credit which is one 4 townships that were combined to make the city in the first place. And it has a more compact and vibrant urban core. So in combination, I don't think there is a significant gap between the urbanity in Burnaby and Mississauga overall. MCC will jump up a notch once the BRT and LRT are up and running, and then the comparison with Burnbaby won't be quite so negative.

Chadillaccc · #**9798** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 2:11 PM**

Yeah, we were talking about Mississauga City Centre, not Port Credit. Thanks for looking for ways to create conflict though.

Burnaby is circumnavigated by the most advanced rapid transit system in the entire country. All 4 town centres, including metrotown, are connected to it. An LRT line hardly comes close to closing the gap between MCC and Metrotown. Burnaby isn't just a bunch of post-war town centres by the way, it was a collection of historic towns once upon a time, just like Mississauga. Remember to do at least a bit of research next time.

She's an oldy, but a goody! It's amazing what 8 years has done for this city's skyline.

http://www.bigskyline.com/Calgary-Canda-city-skyline-pic.html

travis3000 · #**9799** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 3:02 PM**

One big difference though... Burnaby has 230,000 people where as Mississauga has 750,000 people. And personally I prefer the skyline of Mississauga myself, those Absolute towers really define it and give the city a feel of it's own. To give Mississauga credit, the city continues to improve each year, and it's reputation continues to grow with it.

1overcosc · #**9800** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 4:20 PM**

MCC has the benefit of being a transit junction and the core of a 700k municipality... but unlike DT Markham or Vaughan Centre it won't have GO RER access.

I personally predict that Vaughan Centre will become a very successful urban node, possibly overtaking NYCC as the best postwar urbanity in the country. It's got incredible transit links--the junction of subway, GO RER, and three BRT corridors enabling easy access to huge swaths of the GTA.

To me street life is more important than skyline, and that's why I believe NYCC to be the best postwar urbanity in Canada. Walk around Yonge & Sheppard and you'll never know you're in postwar areas.