The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! - Page 69

Chadillaccc · #**1361** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 8:02 PM**

Regina flexing some serious density muscle in these pics...

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Live+blog+Election+night+Regina/7434489/story.html

http://www.montrealgazette.com/REGINA+SA...ER+Regina+Leader+Post/9229028/story.html

1overcosc · #**1362** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 8:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harls

It can't be.

Line of sight from the pic means Mont Royal would have to be way to the left. The bump you see is right above Château Laurier.

Maybe it's Lyon Mountain in NY? - https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Lyon+Mo...!1s0x4ccbc81d6143d2cf:0x348fc2124d22f4d3

I'm the guy who took the pic, so I know the starting point.

99% sure you're right. Lyon Mountain is almost certainly the one. It's right in that sight path. Further, of those two bumps on the left, it looks like the one just to the right of the other one roughly matches the shape of Lyon Mountain as I can tell from googling images of it.

That one to the left may be one of its associated peaks, there's a cluster of high peaks in that area.

The big one in the middle of the image... it's hard to tell because there's not any Ottawa landmarks in the angle so I had to approximate but it's probably Whiteface Mountain. The one just to the right of it is probably McKenzie Mountain.

Wow. I never would of thought the Adirondacks, 200 kilometers away, could ever show up in an Ottawa skyline photo. Makes me really curious to see what that same view would look like with telegraphic zoom to the Adirondacks... Ottawa and a mountain skyline, those two words sound so contradictory.

Ashok · #**1363** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 8:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Downtown Montréal by Fred Plante on Flickr

wow! This is really awesome, and another picture that really shows the density of the city.

Ashok · #**1364** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 8:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

From Nun's Island:

YUL-I 87 by lfayul, on Flickr

This too is a great photo!

shreddog · #**1365** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 9:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harls

Mt Rigaud would have to be to the left of the Casino, from this vantage point. Or are we talking about the same bump?

You're right. Upon a second glance the two bumps appear to line up to Malone and Titus (ah memories!). Perhaps one is Debar??

lio45 · #**1366** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 10:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harls

I know the Outaouais will never outshine New Hampshire and the Eastern Townships.. give us a cookie, lio! We have orange colored trees!

(wait, are we talking about the fall colours or skyscapers?!)

Sherbrooke is the uncontested queen of skyline underperformance in this country, so in a sense, it is indeed "beating" Ottawa on that one

And my comment wasn't meant to be negative at all. In fact, the overall density is quite nice. Which is probably more important than having a few tall buildings downtown.

lio45 · #**1367** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 10:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shreddog

Sorry to go OT, but WTF????? Just because there's an island there does not mean it's not on the coast??

No need to be sorry to go OT, I do it all the time as well

Well, yes, that's exactly how these things work. "Just because there's an island" is the only reason the Sea of Japan is not the Pacific Ocean, etc.

The straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca would cease to exist if Vancouver Island disappeared. There would instead be a bay of the Pacific Ocean there.

The only reason the North Sea exists is because the British Isles exist. And so on. All the oceans are connected anyway... might as well give all the seas of the world one single name, while at it. Back to the point, a coastal city on the NW coast of Honshu isn't "on the Pacific Ocean". It doesn't get the waves, tsunamis, etc. that the Japanese Pacific Coastal cities are exposed to.

When I was in Vancouver visiting my sister who lived there at the time, we wanted to go surfing. Well, guess what, we actually had to go to Tofino for that. (Not that I'm complaining, the drive was enjoyable.)

lio45 · #**1368** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 10:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shreddog

And yeah, i remember that discussion and there wasn't a claim about Mtrl being landlocked, just that it was on a river and not a coast (whereas Vancouver is both on a river and a coast!)

The ridiculous part of that claim was that Montreal and Edmonton were both in the exact same category in terms of river size. And Edmonton is most definitely a landlocked city.

shreddog · #**1369** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 10:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45

...Back to the point, a coastal city on the NW coast of Honshu isn't "on the Pacific Ocean". It doesn't get the waves, tsunamis, etc. that the Japanese Pacific Coastal cities are exposed to...

Is Vancouver on an "ocean"? Of course. Is it exposed to violent, pacific waves? No. But by that definition many coastal cities aren't. Is Seattle a coastal city? How about LA (Catalina??) Tampa or or San Diego (taken to the extreme). Is Saint John a coastal city since it is on the Bay of Fundy and not the Atlantic ocean?

NTL, Vancouver is the largest Canadian coastal city.

