The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[caltrane74]

I'm gonna come in on the side of Calgary. I've always found its skyline the most futuristic in Canada and it is also second in height.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Lots of skylines have height variation and gaps. What Montreal has is a solid selection of mid-rises and a more classic/less modern look that brings to mind places like Philadelphia and Manhattan. Obviously in a much smaller way for the latter comparison.

Montreal also has the awesome density surrounding the skyline, which is important. It doesn't just pop out among suburban-style single family homes surrounded by evergreen trees. That photo of Calgary on the previous page...it's ugly. No other word for it. The way that one great tower sticks out like a sore thumb, like it got lost on the way to Hong Kong? It's not a good look. It doesn't work aesthetically.

100% agree

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by Ramako

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmiquephotography/15719929761

Love it

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I thought pretty well everyone agreed that table top plateaus like Vancouver has were iffy at best?

On the gaps front most the people around her seem obsessed with ensuring none of the buildings in a city have a view.

Umm, no, there wasn't.

It is obvious you don't care for Vancouver's skyline, no problem with that, but many people on this forum love it, some ranking it 1st or 2nd (they always seem to pipe up when a nice set of Van is posted).

in fact there has been a pretty large push by many recently showing that the "table top" idea of Vancouver is largely incorrect now and indeed dated.

most angles of Vancouver have now lost much of their table top appearance thanks to strategically placed taller towers, several towers proposed / just starting clearing / excavation will also further destroy that old notion.

And here is a much better picture of the view Bcasey25raptor was talking about.

Originally Posted by Delirium

Photo by Shannon Leigh Photography https://www.flickr.com/photos/shannonleighphotos/15551111767/sizes/h/

For me Vancouver is a sold second. Toronto is an obvious first, but 2nd place in Canada is largely up to the person. I feel Vancouver offers a bit of Calgary's futuristic look with a dash of Montreal's built up area surrounding the core (East Van and Broadway area). Also downtown Vancouver's topography is the best in the country IMo on a peninsula surrounded by the ocean (have to love those bridges and massive shipping cranes that IMO do add to the skyline).

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by niwell

Not gonna lie - I agree with Rousseau. I think there are even posts of mine from way back when putting Montreal as #1. A skyline is more than tall buildings and Montreal has the context.

My current ranking would be:
1. Toronto
2. Montreal
3. Vancouver

In my mind Calgary is a solid 4th though.

Exactly where I stand. Context is all part of what makes a skyline dramatic.

[SignalHillHiker]

I think I prefer Calgary's to Vancouver's. There's just more meat in the more common angles I get to see. Not that there's anything wrong with glass condos - I'd take every single fucking one ye've got here if I could.

Toronto's is just awesome. It's the only one in Canada where you can take certain angles, crop off suburbia in the distance, and imagine a truly overwhelmingly large city. And even its glass condos have a certain expensive quality. It's the difference between having a proper wooden blind or a flag in your window.

And Montreal's is just lovely. There are a couple of buildings that are so hideous they kind of ruin it for me in skyline views, but angles where you can't see them as the focus (so basically anything not taken from Mount Royal), and it's just grand. Love it.

Among the smaller cities, Regina stands out as aesthetically pleasing to me. And Halifax stands out as a mish-mash of ugly and beautiful buildings that works. There's just something engaging about a shot like this:


Source

(Hali87 gave me that picture for a thread on Boston I did; I wanted to show some of HFX proper since my photos from my trip were just of the airport).

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Umm, no, there wasn't.

It is obvious you don't care for Vancouver's skyline, no problem with that, but many people on this forum love it, some ranking it 1st or 2nd (they always seem to pipe up when a nice set of Van is posted).

in fact there has been a pretty large push by many recently showing that the "table top" idea of Vancouver is largely incorrect now and indeed dated.

most angles of Vancouver have now lost much of their table top appearance thanks to strategically placed taller towers, several towers proposed / just starting clearing / excavation will also further destroy that old notion.

I never said anything about disliking Vancouver, I was just pretty sure almost everyone says Vancouver would be better without a table top and how great it was they were losing it. Also complaints about Calgary and Toronto starting to develop one. Oh, and worries that Montreal might develop one as well.

I like Vancouver, I just got the impression that like myself most people on here though it would be even better with more height variation and so found it really weird someone was complaining that Montreal had too much variation.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ramako

That comparison is a bit disingenuous. Though dated, a 1974 Manhattan skyline would still be one of the most massive and feature many of the most beautiful skyscrapers in the world.

.

My point was simply to say that age isn't necessarily a factor in whether a skyline packs a good punch.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Umm, no, there wasn't.

It is obvious you don't care for Vancouver's skyline, no problem with that, but many people on this forum love it, some ranking it 1st or 2nd (they always seem to pipe up when a nice set of Van is posted).

in fact there has been a pretty large push by many recently showing that the "table top" idea of Vancouver is largely incorrect now and indeed dated.

most angles of Vancouver have now lost much of their table top appearance thanks to strategically placed taller towers, several towers proposed / just starting clearing / excavation will also further destroy that old notion.

