The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[Chadillaccc]

East View by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Sepia Skyline by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

[logan5]

Originally Posted by softee

No, that's not the "urban population" and land area of either. If we're talking urbanized areas, then as of earlier this year Chicago had 9,238,000 people in 6,856 Km2, (2,647 sq. mi) and Toronto had 6,345,000 people in 2,287 Km2 (883 sq. mi.). http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

Well, my source was Wikipedia, but upon further investigation statscan shows Toronto's 2011 metro population at 5 583 064. Land area 2280 sq. miles. Somebodies numbers are way off unless Toronto grew by 800 000 people in 3 years.

Wikipedia shows Chicago's urban area exactly as I stated, 2,122.8 sq mi (5,498 km2), with 8.3 million people.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

@Acajack: I don't know. Place de Ville is a great building in the International Style, but it doesn't feel skyscraperish because of the height restriction which has created the table-top skyline Ottawa suffers from. Place Export Canada is another very fine skyscraper within Ottawa, but overall these buildings are lost in the still sea of even height.

Winnipeg was the first city I lived in with a big city feel. A feeling of lots of unexplored places. Ottawa was even more so that way. Despite the sleepy government-town vibe at times it felt big. It had no height, but it was brawny. The buildings pushed to the sidewalks and closed you in on the streets downtown.

To me it is a bit disappointing that Ottawa is going to break the height barrier outside of the main core and it will be residential that dominates the height in Ottawa for probably decades to come.

I hear you. My favourite skyscraper in Ottawa is probably World Exchange Plaza.

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=fr&site=...0...1ac.1.53.img..12.23.1471.voBm2_KNj9I

But it's only 20 floors and less than 100 m tall! It has that cool ball thingy on the roof that tells the time (sort of) but it's hard to see it because all of the buildings around it are the same height!

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Feelings of Bigness:

Drummonville>Toronto>Montreal>Vancouver>Calgary>Edmonton/Ottawa>Winnipeg/Quebec City>Hamilton>London/Halifax>KW (yes< I know it is larger than London, but being spread over multiple nodes...)>Victoria/Saskatoon/Regina>St. John's/Moncton

I think we all know what the biggest city in Canada is:

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I hear you. My favourite skyscraper in Ottawa is probably World Exchange Plaza.

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=fr&site=...0...1ac.1.53.img..12.23.1471.voBm2_KNj9I

But it's only 20 floors and less than 100 m tall! It has that cool ball thingy on the roof that tells the time (sort of) but it's hard to see it because all of the buildings around it are the same height!

I forgot about the cool ball on top. I liked that. The little plaza with the monumental curved wall was a pretty nice feature as well. One of the better late 80s to early 90s buildings around, although I still hate that peachy-orange-tan colour.

[OTSkyline]

I think Ottawa is doing the best it can with what it has (which is a strict viewplane height restriction). I think it has some great quality highrises and the density in downtown Ottawa is amazing. Yes, Winnipeg has a couple of highrises and taller buildings that Ottawa but I feel that it's "downtown" feel or look is pretty dead outside the Portage intersection...


Ottawa downtown aerial
https://maps.google.ca/?ll=45.420651,-75.698349&spn=0.004957,0.008256&t=h&z=18

Ottawa Downtown Street level
https://maps.google.ca/?ll=45.418644,-75...IeRie-SYcmq22mbHg&cbp=12,216.86,,0,-0.47

Winnipeg downtown aerial
https://maps.google.ca/?ll=49.895794,-97.138195&spn=0.00455,0.008256&t=h&z=18

Winnipeg Downtown Street Level
https://maps.google.ca/?ll=49.895596,-97...HNEghpzScm_mwY8Q&cbp=12,166.35,,0,-16.67

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

East View by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Sepia Skyline by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Love that first pic. Really cool with the haze.

[Beedok]

World Exchange Plaza is probably my favourite in Ottawa.

As for Winnipeg, I didn't really have time to see the foot traffic, I just really saw the build level. Giving the towers room to breath is in my opinion a positive. I know a lot of people like canyons, but I like individual peaks.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^LOL!! Completely obsessed...with taking Toronto down a peg or two!


I lived in Vancouver for years. Nearby Seattle was very often depicted in photographs with Mount Rainier looming large over the city, but that did not reflect reality. Maybe you are the one obsessed with Calgary, since you automatically concluded I was referring to it.

Well in all fairness that has been a criticism of Calgary compared to Vancouver on this forum before. Also, you make some pretty caustic and sarcastic remarks about Calgary quite frequently. Where's the love man? Can't we all just come together over the Ugly Canada thread and bond?

[Delirium]

Photo by Aitorgavi https://www.flickr.com/photos/aitorgavi/14954817108/sizes/h/


Photo by Aitorgavi https://www.flickr.com/photos/aitorgavi/14954644559/sizes/h/

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by logan5

Well, my source was Wikipedia, but upon further investigation statscan shows Toronto's 2011 metro population at 5 583 064. Land area 2280 sq. miles. Somebodies numbers are way off unless Toronto grew by 800 000 people in 3 years.

Wikipedia shows Chicago's urban area exactly as I stated, 2,122.8 sq mi (5,498 km2), with 8.3 million people.

I wish people would stop using those 2011 federal census numbers for Toronto and here's why:

1. The census has an undercount , the actual number is higher by over 200,000 .

2. That 5.6 million number fails to include Oshawa, Whitby, Hamilton, Burlington, etc. These are all cities which must be included in TOs numbers especially if you are comparing to US cities

3. That data is old. It's been 3.5 years since they collected it, in which time the GTA has added over 350,000 people.

[logan5]

I used 2 equal areas (approx. 2200 sq miles) to make the comparison fair. Chicago has 8.3 million people (that's from 2000, so it's more now) in the same square mileage that Toronto has 5.5 + 200 000 I guess. After that 2200 sq mile boundary, Toronto starts to catch up. I guess my point is Chicago has a much larger urban population.

