The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! - Page 56

logan5 · #**1101** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 3:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver's core is certainly dense by any comparison but it is not as dense as it looks from the air.

All those condos certainly hold a lot of buildings and there are a lot of condos but they are deceptive. Vancouver condos basically max out at 35 stories and few are that tall but the real difference is in the footprint. Vancouver has a lot of buildings but those buildings don't house near as many people as a similar height building would anywhere else in the country.

People in Vancouver don't seem to realize just how incredibly skinny their towers are. when I go back to Ontario I am reminded of just a petit Vancouver buildings are. Vancouver's skyline makes the city look the densest in Canada but it's doesn't hold near the population of downtown Toronto.

I guess I'm a stickler for factual information. I presume you don't actually know what the population of DT Toronto and DT Vancouver are, so I'll provide some numbers courtesy of isaidso. The numbers are accurate because I double checked them.

Downtown Toronto:

population: 175,064
approx. area: 5.0 square miles
approx. density: 35,000 ppsm

Greater Downtown Vancouver:

population: 163,753
approx. area: 5.3 square miles
approx. density: 31,000 ppsm

Obviously Toronto has a larger core population, but they're pretty close. The peninsula has 100 000 people in an area of 2.2 sq miles. I don't know what Toronto's inner 2 square mile population would be though.

ciudad_del_norte · #**1102** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 3:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Lolwut? Sure Laval and Longueuil are ugly, but I wouldn't say that lol...

I can't really comment on the truth of the statement. But after living in a few Latin American cities, I wouldn't be that surprised. They aren't always pretty, but not the epitome of ugly many expect. I don't know if it as much of an insult as you may think. Places like Bogotá feel very much new world and developed world. Not everywhere in the city...but I find most North Americans have a strange idea of what exists down there. It's not a stretch to me to imagine Montreal suburbs having similarities with Latin cities.

RyLucky · #**1103** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 3:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

I guess I'm a stickler for factual information. I presume you don't actually know what the population of DT Toronto and DT Vancouver are, so I'll provide some numbers courtesy of isaidso. The numbers are accurate because I double checked them.

Downtown Toronto:

population: 175,064
approx. area: 5.0 square miles
approx. density: 35,000 ppsm

Greater Downtown Vancouver:

population: 163,753
approx. area: 5.3 square miles
approx. density: 31,000 ppsm

Obviously Toronto has a larger core population, but they're pretty close. The peninsula has 100 000 people in an area of 2.2 sq miles. I don't know what Toronto's inner 2 square mile population would be though.

And that's only population density, which completely discounts the building/skyline density of office space. Include office space, and no neighbourhood in Canada is anywhere close in density to downtown Toronto. Perhaps FAR or sqft/sqkm could be another another metric.

1overcosc · #**1104** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 3:27 AM**

It also presents the issue of deciding the boundaries of DT in an apples-to-apples manner... I think we had a thread once where we discussed this precise issue in detail.

RyLucky · #**1105** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 3:39 AM**

I suppose one difference in the "density" of Canadian skylines is how the density decreases as you move away from the city centre. For the record, since we are talking about skylines, I'm strictly speaking about "building density" not population density.

In Vancouver, the building density is high in the core (but not as high as Toronto, Montreal, or Calgary), and gradually decreases as you move out.

In Toronto, there are pockets of "mega-density" that crop up here and there, with occasional high-density hubs (Eglinton, North York, Mississauga, etc) that rival the density of a typical 10-block swath of land in downtown Vancouver, Calgary, or Montreal.

Calgary has a high-density core, probably denser than anywhere else except Toronto, but it rapidly drops off at the river and the hill with almost no high-rises in the entire rest of the city (with many, not-worth mentioning exceptions).

MTLskyline · #**1106** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 3:52 AM**

Just cleaned this thread out again.

Please stick to skyline pictures and civil discussion.

Thanks.

Chadillaccc · #**1107** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 3:54 AM**

Repost: to get things back on track.

This photo really shows the development of the Beltline Skyline over the past few years and how it is becoming an extension of the primary skyline. With a dozen towers currently UC in the Beltline, it will be fully integrated with the downtown skyline from this view by about 2017.

Calgary Fall Skyline by Persuasion Photography, on Flickr

Razor · #**1108** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 4:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Thanks for the moderation MTL!

Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

Just cleaned this thread out again.

Please stick to skyline pictures and civil discussion.

Thanks.

Thanks for the moderation Mr. moderator

RyLucky · #**1109** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 4:06 AM**

Is there the same false-rivalry between cities in other countries?