Chadillaccc · #**1370** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 10:37 PM**

Love this! It's like watching Sarah Palin try to prove a point she doesn't even have

Keep the comedy show coming Lio, you're a card! Stop being so thin-skinned about totally innocuous things said ages ago.

On a relevant note, no love for Regina, guys? Come on!

SkahHigh · #**1371** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Love this! It's like watching Sarah Palin try to prove a point she doesn't even have

Keep the comedy show coming Lio, you're a card!

At least he's trying to prove a point, unlike you Chad.

shreddog · #**1372** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45

The ridiculous part of that claim was that Montreal and Edmonton were both in the exact same category in terms of river size. And Edmonton is most definitely a landlocked city.

Again, the quote does not introduce the concept of landlocked, and no one said Montreal was a landlocked city, though it appears that some may have inferred that.

"Large rivers" was not defined, other than "bigger" than a medium river. Obviously the flow rates of the N. Sask, the Ottawa and the S.L. are vastly different, but contextually, they are all larger than the medium size example.

That said, I too would have difficulty in grouping those 3 together - perhaps the OP should have said "large" and "freaking massive"?! Nonetheless, no one said Montreal was landlocked and it is disingenuous to imply otherwise. Some may think an apology might be warranted ...

Rico Rommheim · #**1373** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 10:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Downtown Montréal by Fred Plante on Flickr

Wow I like this one. Look at the C-Lofts adding new density. The Peterson will make its presence heard. The NFB building will also add colour and diversity in this vista.

Oh shit wait, I hope I'm not boring Chad, since I'm kind of off topic here.

SkahHigh · #**1374** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 10:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Oh shit wait, I hope I'm not boring Chad, since I'm kind of off topic here.

Don't forget Rico, this is the Calgary section!

Chadillaccc · #**1375** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Wow I like this one. Look at the C-Lofts adding new density. The Peterson will make its presence heard. The NFB building will also add colour and diversity in this vista.

Oh shit wait, I hope I'm not boring Chad, since I'm kind of off topic here.

How's that off topic? You're talking about major changes coming to your city's skyline, that's the epitome of on topic for this thread. Thanks for trying to help keep things on track! The jab at me was unnecessary though.

Another Regina beauty...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Hill+Centre+Towers+downtown+Regina+March+2014/9645570/story.html

The Montreal Gazette seems to love reporting on Regina, as two of the last three Regina photos I've posted are sourced from there. Weird!

Procrastinational · #**1376** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 11:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Regina flexing some serious density muscle in these pics...

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Live+blog+Election+night+Regina/7434489/story.html

http://www.montrealgazette.com/REGINA+SA...ER+Regina+Leader+Post/9229028/story.html

While not tall, there area a lot more buildings than I would have expected in the core. Nice

Rico Rommheim · #**1377** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 11:11 PM**

Regina is doing great. Imagine it with a landmark 120m tower. But nothing taller, that would be obscene. Even 100-110m would suffice. Does Regina have height limitations in its downtown?

lio45 · #**1378** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 11:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shreddog

Is Vancouver on an "ocean"? Of course. Is it exposed to violent, pacific waves? No. But by that definition many coastal cities aren't. Is Seattle a coastal city?

Seattle? It's a West Coast city (just like Vancouver... and Portland, and Sacramento, etc.)

But it's not 100% coastal the way Halifax, St. John's, Tofino, Boston, San Francisco, etc. are. Those are right on the ocean and have their city limits bordering true oceanfront coastline (or at the very least, their direct suburbs do).

Vancouver is less coastal than Halifax. And the reason for that is the existence of the Vancouver Island, which is the part of SW BC that is the oceanfront one. That, and nothing more, was the original point of the post you took issue with. I hope you won't make me post same-scale satellite shots of the NS ocean coastline vs Vanc Island + WA ocean coastline to show you... but if you really need it, and ask politely, I might.

lio45 · #**1379** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 11:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shreddog

That said, I too would have difficulty in grouping those 3 together

At least that's something...

Chadillaccc · #**1380** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 11:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Regina is doing great. Imagine it with a landmark 120m tower. But nothing taller, that would be obscene. Even 100-110m would suffice. Does Regina have height limitations in its downtown?

Regina doesn't have height limits, but until recently Saskatoon did. It's funny that you mention a landmark tower. It won't be quite 100 meters tall, but construction is starting soon on Capital Point which will be the tallest building in the province at 90 meters. It will be a good distance from the current main core of buildings so it will stand out, but from certain angles (primarily the southwest) the tower will totally dominate.