The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! - Page 96

SkahHigh · #**1901** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Except that this isn't the case. Now stop your bullshit.

The numbers are there Chad. Nothing to argue here. We know this might hurt but reality does hurt sometimes...

#**1902** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:10 PM**

Content removed

Chadillaccc · #**1903** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:11 PM**

http://www.travelgumbo.com/blog/gumbo-s-pic-of-the-day-january-14-2014-calgary-peace-bridge

Calgary new years walk round 2014 by davebloggs007, on Flickr

http://mrconductor.deviantart.com/art/Downtown-Calgary-HDR-328344225

http://www.stockaerialphotos.com/-/galleries/cities/calgary

MolsonExport · #**1904** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:13 PM**

A great skyline for sure. Punches way above its weight relative to population. But really, not really even close. No need to turn this into a vs thread. Just accept that other people have different opinions and as Rob Ford would say, move on.

Ashok · #**1905** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Somebody doesn't like the way the thread has turned. Since when is having a different opinion (one that is obviously shared by many on this thread, re: Montreal's skyline), "bullshit"? I am sorry but this is out of line.

Right, I thought so too. That is why I felt perhaps it is time to drop the subject and move on. We all share the same liking for skyscrapers and skyline, so why not continue to focus on that then create tension.

Calgarian · #**1906** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:16 PM**

The Skyline is close, but only because low and mid rise buildings don't really show up in a skyline, and Montreal destroys Calgary in this area. Those aerials show why Montreal has nearly double the population of Calgary though.

Can we move on now?

Rico Rommheim · #**1907** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:17 PM**

Could Martin have posted fewer photos? yes. Two sets would have been adequate and it would have avoided the fatigue associated with it. But I completely understand his impulse: these are the best aerial photos of the city EVER. Crisp, contemporain (how do you say this in English?),clear and showing us some angles we could have ever dreamed of. Insane , really.

I don't know which photo to quote in particular there are so many. Views of the Plateau with the big ass skyline in the background, these uncanny views of the mountain's hump, Old Montreal, the roller coasters of La Ronde, which are btw one of only 2 things we can say we have and Vancouver doesn't. Vancouver has the best background scenery, but sorry but yer PE roller coasters suck! (btw, still think Vancouver has the best looking skyline in the country)

Maybe Place d'Armes is the best urban square in the country? I'd say yes.

Quote:

G.S MTL · #**1908** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

The Skyline is close, but only because low and mid rise buildings don't really show up in a skyline, and Montreal destroys Calgary in this area. Those aerials show why Montreal has nearly double the population of Calgary though.

Can we move on now?

Montreal has nearly triple the population.

Darkoshvilli · #**1909** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Somebody doesn't like the way the thread has turned. Since when is having a different opinion (one that is obviously shared by many on this thread, re: Montreal's skyline), "bullshit"? I am sorry but this is out of line.

"Somebody" is extremely sensitive and needs to re assure himself that his city's skyline is the best thing in the world to make himself feel better.

Darkoshvilli · #**1910** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.S MTL

Montreal has nearly triple the population.

I think he means the city population.

Rico Rommheim · #**1911** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:27 PM**

Does anyone have close-up pictures of these silos next to that railyard? That's a part of the city I'm not familiar with.

Calgarian · #**1912** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.S MTL

Montreal has nearly triple the population.

If you count metro ares, but these pictures don't show the metro areas they show the inner cities, so I think it's safe to exclude the rest of the metro.

SkahHigh · #**1913** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

If you count metro ares, but these pictures don't show the metro areas they show the inner cities, so I think it's safe to exclude the rest of the metro.

Your numbers were right. Good thing not to include the metros, it would be irrevelant when talking about cities.

G.S MTL · #**1914** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Your numbers were right. Good thing not to include the metros, it would be irrevelant when talking about cities.

Yeah ...Let's not even go there.

Acajack · #**1915** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Your numbers were right. Good thing not to include the metros, it would be irrevelant when talking about cities.

Maybe, maybe not.

Anyway, Calgary's skyline punches above its weight but drops off dramatically into low-rise territory right outside downtown with only a few bumps here and there scattering about the city.

Montreal sustains fairly decent levels of height and density over a much greater area. Which is normal as it is a much larger and older city.

floobie · #**1916** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:48 PM**

Montreal's skyline is clearly more laterally extensive. Calgary's has more height. Calgary's tallest clusters appear more dense to me, but those give way to some fairly empty expanses that Montreal just doesn't have.

Which has more visual impact, and is therefore "better", is totally subjective. Fair?

Martin Mtl · #**1917** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:50 PM**

edit

Calgarian · #**1918** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Your numbers were right. Good thing not to include the metros, it would be irrevelant when talking about cities.

Depends how you look at it. In an established city like Montreal it may not have an effect as the inner city was largely built pre-WWII (When cars were not the completely dominant for of transportation). For a city like Calgary (relatively young with lots of empty land in the inner city), as the city and it's suburbs sprawl out, inner city development becomes more attractive to those looking to avoid their ever worsening commute. So in theory, a bigger metro increases pressure on the inner city to get denser. Anyway I digress, this is a discussion for a different thread.

anyway, more pictures people

SkahHigh · #**1919** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by floobie

Montreal's skyline is clearly more laterally extensive. Calgary's has more height. Calgary's tallest clusters appear more dense to me, but those give way to some fairly empty expanses that Montreal just doesn't have.

Which has more visual impact, and is therefore "better", is totally subjective. Fair?

Montreal's skyscrapers will never be higher than 210 meters so all we can do is build a dense (and high to a certain extent) skyline. But you are right, skyline likeness is purely subjective.

Calgarian · #**1920** Posted **Oct 29, 2014, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Maybe, maybe not.

Anyway, Calgary's skyline punches above its weight but drops off dramatically into low-rise territory right outside downtown with only a few bumps here and there scattering about the city.

Montreal sustains fairly decent levels of height and density over a much greater area. Which is normal as it is a much larger and older city.

This is exactly the difference. The skyline shows the tallest towers best, but we all know Montreal's density is several times what Calgary has.

Ok now I'm done, I promise!