The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[Slug]

Calgary from a quadracopter

• Video Link

[Le1000]

Oh no, not this again!!!

starts with:
Calgary's skyline > Montreal's skyline

Followed by:
Yeah but... Montreal's street life > Calgary's street life

Both are correct and it doesn't mean Calgary has no street life, or Montreal's has no skyline. Now, can people stop being so freaking sassy?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Le1000

Oh no, not this again!!!

starts with:
Calgary's skyline > Montreal's skyline

Followed by:
Yeah but... Montreal's street life > Calgary's street life

Both are correct and it doesn't mean Calgary has no street life, or Montreal's has no skyline. Now, can people stop being so freaking sassy?

Perhaps one person in particular....

[Razor]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Perhaps one person in particular....

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by Slug

Calgary from a quadracopter

• Video Link

Oh my God, look at that ! The streets are deserted !

Just kidding

[GreaterMontréal]

summer 2013


http://montreal-in-focus.blogspot.ca/2013/06/montreal-fly-by.html

[Martin Mtl]

Those are great aerials.

[GreaterMontréal]

Le Victoire should really stand out when completed.

[Tone]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I do not doubt that Montreal may have a very vibrant street life, but I am often surprised how stagnant and 80s-ish the city skyline looks like. I am sorry to say, but Montreal's skyline is to me similar to some 2nd and 3rd tier US cities like St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City.

It is surprising how little Montreal's skyline has benefited from the huge condo boom that has swept across Canada in the past decade or so. Only other major Canadian city coming to mind is perhaps Winnipeg, where condo boom and huge population increase has not resulted in dozens of glass towers in Downtown area.

I know know that glass condo towers are only a friction of what makes a city, but they do make a skyline look 2010s. Their almost complete absence in Montreal's skyline is surprising considering the size of the city. I mean, tallest residential building in Montreal is currently only 124 meters and 33 floors. In Metro Vancouver we have those all over the suburbs!

I realize that change is on the way and there are several condo towers finally under construction, but Montreal seems to be very late into the game during this boom that has already permanents transformed the skylines of other top-4 cities.

Montreal is not a generic glass condos city but a dense low and mid-rise one with many new developments alike that dont alter the skyline, these aerials can help you discovering this.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Tone

Montreal is not a generic glass condos city but a dense low and mid-rise one with many new developments alike that dont alter the skyline, these aerials can help you discovering this.

I don't think we should use that an excuse .

Montreal, Toronto(that is changing now), and many other Canadian cities have not added much to their skylines in terms of office development and signature skyscrapers in the last 20 years.

This is not just about architecture, but also points that our downtowns (Calgary being an exception) have not been attracting much new business growth in the last two decades.

We all need to be more like Calgary and get more business back downtown to spark office development.

[Razor]

Kewl aerials of Montreal..

That quad vid of Calgary was pretty kewl as well. I said it before..What I appreciate about what the city Calgary is doing is how dense and tall the buildings are for the size of the city. It's like they are making the office space count in their DT core by way of height and density. As the video displays, there is not a huge depth of dense tall buildings..More of a belt or swath of 4 or five deep, but it is a city of roughly 1.3 million Not 5.0 million..Comparing it to Montreal, a city almost 4 times it's size is ridiculous..Whether they are mid rises or super talls, Montreal is going to ultimately have more width and length to it's skyline..I don't get how people on here even try to compare the two cities different urban forms and skylines.One is coming into it's own today, where one came into be decades ago. Different building materials, building technology etc. Apples and oranges....I'm sure Dubai has more super talls than Boston and Istanbul as well...No worries Calgary ..You are doing great and headed into the right direction in the way your city is being built..Like others have stated..A major player city of tomorrow.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Tone

Montreal is not a generic glass condos city but a dense low and mid-rise one with many new developments alike that dont alter the skyline, these aerials can help you discovering this.

It's true Vancouver has a lot of generic residential towers, but at least going by those aerial shots, Montreal's skyline isn't all that dazzling either. Skylines are a pretty superficial way to judge a city anyways. If we were to judge a city based on skylines, everybody would be visiting Calgary with its massive skyline, but get pretty much the same urban experience as Victoria, which has almost no skyline. I guess mighty Toronto has the best of both worlds.

[Tone]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I don't think we should use that an excuse .

Montreal, Toronto(that is changing now), and many other Canadian cities have not added much to their skylines in terms of office development and signature skyscrapers in the last 20 years.

