The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[caltrane74]

Ok, everyone has made their point and we can petition to change the website to "MountainRangePage.com" or my favorite "WaterFallPage.com" this way Niagara Falls can have the best skyline in Canada, seeing how it has the only Natural Wonder in Canada. Lol!

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by travis3000

Nobody can come close to Toronto's skyline in terms of number of buildings. People can like whatever city they want whether it's their natural beauty, topography, type of building material, etc. But when it comes to 100m, 150m and 200m towers... TO takes the cake and will continue to do so. The lake also adds a special flair to TO's skyline, giving the impression it's a coastal city. The thing about Toronto is that you won't be able to get all their tall buildings in one shot, regardless of how much of a panorama you use. You will never get Eau Du Soleil, Mirvish Towers, One Bloor, Aura, the big bank buildings, and ICE towers all in one shot. The skyline has/will continue to grow so much that you can never really enjoy the beauty of it because of elevation and distance between them.

Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver all have exceptional skylines in my opinion. They each have their own strengths (Montreal has the unique style of buildings and old churches, the St Lawrence river backdrop, Calgary has some awesome tall buildings and more to come with a super modern prairie theme going, Vancouver has that futuristic glass tower look with a gorgeous mountain backdrop). Edmonton is well on their way with their new tower planned, I've even seen some nice Winnipeg shots too. So Canada should be proud of all the awesome skylines we have.

Yeppers.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I think they make a nice backdrop for a skyline and a pretty setting, but I think of the skyline as the collection of buildings. Besides, the mountains, ocean, lakes etc, aren't visible from every angle the skyline is.

I just think we should keep it fair as not every city has such a pretty setting as Vancouver, that's all.

But then the problem is where do you draw the line? The Bow River is part of Calgary's setting and enhances many skyline shots, as does the Lake in Toronto, and various other natural attributes, should be discount all of these settings? A major part of a skyline is how it interacts with its setting IMO. This is one reason why places such as Hong Kong get such a huge boost in their skyline image.

Could you imagine rating Cape Town's skyline without Table Mountain in the background?

And for the record I think Toronto has the best skyline in the country, but Vancouver is a solid #2 for me, and the setting has a big part to play in that (Ocean, mountains, parks, bridges, etc...) I like Calgary's as well and it is definetely getting batter every year, but for me it misses some texture that places such as Vancouver and Montreal have (again, bridges, big ports with their massive cranes, etc...)

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Delirium

had to do a double-take when i saw this. it's unusual to see such a zoom of mount arrowsmith (on Vancouver island) and downtown.


Photo by Ann Badjura https://www.flickr.com/photos/23980543@N04/15352860665/sizes/o/

wow, what a shot. I lived in Vancouver for 4 years, and while I could certainly see Mt Arrowsmith (especially when I lived by the straits in Steveston), it never loomed anywhere near as much as Mt. Baker at the opposite end (East by south).

[Trans Canada]

Can't quite nail it down but I think photo credit goes to Elaine Stasiuk, http://people.ucalgary.ca/~enstasiu/, image source http://people.ucalgary.ca/~enstasiu/home/Calgary%20skyline%202012.jpg

This is a great skyline shot of Calgary. Some Calgary skyline shots include mountains, some Toronto shots include the lake, etc.

Toronto obviously has the best skyscrapers, but the "skyline" is all-inclusive IMO and Vancouver's landscape makes its skyline very competitive.

[caltrane74]

This fact won't change : if you put Toronto's buildings in Cape Town it would be accepted as a top 15 Skyline, if you put Hong Kong's buildings in Cape Town setting it would arguably be the number 1 skyline, currently it is neither of these. The topography will not change this ranking.

What, I can say is that Vancouver, Hong Kong, Cape Town and Rio De Janerio arr very beautiful cities. Beauty doesn't always mean awesome skyline.

[Metro-One]

Really caltran, you honestly believe that setting has no effect on skylines?

If Toronto had mountains I am sure your tune would be very different!

I can promise you that Cape Town's skyline would be nowhere near as famous as it is now without Table Mountain

Johannesburg's skyline is much larger than Cape Towns, yet Cape Towns is far more recognizable and famous, now why is that, something is different between the two...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

But then the problem is where do you draw the line? The Bow River is part of Calgary's setting and enhances many skyline shots, as does the Lake in Toronto, and various other natural attributes, should be discount all of these settings? A major part of a skyline is how it interacts with its setting IMO. This is one reason why places such as Hong Kong get such a huge boost in their skyline image.

Could you imagine rating Cape Town's skyline without Table Mountain in the background?

And for the record I think Toronto has the best skyline in the country, but Vancouver is a solid #2 for me, and the setting has a big part to play in that (Ocean, mountains, parks, bridges, etc...) I like Calgary's as well and it is definetely getting batter every year, but for me it misses some texture that places such as Vancouver and Montreal have (again, bridges, big ports with their massive cranes, etc...)

You're actually making a very good point about bridges... if mountains don't count, I suppose bridges should also be photoshopped out for apples-to-apples skyline fairness?