I mean, seriously, every Canadian city enjoys a relatively high quality of life compared with urban centres around the world. We're spoiled to have so much space, lush park lands, beautiful clean water, and economies that can support development of beautiful skyscrapers. Calgary will always be the town where I grew up, and in that sense of course it is my favourite, but I'd be happy to live in any Canadian city. Give me a job I like, some pathways to jog on, a lookout or two on a hill, a bit of culture, and some peace and social justice and I'm happy. Any major city in Canada can offer that. The differences and nuances are immaterial.

What Canadian cities need is more cooperation. Regardless of your political stripes, we all want less congestion, better greenspaces, safer and more desirable communities, etc. Someone who lives in Calgary's Beltline probably has more in common with someone who lives near False Creek or Queen Street or on the Plateau than they do with someone who lives in Calgary's suburbs. Someone who takes pride in where they live and is as civically engaged as many of you is surely an urbanist, and it doesn't really matter what city you are from or how it's better than other cities.

Enough he said/she said. You have more in common than you think.

Klazu · #**1110** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 4:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver's core is certainly dense by any comparison but it is not as dense as it looks from the air. All those condos certainly hold a lot of buildings and there are a lot of condos but they are deceptive. Vancouver condos basically max out at 35 stories and few are that tall but the real difference is in the footprint. Vancouver has a lot of buildings but those buildings don't house near as many people as a similar height building would anywhere else in the country.

Yes, Vancouver towers are skinny thanks to the principles of Vancouverism and have small footprint, but I think the biggest result from this is that our condos are very small in size, especially in the Yaletown and Coal Harbour areas. I have no numbers to give, but I would think that our 30 floor tower has no less residents than a same size tower in any other Canadian city.

You are correct about our condo towers maxing out at around 35 floors, but you should know very well that this is changing quickly with lots of 40-50 floor towers having gone up in the last five years and more going up all the time. Our skyline's profile is changing rapidly and 40-45 floors is the new norm for many projects.

I would also say that a vast majority of all-residential towers in Canada are less than 35 floors and only Toronto has a significant number of taller all-residential skyscrapers. So Vancouver is not doing bad here in this sense, as we have lots of these towers...

lio45 · #**1111** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by travis3000

Yeah the discussion here has been nice the past few days. A few disagreements but everyone is managing to remain civil.

That's also my observation, but apparently it required cleanup twice (which I completely missed both times; everything I've witnessed in this thread has been reasonably civil).

It's very possible to disagree with someone and still have a polite, thoughtful discussion about the topic on which there's the disagreement (skylines, in this case). Several recent posts are proving it (not that I think it needed any proving).

RyLucky · #**1112** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Repost: to get things back on track.

This photo really shows the development of the Beltline Skyline over the past few years and how it is becoming an extension of the primary skyline. With a dozen towers currently UC in the Beltline, it will be fully integrated with the downtown skyline from this view by about 2017.

Have you taken the train through Sunalta? It's a great place to get a feel for the Beltline's density. That vantage also showcases a lot of Calgary's older stock, which I believe are entering an era of "gritty maturity". The little spires of glass that keep getting built really make that brick "pop"!

BretttheRiderFan · #**1113** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 4:35 AM**

Took a road trip with a buddy to Calgary for the last couple days, it was my first time in the city (besides being in the airport) since 2011. It was a blast checking out all the improvements to the skyline since then, as well as seeing all the cranes downtown.

I'd never heard of that face sculpture in front of The Bow (which still wasn't finished last time I was downtown), it was really cool checking it out. I also enjoyed the new C-Train liveries and Eighth Avenue Place.

Even with all of the improvements to downtown Edmonton coming up in the next decade (heck...even if EVERYTHING planned is actually completed) we'll still be light years behind as far as the skyline goes. Cheers, Calgary.

dleung · #**1114** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 4:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Yes, Vancouver towers are skinny thanks to the principles of Vancouverism and have small footprint, but I think the biggest result from this is that our condos are very small in size, especially in the Yaletown and Coal Harbour areas. I have no numbers to give, but I would think that our 30 floor tower has no less residents than a same size tower in any other Canadian city.

You are correct about our condo towers maxing out at around 35 floors, but you should know very well that this is changing quickly with lots of 40-50 floor towers having gone up in the last five years and more going up all the time. Our skyline's profile is changing rapidly and 40-45 floors is the new norm for many projects.

I would also say that a vast majority of all-residential towers in Canada are less than 35 floors and only Toronto has a significant number of taller all-residential skyscrapers. So Vancouver is not doing bad here in this sense, as we have lots of these towers...

Actually Vancouver's towers do contain far less people compared to similar height towers in other cities. A typical 35-storey point tower there will have 2/3rds the floorplate of a similar tower in Toronto, but with maybe half the number of units (4-8 vs 9-12). This is due to a higher-end overall market, and a slightly higher ratio of larger family-oriented apartments. Vancouver's suburban condo towers are closer to the scale of other Canadian cities.