The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[north 42]

That last shot looks like Baltimore!

[logan5]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The areas immediately adjacent to downtown are (or at least were) presumably comprised of multi-family dwellings, where 3 and 4-storey townhouses and pre-war tenements and towers dominate:





You have to go out a ways before getting into the quintessential Philadelphian single-family rowhouse type streetscapes:





Historically, Philadelphia most likely would have been denser, but, given post-war population movements & development trends I'm sure it's Montreal today.

A Wikipedia article on Center City Philly shows a density of 27 614/sq mile. That's including the low density CBD, so I would guess that Philly has densities that are close to Montreal's. The density/building form appears to be the same outside the "Center City" boundaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_City,_Philadelphia

[Chadillaccc]

Regina Panorama



Regina Skyline by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by Ashok

What Philly has is a few very tall building. People always seem to forget how densy and extensive the Montreal skyline is... Montreal def. has a much more impressive, bigger and dense skyline than Philly.

*Lovely photo here*

I hate being that guy, but...are we looking at the same photo? I mean, clearly Philadelphia is a larger skyline than Montreal (which you'd expect to be as Philadelphia is larger):

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=65993332

Minneapolis is more of the scale of Montreal's skyline (as it should be; they have the same metropolitan numbers):

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=65993396

Just an FYI, I adore Montreal and its skyline. The view from Mont Royal is magical.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

I hate being that guy, but...are we looking at the same photo? I mean, clearly Philadelphia is a larger skyline than Montreal (which you'd expect to be as Philadelphia is larger):

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=65993332

Minneapolis is more of the scale of Montreal's skyline (as it should be; they have the same metropolitan numbers):

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=65993396

Just an FYI, I adore Montreal and its skyline. The view from Mont Royal is magical.

I think its sad that all those cities drop below 500 feet on the first page... Toronto doesn't go below 500 feet until the 5th page.

[Ashok]

@ColDayMan:

Here is the problem: we don't really have a definition for a size of a skyline, nor any method to easily calculate it. In some instances, like NYC vs. Montreal, we could all agree that NYC has a much more extensive skyline than Montreal.

Though, Philly Vs. Montreal? I am not sure - I see your point based on the diagrams, clearly, Philly has buildings much larger/taller than Montreals but Montreal does seem to have a lot more hi-rises; mind you, there are all in the 15-25 floor range but still part of the skyline. So, to judge the size of each skyline becomes much more complicated.

For now, we try to use our own judgement. When I look @ those two specifics photos, I genuinely feel Montreal has a much larger picture. Of course, this depends on the pictures, angles, etc...

[Calgarian]

Philly definitely looks bigger than Montreal in those pictures. The difference is the transition from low rise to highrise is kind of abrupt giving the impression that the towers just end whereas in Montreal there is far more midrise bridging the gap.

[Ashok]

Speaking of which, one way we can perhaps measure the skyline is by taking an area of the city where the skyline falls under, and the size will be the sum of all the building x their building height (m.)

Though, we can even tweak this formula. Since a building over 100m would have a larger effect than a building under 100m. Such an effect should be incorporated into the formula. So, for each building that is over 50m, there will be a coefficient - I don't know, say 1.25 for each building over 50m, and 1.5 for each building over 100m, 2 for each building over 200m...

Other factors can be for historic merits. Thus, any building built before 1950 gets a factor of 1.5 + any building before 1920 gets a factor of 2.0.

A final factor for landmark, if the building has a landmark status, then, x 2.0

Skyline Size = Sum of (Building Height * Height Factor * Historic Factor *Landmark Factor)

#buildingnerdz

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Philly definitely looks bigger than Montreal in those pictures. The difference is the transition from low rise to highrise is kind of abrupt giving the impression that the towers just end whereas in Montreal there is far more midrise bridging the gap.

I did a thread a while back calculating skylines by meters of towers over 100m added up. Although in that contest Philly would clearly win.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Ashok

Speaking of which, one way we can perhaps measure the skyline is by taking an area of the city where the skyline falls under, and the size will be the sum of all the building x their building height (m.)

Though, we can even tweak this formula. Since a building over 100m would have a larger effect than a building under 100m. Such an effect should be incorporated into the formula. So, for each building that is over 50m, there will be a coefficient - I don't know, say 1.25 for each building over 50m, and 1.5 for each building over 100m, 2 for each building over 200m...