[Chadillaccc]

*not part of this debate*

A beautiful shot of the skyline from a Helicopter just a few days ago, posted by Calgaryism.


https://www.facebook.com/Calgaryism?fref=ts


and another one from one of The Bow's sky parks.


https://www.facebook.com/Calgaryism?fref=ts

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by lio45

You're actually making a very good point about bridges... if mountains don't count, I suppose bridges should also be photoshopped out for apples-to-apples skyline fairness?

That sail boat as well, and the ocean, and rivers, and trees, and clouds! haha

[Nouvellecosse]

There is a difference between a "beautiful city" and an attractive skyline. Obviously the setting affects the overall beauty of a city just as the skyline does, and when combined can make for a stunning vista, but they aren't actually the same thing and can be compared separately. To me it's the same as comparing the most attractive statues, and taking into account the surrounding public square, benches, landscaping, etc. Those things make the overall scene more attractive, but they aren't actually part of the statue.

Bridges, mountains, water, etc. make for a more beautiful overall view, but they're a combination of separate elements working together and can be evaulated independently. Whether or not they "should" be evaulated separately is a matter of opinion. Just as long as when having group discussions people are clear on what they're discussing.

[rousseau]

Toronto is far and away number one. There's really no argument against it.

I normally consider Montreal's skyline as Canada's solid number two, with Vancouver a distant third and the rest in Canada not worth bothering about (Calgary has some substance, but it's not good-looking from any angle, and the Bow is a fantastic building that is wildly out of place--it really should be in Toronto), but now I'm confused: where did this fantastic photo of Vancouver come from?



That's really quite awesome, with or without the mountains. Most photos of Vancouver show gaps between buildings making the skyline look like a pin cushion, but not this photo. Is this just one special angle showing density that other angles don't show? What's going on?

[Chadillaccc]

LMAO! What a joke of a post.

[Beedok]

Natural settings aren't skylines, just as skylines aren't natural settings. Vancouver beats Toronto for natural setting, Toronto beats Vancouver for skyline. If you play an good song in an amazing concert hall the song itself doesn't get any better, so skylines aren't made better by natural setting. The picture of the skyline is made better, but not the skyline itself.

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Calgary has some substance, but it's not good-looking from any angle, and the Bow is a fantastic building that is wildly out of place

The Bow does indeed look out of place but only because it's so much better (and bigger) than everything else around it. Once Brookfield and Telus are built it won't stand out so much. Those towers will form a nice central cluster.

Once that's done, it will be a toss up between Montreal and Calgary for number 2 in my mind. Montreal's skyline has great variety, great layering, and it's full of granular detail. It's also nicely spread out and presents differently from many different angles. Calgary's skyline will have a certain monolithic boldness to it though, which is alluring for other reasons. I think what may put Montreal back on top is its slate of new towers currently under construction. For all that Montreal's skyline has going for it, it lacks neomodern towers which makes it feel a little dated. That will change when all the stuff currently under construction is built.

[dleung]

biggest skyline, most beautiful skyline, and best skyline are all different things

Also biggest-looking might be a category, because from a distance many have made that mistake with Vancouver

[mistercorporate]

I understand how people would define skyline either way. However, common and general usage of the term is in relation to buildings. Capetown and Rio are considered beautiful cities due to their setting, but people seldom compliment their skyline. In a similar fashion, NYC is in a rather standard setting but its skyline is considered among the best if not the best simply due to the presence, scale and drama of its buildings.

[Ramako]

I love this shot. It does a decent job of showing that Toronto's pre-war financial district is still present among the post-war giants (though technically the Bank of Nova Scotia Building was built from 1946-1951 using pre-war plans):



Cityscape photography is my addiction by @416Shots, on Flickr



The thing I like about this shot is how the newly built towers that have yet to be populated stand out as ominously dark figures among a lit-up skyline (except for Aura, which is testing its light show):


Toronto Skyline at Dusk by foreverhrf91, on Flickr

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by dleung

biggest skyline, most beautiful skyline, and best skyline are all different things

Not in Canada. Toronto wins all three.

It's odd that people here are talking so much about the natural setting of a skyline when the immediate urban setting surrounding the taller buildings is so much more important. Highrises shooting up from a sea of midrises or otherwise solid urban density is impressive, and you get a more natural transition from one to the other. Only Toronto and Montreal get this right in Canada.

Highrises in newer cities sprouting out from suburban neighbourhoods just don't look good because the density in the urban fabric isn't there. I honestly don't care how many pillars they prop up along that desert highway in Dubai. It's a skyscraper freak show, which is interesting the way a train wreck is, but it doesn't rate as an attractive skyline.

Which is what prompted me to put my two cents into this thread: that photo of Vancouver above is fantastic because you get a real sense of density surrounding the tall buildings. Those other views of the pin cushion skyscrapers don't look very appealing, but that pic above is terrific.

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by dleung

biggest skyline, most beautiful skyline, and best skyline are all different things

Very true. For some best might mean biggest and for others best may mean most beautiful, or some combination of other factors. Setting is personally a less important factor on my list, but each person's ranking of what constitutes "best" features different criteria. There's not really much point in debating what factors are objectively more important than others. It's a purely subjective exercise.