The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[craner]

Really like that last Montreal shot - very Gothamic.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Those Winnipeg pics scream big city.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Villaggio

St-Denis Street in winter DRI by jean271972, on Flickr

QC is such a sexy lady.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by MeIsThomas

Hamilton | October 23, 2014 by Greg's Southern Ontario, on Flickr

Hate, hate, hate Hamilton's skyline. I'm allowed to say this because I'm from there.

It has precisely one good building. Which is actually fantastic. But the other office buildings are terrible, and the residential towers got slapped up in the 1960s and 70s during the dying moments of the "tower-in-the-park" era. They feature lawns in front or are just generally set back way too far from the street with driveways arcing up to the front door. Truly bleak, but the worst part is that they almost destroyed Hamilton's most charming neighbourhood, Durand, were it not for community activists who worked to put a stop to the developers before they ruined it entirely.

Hamilton's skyline embodies everything that was wrong with urban North America in the 20th century.

[Doug_Cgy]

LOVE the Winnipeg photos, it's a city I really want to explore. I've only been once, and it was a very quick trip. Hope to make it back soon!

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Hate, hate, hate Hamilton's skyline. I'm allowed to say this because I'm from there.

It has precisely one good building. Which is actually fantastic. But the other office buildings are terrible, and the residential towers got slapped up in the 1960s and 70s during the dying moments of the "tower-in-the-park" era. They feature lawns in front or are just generally set back way too far from the street with driveways arcing up to the front door. Truly bleak, but the worst part is that they almost destroyed Hamilton's most charming neighbourhood, Durand, were it not for community activists who worked to put a stop to the developers before they ruined it entirely.

Hamilton's skyline embodies everything that was wrong with urban North America in the 20th century.

Those complaints are mostly street level interaction based, which are a totally separate issue from skyline. I will admit that some of the buildings have poor street interaction, but most of them are on quite residential streets that feed customers into nearby commercial streets. Not every street in a city will be a commercial route, and most of the buildings that were built on commercial streets have much better street interaction.

As for the buildings impact on the skyline, that's totally personal taste. By building style Hamilton is my favourite skyline. A minimum number of depressing office towers set in a sea of human residential buildings. It could be bigger, but it's the right type of buildings.

[MolsonExport]

By building style Hamilton is my favourite skyline.

We are all entitled to our opinions of course. But...is Hamilton really your favorite skyline on that metric?

Hamilton's skyline is far from being the worst. That said, I really dislike the overwhelming dominance of generic 60s residential towers.

in my opinion:
Overall Canadian skyline: Toronto, followed by Montreal
Natural setting Canadian skyline: Vancouver, followed by Quebec City
Building variety and eclectic styles Canadian skyline: Montreal, followed by Winnipeg

[Villaggio]

Winnipeg has definitely grown on me thanks to all the beautiful photos here! I should visit one day!

And for Hamilton...I'm really sorry but the skyline is old, ugly and completely bland. Same thing with the new THF.

We're really getting awesome shots from every city across the country lately. Keep it up!

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

in my opinion:
Overall Canadian skyline: Toronto, followed by Montreal
Natural setting Canadian skyline: Vancouver, followed by Quebec City
Building variety and eclectic styles Canadian skyline: Montreal, followed by Winnipeg

Oh sh*t, you forgot someone... That's a paddlin.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Those complaints are mostly street level interaction based, which are a totally separate issue from skyline. I will admit that some of the buildings have poor street interaction, but most of them are on quite residential streets that feed customers into nearby commercial streets. Not every street in a city will be a commercial route, and most of the buildings that were built on commercial streets have much better street interaction.

Yes, true, the streets in Hamilton with high-rises suck donkey's balls. The problem with your optimistic characterization of them is that they don't feed pedestrians into the commercial streets, but people in cars. Because this is what Hamilton looks like wherever there's a building over five stories tall:



It's hideous and soul-suckingly awful. Almost as bad as the skyline itself. It's such a shame that this is five minutes from downtown.

Originally Posted by Beedok

As for the buildings impact on the skyline, that's totally personal taste. By building style Hamilton is my favourite skyline. A minimum number of depressing office towers set in a sea of human residential buildings. It could be bigger, but it's the right type of buildings.

Yep, it's personal taste. Or in your case, a complete lack of taste combined with a childish desire to present yourself as an off-beat eccentric tip-toeing merrily past the tulip fields of convention.

The homer trolling used to be a Calgary specialty, but now that they've cooled it down the Hammer crew has taken over. It doesn't make any sense, though. Hamilton's specialty is clearly this kind of thing:


from flar's "A small taste of Europe in Hamilton" thread

And this kind of thing:

from flar's " B E A S L E Y - one of Canada's poorest neighbourhoods" thread

Hamilton's skyline, by contrast, is a total disgrace, save for one outstanding building completed just before Black Tuesday in 1929.

[davidivivid]

Fog in the valley by nix photo, on Flickr

[Monolith]

Here is a great photo of the Chevron fuel station. Oh, and a city in the background.


Untitled by Christian_Habel, on Flickr

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

We are all entitled to our opinions of course. But...is Hamilton really your favorite skyline on that metric?

