The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[tele75]

Beautiful.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Jeff

took this one in the weee little morning hours a couple months back of Winnipeg:

Something very enjoyable about this peg shot.

[Martin Mtl]

Montreal Skyline by night by Antonio Max on Flickr

[scrapin]

Some incredible photos in this thread.

[Villaggio]

^^I really don't like how Montreal looks from that angle. The Old Port is absolutely stunning but the skyline seems quite flat and empty, especially between Desjardins Complex and the PVM.

[MolsonExport]

It does look a bit horizontally stretched.

[Darkoshvilli]

This is my favourite view on the skyline, though a good chunk is missing on the left:



https://www.flickr.com/photos/fred514/15427136168/sizes/h/

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Something very enjoyable about this peg shot.

Agreed.

The fact that everything's golden in it probably plays a big role.

[Calgarian]

Great Montreal shots!

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by craner

I wouldn't say there is a standard "Canadian" or "American" way to rate skylines. It's a totally subjective measure unique to each individual.

I've noticed a difference in how Americans and Canadians quantify skylines. When picking a benchmark height, we naturally use round numbers. For Canadians, 100m or 200m is a natural choice. For Americans, 500ft or 1000ft is a natural choice. When Americans talk to the rest of the planet, many will convert to metric. 1000ft becomes 300m and 500ft becomes 150m.

200m and 1000ft are quite restrictive, so we tend to use the lower benchmark. Most Americans almost always use the 150m+ because of imperial to metric conversion. Most Canadian will use 100m... which is a weird number to Americans because it's 335ft.

[flar]

Originally Posted by Jeff

took this one in the weee little morning hours a couple months back of Winnipeg:

Best Winnipeg shot ever.

[Brizzy82]

not sure if these really belong in the Skyline thread as their mostly just "city" pictures, but here's some more Winnipeg


Shaw Park Baseball Field by Garry9600, on Flickr

Exchange District, Winnipeg by AJ Batac, on Flickr

Fort Garry Hotel, 222 Broadway Ave, Winnipeg (501446) by Bob Linsdell, on Flickr


from the Santa Parade:

Untitled by ncrashb, on Flickr

Untitled by ncrashb, on Flickr

Untitled by ncrashb, on Flickr

Untitled by ncrashb, on Flickr

[FrAnKs]

===>>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/roj_czech/...u-y5HdB-agSdWX-wA1iP-4QWZia-AuvAj-4QvWSh

[Beedok]

Quebec City and Winnipeg both seem to have so many historical midrises. Hamilton meanwhile seemed to go "no, lowrises everywhere!" so apart from Gore Park there's few historic buildings over 4 floors, even if there are a heck of a lot of historic buildings around.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I've noticed a difference in how Americans and Canadians quantify skylines. When picking a benchmark height, we naturally use round numbers. For Canadians, 100m or 200m is a natural choice. For Americans, 500ft or 1000ft is a natural choice. When Americans talk to the rest of the planet, many will convert to metric. 1000ft becomes 300m and 500ft becomes 150m.

200m and 1000ft are quite restrictive, so we tend to use the lower benchmark. Most Americans almost always use the 150m+ because of imperial to metric conversion. Most Canadian will use 100m... which is a weird number to Americans because it's 335ft.

150 meters and 500f is the best metric IMo because it is where the two systems meet. Generally I have always been told that 150 meters is the definition of a "skyscraper"

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Quebec City and Winnipeg both seem to have so many historical midrises. Hamilton meanwhile seemed to go "no, lowrises everywhere!" so apart from Gore Park there's few historic buildings over 4 floors, even if there are a heck of a lot of historic buildings around.

When is supposed to end the ''Historical midrises'' era ?

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

When is supposed to end the ''Historical midrises'' era ?

Probably when brick/masonry stopped dominating.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Most Canadian will use 100m... which is a weird number to Americans because it's 335ft.

328' so an even weirder number. 150m is 492' which is an easy roundup to 500'. Of course, Boston has a 495' and 496' while Montreal has a 499', so they both benefit by using the meters over feet here.

Originally Posted by isaidso

200m and 1000ft are quite restrictive, so we tend to use the lower benchmark.

I agree with these being to restrictive. 200m says that Vancouver doesn't exist, and 1000 feet says that a singular supertall in the middle of nowhere is a better skyline than a sprawling metropolis like Toronto. Boston has 7 buildings over 180m but only 2 over 200m, although has another 200m under construction and another expected to start imminently.

I think using 100m is too short for most larger cities. They are barely visible from a distance. Larger towers define and bring focal points to their respective skylines. You could add 50 towers between 100-105m to Toronto's skyline (without the rest of the projects) and people would wonder why Toronto stopped building anything. In Toronto's case, 1 supertall would do more for the skyline than those 50 buildings, but that kind of thing just isn't reflective by using such a low benchmark as the measurement.

I'm always interested in new ways of measuring skylines, and like the one that ranks how "tall" a skyline is. It basically just uses the average of the Top 10 or Top 25 tallest buildings to see the impact of your skyline defining towers. Using only completed or topped off buildings and measuring to the roof, here are a couple Top 10's. Info taken from diagrams page.

Toronto: 244.29 without CN Tower (amazing), 268.74 with CN Tower
Calgary: 192.02 without Calgary Tower, or 192.61 with Calgary Tower
Boston: 187.53
Montreal: 151.46 without Olympic Tower, or 155.19 with Olympic Tower
Vancouver: 149.46
Edmonton: This one is slightly estimated and includes Epcor's spires, 128.28
Winnipeg: 105.46

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Jeff

took this one in the weee little morning hours a couple months back of Winnipeg:

Love the colors. Great photo!

[ssiguy]

Ya, 100 meters is too short to be called a skyscraper especially in larger cities, to me they are more just high-rises. I think 150 meters is the bare minimum for a true skyscraper.

Seattle has far fewer buildings than Vancouver but when you see Seattle with all it's true skyscrapers it grabs your attention and looks dramatic. Vancouver has a beautiful skyline setting and great density but it's not the kind of skyline that would catch your eye much like many Latin American skylines.