This is not just about architecture, but also points that our downtowns (Calgary being an exception) have not been attracting much new business growth in the last two decades.

We all need to be more like Calgary and get more business back downtown to spark office development.

I have no choice but to agree 100%.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by isaidso

So our cities should be made desolate, empty, and barren on the surface all year round because 4 months of the year the weather doesn't co-operate? That logic would entail that we move everything in our cities into climate controlled malls. Get rid of Yonge Street, the Annex, Queen West, the Danforth, Queen's Quay, Yorkville, absolutely everything that's exposed to the elements.... and put it underground because its cold here 4 months of the year.

The quality of life at street level should always be a city's priority. Only then do you start putting some stuff underground. Having only underground amenities and a barren empty city above ground is outrageous and a major FAIL. From that POV, the CBD is not something I want to see repeated ANYWHERE in this country.

You could bet the quality of life in this country would plummet. I'd emigrate. And btw, being outside is more natural for most creatures than being indoors. There's a reason people enjoy going to the beach, parks, balconies, patios, or simply walking down the street. Human beings need that (being outside), gerbils do not. Stay indoors and see how long you last before you want to pull your hair out. I bet you wouldn't last the week.

I'm not saying we should destroy what we have, but I still think new development should have more indoors options. By decreasing the amount of land wasted on new sidewalks and trying to fit humans with cars in one place (which is an impossible compromise, they need opposite things) you could have more space for parks. Also more rooftop gardens and parks would help. Also it isn't four months a year, rain is an all year thing, add that to days were it's too hot and you're probably looking at at least half the days of the year where people would rather stay indoors. Plus decreasing the number of people dead from car accidents is surely a good thing.

As for staying inside prolonged periods, I really wish I could. During breaks in university I frequently go a few days staying inside, but sadly I can't get to the grocery store or classes through wonderful tunnels filled with urban amenities. Instead I have to go out and breath in car exhaust.

[Chadillaccc]

Sorry, I was really not trying to make that into a debate/argument. I just felt it was an unfair comparison. Using one, very defined point to describe an entire city, while using two very broad points to describe another and then calling it a "simple comparison" just didn't seem right with me. So I offered alternatives. I obviously think Montreal is a wonderful city, wasn't try to "compete".

EDIT: oh wow, it looks like the discussion remained remarkably civil. Well, sorry anyways. I was in a bit of a bitchy mood this morning when posting.


Back to skylines though... a beautiful, older shot of Calgary


http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/Canada/Prairies/Alberta/Calgary/photo1176586.htm

[Delirium]

Photo by jteckert https://www.flickr.com/photos/jteckert/14765980520/sizes/h/

[ssiguy]

Montreal certainly doesn't have as many glass condos as Vancouver but that is a reflection of the real estate market.

In Vancouver most people who live in condos do so because they have no choice due to the astronomical housing prices and where even a tiny shack on the ugly, crime ridden eastside in a "Vancouver Special" is way beyond the means of most in the city. In Montreal, the opposite is true............people often live in condos due to a choice because they could have a nice home on a big lot for less than what a Vancouverite would pay for a 400 sq foot glorified walk-in-closet.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Montreal certainly doesn't have as many glass condos as Vancouver but that is a reflection of the real estate market.

In Vancouver most people who live in condos do so because they have no choice due to the astronomical housing prices and where even a tiny shack on the ugly, crime ridden eastside in a "Vancouver Special" is way beyond the means of most in the city. In Montreal, the opposite is true............people often live in condos due to a choice because they could have a nice home on a big lot for less than what a Vancouverite would pay for a 400 sq foot glorified walk-in-closet.

or you can rent for less than $800/month, a nice 3½ all inclusive. In a nice neighbourhood like Ahuntsic, Villeray, Rosemont. Close to a Metro line and you don't need a car. 7km from downtown Montréal.

[Chadillaccc]

It is pretty sad how foreign residential realestate investment has pretty much annihilated the affordability of arguably Canada's coolest city. My ex and I lived in Burnaby very comfortably though, a block from the skytrain and in a beautiful condo. So it's not totally out of reach for middle class, it's just... a fading possibility for most.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

In Vancouver most people who live in condos do so because they have no choice due to the astronomical housing prices and where even a tiny shack on the ugly, crime ridden eastside...

Yeah it's gotten so bad in East Van, not even the cops will go there after dark. Picture The Bronx in 70's.