Other factors can be for historic merits. Thus, any building built before 1950 gets a factor of 1.5 + any building before 1920 gets a factor of 2.0.

A final factor for landmark, if the building has a landmark status, then, x 2.0

Skyline Size = Sum of (Building Height * Height Factor * Historic Factor *Landmark Factor)

#buildingnerdz

I would say that the footprint of the skyline is roughly as important as the height. An endless sea of 15-20 floor apartment buildings is impressive even if it isn't that tall. Think Tokyo vs. Dubai, on a height focused comparison Dubai probably wins, but in reality Tokyo dwarfs pretty well anywhere. I suppose it's a case of cityscape vs. skyline.

[Ashok]

^ Yup, you are right.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I would say that the footprint of the skyline is roughly as important as the height. An endless sea of 15-20 floor apartment buildings is impressive even if it isn't that tall. Think Tokyo vs. Dubai, on a height focused comparison Dubai probably wins, but in reality Tokyo dwarfs pretty well anywhere. I suppose it's a case of cityscape vs. skyline.

This metric is very beneficial to a place like Ottawa.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

This metric is very beneficial to a place like Ottawa.

It's about the best Ottawa manages, though I feel they've crammed their buildings together a little too tightly. If they had spread the CBD buildings out a bit more they could have a seriously impressive core area.

Ottawa to me always feels just short of impressive.

[Calgarian]

I was fairly impressed with Ottawa when I was there, decent urban core and great historical bones.

[Ashok]

To take the section of a city's skyline is only representation of that section. So, I do not feel the world benefial is fair because it makes it sound like there is a biasness. Taking the entire footprint of the skyline, its height and other important factors is important.

And there are many factors that shape the skyline, and the skyline is the product of these factors.

These are some of the major elements defining Montreal. First, in cities like Ottawa & Montreal, there are city by laws that directly shape the skyline such as height limits. In Montreal, there are entire neighbourhoods that are designated as historic and it is extremely difficult to built something there. How can we not take these into consideration when talking about the skyline?

Then, there are natural factors that shape/limit the skyline. In Montreal, I would say is the River and the Mountain - downtown is squeezed between the two. This is actually positive, because the density we have in Montreal is partially because of this squeeze.

Anyway, I guess what I am saying is tha the entire skyline should be judged - not just the impressive shiny new tall section. For some reason, i feel like people like to ignore the area between Guy + Atwater (West of Downtown Montreal) because it is filled with 60s and 70s concrete mid-rises. But dismissing this is presenting a bias, and not a true metric of the size of the skyline.

SkahHigh said he did the calculation of skyline by meters of towers over 100m, but a huge chunk of Montreal's hi-rise stock are towers below 100m and so, if someone who will have the time to do that calculation, I would not be surprise if Montreal ranks really high.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Philly definitely looks bigger than Montreal in those pictures.

One would expect Philadelphia to appear bigger since its population (6,034,678 in 2013) is roughly the same as Toronto's (5,959,500 in 2013).

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by isaidso

One would expect Philadelphia to appear bigger since its population (6,034,678 in 2013) is roughly the same as Toronto's (5,959,500 in 2013).

Philly has always been bigger than Montreal. There was a time when it was even bigger than New York !

[GreaterMontréal]

Philadelphia has a smaller downtown core ''total office space'' than Montréal. 45Msf for Phili compared to Montréal with over 48Msf. Philadelphia is also a smaller city than Montréal, forget the metropolitan area.

[Chadillaccc]

Why forget the metropolitan area? Philadelphia is a major part of the densely populated megalopolis on the continent. You are always claiming Montreal's metro area is 200 000 people bigger than it actually is (similar to me sometimes including Foothills MD with Calgary CMA), so why forget the CMA just to fit a momentary narrative?

[travis3000]

The way they do population down there is not the same as Canada though. The 6.1 million figure for Philadelphia is actually the entire Delaware Valley which encompasses parts of three different states. Toronto is actually a larger city than Philly. And IMO the Toronto figures should include both the Hamilton and Oshawa CMA's anytime people are trying to compare it to a US city. Thus a more realistic 2014 number for TO is approx 7.2 million.

As for Montreal... I usually consider the two cities somewhat similar in size. I like the vibe of Montreal better myself. But I can see how some might say Philly has a more big city feel.