The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[Chadillaccc]

If this is the worst skyline out of our big four, our country is doing pretty damn great in the skyline department! 2nd all the way


http://www.artcountrycanada.com/morgan-doug-calgary-city-skyline.htm

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by 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.

As always, the voice of reason.

[craner]

^^Great picture of a great skyline from my favorite vantage point.

Let me just say I love the skylines of all our Canadian cities, even the smaller ones (Halifax, Regina, London, etc.). I think it's fabulous they are all unique and varied, and take on the character of their city. I don't see why this has to be a competition and can only like your "favorite" one.
Can't we al just get along?

[GlassCity]

People need to start giving lists of Canada's skylines as if they were absolute and objective. Rousseau says Montreal is a solid number two, whereas for me it's a distant fourth. You can't rank skylines the way you can rank population for example. The list will be different for everybody.

[Klazu]

Height is almost irrelevant in making a skyline amazing. Here is the tallest skyline in the world and while it's impressive from height perspective, the lack of setting makes it pretty meh to me.





And just to set torontonians into some perspective...

[ssiguy]

I'm glad to see Vancouver finally get some height. The "table top" skyline just didn't do justice to the city's spectacular setting. It will never have near the tall structures that Toronto has now or even Calgary will have in a few years due to the height restriction and footprint restriction. When you can only build so tall with very small footprints then naturally the variety of options diminishes.

Vancouver also has almost no head offices and even if they lifted the height ceiling that wouldn't change. Large office buildings usually want a major occupant secured before construction starts and Vancouver simply doesn't have large enough employers to do that with. Also Vancouver's downtown has basically "filled up"....there is very little land left downtown to build anything. Even condo tower construction downtown is tiny compared to what it once was because there is no room left.

Many of Vancouver's buildings under construction are taking place in the suburbs like Burnaby. The one's in the city itself are more on the False Creek/Olympic Village area. Some are getting built on the old Expo Lands near Chinatown but they will have relatively small impact on the skyline because it is of lower elevation than downtown.

There will be little office construction in Vancouver from hear on as land downtown as outrageously expensive and any buildings of a new tower now basically means the tearing down of an old one. When you have to buy a building, tear it down, and then the replacement has to have an equally small footprint and limited height then it's not worth it. This is why many office and condo towers are now gearing towards the suburbs.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Height is almost irrelevant in making a skyline amazing. Here is the tallest skyline in the world and while it's impressive from height perspective, the lack of setting makes it pretty meh to me.

Dubai doesn't do anything for me either, but height is an important quality. Dubai failed in most of the other areas, that's all. I agree that one can have a great looking skyline with only moderate height, but height amps things up considerably.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

People need to start giving lists of Canada's skylines as if they were absolute and objective. Rousseau says Montreal is a solid number two, whereas for me it's a distant fourth. You can't rank skylines the way you can rank population for example. The list will be different for everybody.

Maybe he is being objective. People value things differently. I sometimes put Montreal in 2nd as well, although I know it's only 4th biggest in Canada. There's really not much separating Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver. Where you place them depends on what your preferences are. Scale, height, architectural layering, iconic structures, layout, quality, style, etc.

In some ways I liked the 1980 Vancouver skyline as much as the 2005 Vancouver skyline. Vancouver today scores more points for being much bigger, but loses about the same number of points because I don't like what was built.

Montreal and Calgary steadily get better and I like it all for the most part. Same goes for Toronto except City Place was a huge negative. I'd score Toronto higher if it didn't exist.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Dubai doesn't do anything for me either, but height is an important quality. Dubai failed in most of the other areas, that's all. I agree that one can have a great looking skyline with only moderate height, but height amps things up considerably.

I think more important than the absolute height is that there are differences in building heights and that buildings are of different age. Variation and "layering" make an interesting and great skyline, like with New York.

A skyline needs to be also visible from ground to be really considered and I wouldn't count anything visible only from a a drone / airplane, as nobody ever sees those views. With this kind of criteria, would for example Calgary still have any skyline view with Rocky Mountains visible? I am just curious if there is any naturally tall place to see the skyline and mountains in the distance.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Maybe he is being objective. People value things differently. I sometimes put Montreal in 2nd as well, although I know it's only 4th biggest in Canada. There's really not much separating Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver. Where you place them depends on what your preferences are. Scale, height, architectural layering, iconic structures, layout, quality, style, etc.

In some ways I liked the 1980 Vancouver skyline as much as the 2005 Vancouver skyline. Vancouver today scores more points for being much bigger, but loses about the same number of points because I don't like what was built.

Montreal and Calgary steadily get better and I like it all for the most part. Same goes for Toronto except City Place was a huge negative. I'd score Toronto higher if it didn't exist.