[MonkeyRonin]

The 2,200 sqmi (6,856 sqkm) figure is the amount of developed land consumed by Chicago's urban area. The 2,200 sqmi figure for the Toronto CMA is mostly undeveloped land. The continguous Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa urban area* (3 CMAs) has 6,184,000 people in 883 sqmi (2,287 sqkm) as per the 2011 census (so, probably 6.5 million+ in that area today - of course Chicago has grown as well).

*Note that StatCan's urban areas must be within a CMA, so their numbers are for the Toronto part only.


A very rough comparison between the extent of the Toronto CMA (blue) and the urban area (red). Not very accurate I'm sure (I'm sure someone will chime in to tell me I've put the CMA borders on the wrong rural sideroad), but you get the idea:

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by logan5

I used 2 equal areas (approx. 2200 sq miles) to make the comparison fair. Chicago has 8.3 million people (that's from 2000, so it's more now) in the same square mileage that Toronto has 5.5 + 200 000 I guess. After that 2200 sq mile boundary, Toronto starts to catch up. I guess my point is Chicago has a much larger urban population.

This didn't make any sense when I read it. Toronto's contiguous urban area is far more densely built than Chicago's. The only conclusion I can come to is that you mixed up your units, writing sq miles for both but accidentally using the sq km value for Toronto. It would explain the discrepancy.

Toronto-Oshawa-Hamilton contiguous (not including rural) is a shade over 6 mill in a shade about 2500 sq KM, not sq MILE. Urban Toronto has the highest urban density of all NA metros. Hamilton is up there as well, not sure about Oshawa. Chicago is somewhere in the middle, so it makes absolutely no sense that you're arguing Chicago fits more people into the same area. Again, the only explanation for this is that you used the sq km number for TO and called it sq miles.

That said, what's the cutoff for calling something urban in the States? In Canada it's 400/sq km, is it the same in the States? Higher? Lower? This makes a difference too, and I'm fairly certain that it'd be higher in Canada, which again makes the population seem smaller.

Look, I'm not arguing that Toronto is just as big as Chicago, because that wouldn't be true, I'm just saying that the difference isn't nearly as big as people make it out to be. Use consistent methods to measure and then compare.

[logan5]

No I didn't mix up the units. I thought urbanized area meant a whole encompassing area. I thought the urbanized area for Chicago meant the inner 2200 sq. mile boundary, but apparently not.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Well in all fairness that has been a criticism of Calgary compared to Vancouver on this forum before. Also, you make some pretty caustic and sarcastic remarks about Calgary quite frequently. Where's the love man? Can't we all just come together over the Ugly Canada thread and bond?

Be that as it may, i did not make that particular criticism, here nor anywhere else. I am not aware that I made so-called caustic remarks, as opposed to posts expressing my exasperation with the extreme volume of Calgary population/growth minutiae, and the concomitant snide pokes at cities back east, which many others on this forum have also remarked upon.

[losername]

Setting aside all thats be discussed above, as one observer has posted, Chicago still has more than double the number of 150m skyscrapers than Toronto currently has built and u/c. Hence giving its skyline a much larger and more impessive impact even without taking into account the larger stock of classic deco, neogothic, etc styles that they have in multitude over Toronto.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If Ottawa-Gatineau were an American metro it would likely be pushing 2 million. Or already there even.

Ya I thought it would be around that as well. There's just so many hamlets small towns, and villages surrounding Ottawa/Gat. Like others have stated, Gananoque would be pushing it ..Even by American standards.

QC is another city that would be inflated significantly if using American standards for metro areas.I can also see Van and Montreal significantly increasing as well..Not sure about the others..Just don't know if they have enough rural/small town population base around their cities to make a huge difference in their respective metros if using that American metric.

I've never been to Winnipeg, but I can see Winnipeg having a more imposing and "big city"skyline than Ottawa btw. It's the centre for all things in Manitoba..Ottawa is not for Ontario. There would be more of a corporate presence in Winnipeg..Hence the taller office buildings. Not to mention Ottawa's height restrictions.

[Brizzy82]

couple of Winnipeg shots I took the other day


Osborne Village


Downtown (Heritage Landing slowly rising on the right, will be 25 floors)


Closer look at Heritage Landing site

[Klazu]

Thanks guys for the comments!

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Just when you thought downtown couldn't get any more crowded... I remember visiting Vancouver when the 1st wall centre was built. It didn't even stand out, and barely made a mark. Then I remember visiting again in 2012, the Shangri-la's presence changed everything. It changed my perception of a flat, unappealing skyline to a visually stimulating skyline. The pinnacle effect was glorious when seen from second narrows bridge.

I said it before and I'll say it again, downtown vancouver is very nice looking. It's almost sexual really, whenever I see it, I desperately want to be in it. That's weird, right?

Very well put, Rico. I can totally undersign this and it is a fantastic place to live in (if you can afford it).

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Stunning. Breathtaking. Vancouver's natural setting is unbeatable in North America (I'd put San Francisco second). Ranks with Rio, Hong Kong, and a handful of other cities. No telephoto lens is needed to bring out the mountains in Van. They are just right there.

You got that right! This photo is taken pretty close to a 50mm focal length, so it is pretty true to how massive and close the North Shore Mountains appear from Downtown. The view is even more impressive when you extend it 180 degrees, which my view truly extends, but I will show that on another time.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Awesome pic Klazu, but what do you think you are doing interrupting this thread with a "skyline" picture. Can't you see there is another Toronto vs. Chicago debate going on

Ooops, sorry about that. Fortunately these debates do occur every few months, so I doubt any big harm was done.