And here is a much better picture of the view Bcasey25raptor was talking about.



For me Vancouver is a sold second. Toronto is an obvious first, but 2nd place in Canada is largely up to the person. I feel Vancouver offers a bit of Calgary's futuristic look with a dash of Montreal's built up area surrounding the core (East Van and Broadway area). Also downtown Vancouver's topography is the best in the country IMo on a peninsula surrounded by the ocean (have to love those bridges and massive shipping cranes that IMO do add to the skyline).

I like Vancouver's as well (table top or not) and for me it's a toss-up between it and Montreal for the number two. I find Montreal's very gappy as others have said.

On the other hand, Montreal looks like a way bigger city than a place like Calgary. As I have said before, Calgary's looks really good for a city of its size (it kills Ottawa and Edmonton) but it still looks like a city the size of Austin, Texas, as opposed to Boston or Philadelphia which is the overall impression Montreal gives.

Calgary's skyline is a pretty pre-teen. She's got some beauty and is promising but is still physically a bit awkward in her body.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by rousseau

How anyone can look at that photo and not see that Montreal has the country's second best skyline is completely beyond me. It's as obvious as night and day.

1. Toronto
2. Montreal
3. Vancouver
4 to 10 and beyond. Who cares? Not worth ranking.

Honestly. Calgary may not be your cup of tea, but to classify it and every other city in Canada under 'who cares? Not worth ranking' is a bit much. It's already larger than Montreal's so your perception doesn't match reality.

I have Montreal ahead of Calgary as well, but you're being far too dismissive.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Honestly. Calgary may not be your cup of tea, but to classify it and every other city in Canada under 'who cares? Not worth ranking' is a bit much. It's already larger than Montreal's so your perception doesn't match reality.

I have Montreal ahead of Calgary as well, but you're being far too dismissive.

Calgary has a larger skyline than Montreal? By what measure? Not saying it doesn't... just wondering about the details if so.

[kool maudit]

calgary has more and taller office towers than montreal. it is just that they sort of sprout from this weird plain of little houses.



there is not a single spot in this photos foreground that i can imagine would be nice to walk through, but the clump of skyscrapers is taller and more densely packed than is montreal's.

while i also like skylines that give a sense of rising from a sea of urbanity, that's not inherent to the judgment of skylines. copenhagen has no skyline but its residential weight-on-the-ground is more substantial than that of montreal.

no skyline at all here, but no residential area of montreal gets up to this scale:

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I thought pretty well everyone agreed that table top plateaus like Vancouver has were iffy at best?

On the gaps front most the people around her seem obsessed with ensuring none of the buildings in a city have a view.

Yeah a table top isn't good either, but Montreal seems to have like 5 towers that soar above the rest, all with huge gaps between them.

[SkahHigh]

Montreal caught up to Boston in terms of skyline size with the current skyscraper boom.

Calgary barely has any suburbs because the city outside of the CBD looks like a huge suburb... And seriously I think it's preposterous to rank it before Montreal because it has more height. It has a well-deserved spot at the 4th position but there are way too many bland towers among the nice ones. Personally, I don't like Bankers Hall, I like The Bow's design but it's way too big for the skyline and looks awkward, EAP looks meh to me and Suncor Energy Centre looks like the HQ of an oil corporation... Oh wait, it is.

Brookfield and Telus Sky are promising though. Let's see.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah a table top isn't good either, but Montreal seems to have like 5 towers that soar above the rest, all with huge gaps between them.

I view the gaps as a major positive. It helps buildings be visible from more angles and ensures those buildings have views. From a lot of angles most of Ottawa or Calgary's buildings might as well be non-existent.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by rousseau

How anyone can look at that photo and not see that Montreal has the country's second best skyline is completely beyond me. It's as obvious as night and day.

1. Toronto
2. Montreal
3. Vancouver
4 to 10 and beyond. Who cares? Not worth ranking.

Jesus, it's like you looked at the forum and thought to yourself, "hmm, there hasn't been a skyline comparison shitstorm in the last 5 minutes, better get on that!"

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Calgary from the NW


by @makecalgarytalk via twitter

aaaand, winter is here

by @makecalgarytalk via twitter

[SignalHillHiker]

Gorgeous view, though.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Wooster

aaaand, winter is here

by @makecalgarytalk via twitter

Jealous!!!!

[travis3000]

My ranking :

1. Toronto
2. Montreal
3. Vancouver
4. Calgary

But I will say , Calgary is a solid #4 and will certainly solidify that in the future. Nothing not to be proud of for a city that size. In the tall buildings department though Calgary would be #2 , which will be enhanced again with Brookfield , Telus , and the big CF tower years down the road should that go (chances are it will). But a skyline isn't just about height , there are other factors which is why I keep Calgary at #4.