But people's values can't be objective. You basically mirrored everything I said: Where you place them depends on your preferences. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, because it sounds like we're agreeing.

[ozonemania]

Originally Posted by 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?

Yeah, you don't see this angle very often. Too bad it doesn't extend to the right-of-frame more, the building stock there would make the pic even more impressive.

The pin cushion effect you talk about may be due to the fact that some of the classic d/t Vancouver viewpoints basically run parallel to the street grid, so the gaps between buildings become more pronounced. The d/t peninsula is so compact that in a couple areas you can see right through. The pic you like does not run along the street grid (almost at a 45-degree angle). Not to mention the elevation changes on this side of the peninsula. The pic in dleung's post above does not run along the street grid either.

[isaidso]

That's an outstanding shot. Possibly my favourite Vancouver shot ever. Thanks for posting it.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

But people's values can't be objective. You basically mirrored everything I said: Where you place them depends on your preferences. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, because it sounds like we're agreeing.

Having preferences and objectivity are 2 entirely different things.

He has preferences just like everyone else, but that doesn't mean he's ranking Montreal highly because he's from Quebec. More than likely he lives in Quebec because of his preferences. I'd only argue someone is lacking objectivity if they're not judging skylines using the same set of criteria.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Klazu

With this kind of criteria, would for example Calgary still have any skyline view with Rocky Mountains visible? I am just curious if there is any naturally tall place to see the skyline and mountains in the distance.

I actually only count man made structures and buildings in a skyline rating. I try to strip out water, mountains, etc. completely. I'm judging a city and the city alone. What lies beyond the city is another question.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That's an outstanding shot. Possibly my favourite Vancouver shot ever. Thanks for posting it.



Having preferences and objectivity are 2 entirely different things.

He has preferences just like everyone else, but that doesn't mean he's ranking Montreal highly because he's from Quebec. More than likely he lives in Quebec because of his preferences. I'd only argue someone is lacking objectivity if they're not judging skylines using the same set of criteria.

Isn't he from Ontario? But that's besides the point. Maybe objectivity isn't the right word to use, or maybe one of us has the definition wrong. I mean skylines aren't something quantifiable you can measure to see what's better. You can't say as a fact that one song is simply better than another one, or that a poem is the best poem ever written because both of these statements are opinions. That's what I'm trying to say: skyline rankings are opinions. Everybody is going to prefer the look of different skylines, just as we do with art, music, women and so on. You can't rank them as absolutes the way you can rank the top 10 fastest people in the world because one is a preference and the other is a measured fact.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by Klazu

With this kind of criteria, would for example Calgary still have any skyline view with Rocky Mountains visible? I am just curious if there is any naturally tall place to see the skyline and mountains in the distance.

Sure, like virtually the entire eastern side of the city, which is basically just a big plateau.


Calgary skyline P4270323 by Phil Kinsman (Olwebhound), on Flickr

The reason you don't see the mountains in a lot of skyline shots is that as you get closer to the downtown flood plain, the elevation drops a bit and foothills like signal hill and broadcast hill get a lot closer. There's also normally quite a bit of haze. The best days to see the Rockies are those crisp mornings in the winter.

EDIT: On another note, Brookfield Place will have a HUGE impact from this angle.

[TallBob]

Very nice photos of all the cities shown. I think Edmonton... if all the proposals get built in 6-7 years, might be the Sleeper!!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

LMAO! What a joke of a post.

rousseau's posts are always good, to the point that it made his temporary absence from this forum actually noticeable for several of us.

Calgary the second skyline in the country? Now THAT would be a joke, but if it makes you feel better personally, okay. But you know, why not first? It would probably make you feel even better, and it doesn't cost more...

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

\
Calgary the second skyline in the country? Now THAT would be a joke, but if it makes you feel better personally, okay. But you know, why not first? It would probably make you feel even better, and it doesn't cost more...

Is it not possible to disagree without the insufferable smugness? Especially considering that his suggestion isn't exactly unheard of. Good grief.

EDIT: I stupidly (somehow) missed Chad's post that you quoted (and were replying to.) Well, my scolding applies to both of you then!

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

LMAO! What a joke of a post.

Maybe you should respect his opinion... He's not biased, contrarily to you.

Skyline size and skyline appeal are two different things. To me, Vancouver has the nicest skyline in the country. Toronto has the biggest and most impressive by far, but it doesn't have Vancouver's appeal IMO.

In my eyes, a skyline with five good-looking 150m towers looks better than one with 10 average 200m towers...

[Beedok]

I'll still put forward my unpopular opinion that Montreal has the nicest skyline in the country.