Hamilton's skyline is far from being the worst. That said, I really dislike the overwhelming dominance of generic 60s residential towers.

in my opinion:
Overall Canadian skyline: Toronto, followed by Montreal
Natural setting Canadian skyline: Vancouver, followed by Quebec City
Building variety and eclectic styles Canadian skyline: Montreal, followed by Winnipeg

60s and 70s apartment buildings are great. They're residential (which is always a plus) and they lack the excessive glass of 90s to modern residential buildings. Instead they look solid and permanent. They give a sense of urban stability unlikely the weak glass towers so popular today. Luckily actual walls seem to be regaining popularity.

As for setbacks, it's a quite residential street. They were replacing houses that had just as much of a setback. Why is a front lawn suddenly evil if it belongs to a highrise? Are 30s lowrises and midrises with a setback towers in the park and evil? How about stone rowhouses with a front yard?

Look at this street. The rowhouses, 30s lowrise, and more modern highrise are all about the same distance from the street, yet the highest density one is the "blight upon downtown"?

Also any buildings actually built on the main commercial arteries of King or Main have full retail podiums with acceptable street interaction. (Whether or not those podiums are successful is more a measure of the retail health of the city than architectural faults.)

I'm happy to admit Hamilton has faults, but a lot of these complaints seem to not realise these buildings were in quite residential neighbourhoods were everything else was setback. Building to the lot line would be out of character with the neighbourhood. Also all those lovely historical commercial buildings are an important reason as to why most of these apartment buildings lack ground level retail, the city has massive amounts of unused retail. Adding more is just bad planning. Also most people seem to complain Hamilton doesn't have enough greenery, yet you folks are complaining about it having the slightest amount. I understand some people don't like residential buildings, but a lot of these complaints make little sense.

[Brizzy82]

Downtown Winnipeg by ian.samo, on Flickr


Winnipeg Skyline by DnV Photo, on Flickr


Graham Avenue at Sunrise 2 by aa440, on Flickr


Cityscape by Ken Bauer, on Flickr


VP070098.jpg by Vlast, on Flickr

[Brizzy82]

wow, Vancouver looks absolutely incredible in that last pic!! Thanks for sharing.

[Pinion]

IMG_7675 Vancouver and Mount Baker Volcano by anthonymaw, on Flickr

[csbvan]

http://theamazingbrentwood.com/views.html#views/57

I saw this in the Vancouver section and thought it should be posted here....sorry about the size

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Beedok

60s and 70s apartment buildings are great. They're residential (which is always a plus) and they lack the excessive glass of 90s to modern residential buildings. Instead they look solid and permanent. They give a sense of urban stability unlikely the weak glass towers so popular today. Luckily actual walls seem to be regaining popularity.

60s and 70s apartment towers are ugly. They are a blight on cities. Your opinion is bizarre.

Originally Posted by Beedok

Look at this street. The rowhouses, 30s lowrise, and more modern highrise are all about the same distance from the street, yet the highest density one is the "blight upon downtown"?

Yes, let's look at this "street." More closely. Because it's not a street, it's one single, solitary section of a street filled with soul-crushing apartment blocks with large setbacks and grass lawns in front of them. In fact, look right across the phreaking street from those lovely New York-esque townhouses. Like what you see? Of course not.

And yes, the lawns in front of those lovely townhouses are a disgrace, and actually do ruin what would otherwise would have been a nice section of the street. Look at all of those lawns. Do kids play in them? Do people sit in them, enjoying them? Do they look nice? Do they soothe the eye, give the street a pleasant vista?

No, no, no, no and no. They are a product of a mid-century mindset bereft of design ideas that didn't involve carving new highways and subdivisions out of the countryside.

Originally Posted by Beedok

Also all those lovely historical commercial buildings are an important reason as to why most of these apartment buildings lack ground level retail, the city has massive amounts of unused retail. Adding more is just bad planning.

What on earth are you talking about? Who mentioned anything about retail? What does that have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by Beedok

Also most people seem to complain Hamilton doesn't have enough greenery, yet you folks are complaining about it having the slightest amount. I understand some people don't like residential buildings, but a lot of these complaints make little sense.

Only complete idiots who feel faint at the notion of having to traverse urban territory without their trusty automobiles would ever claim that Hamilton lacks greenery. The very idea is farcical.

Nobody is claiming they don't like residential buildings. I'm claiming that Hamilton's residential high-rises are ugly and depressing, making for an ugly skyline. Just because they replaced houses with front lawns is no excuse for them having front lawns themselves, but that was the sad mentality of the era.

Declaring Hamilton's skyline anything other than hideous is akin to praising St. Jamestown in Toronto for how lovely it is. Don't be ridiculous.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rousseau

It has precisely one good building. Which is actually fantastic.

Is it the building that kinda looks like Mtl's Aldred building? That would be my guess. (Give me a couple seconds to google it and I'll give you it's actual name. Edit: Pigott Building, 36 James St South.)

But to be honest, I see more that only that building that I would consider "good". There are many horrible commie blocks, of course, but I wouldn't go as far as to say there's only one good building in there.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by rousseau

60s and 70s apartment towers are ugly. They are a blight on cities. Your opinion is bizarre.

It's my honest to goodness opinion. Buildings without balconies tend to look depressing and inhuman to me, and all glass buildings just don't look complete.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Yes, let's look at this "street." More closely. Because it's not a street, it's one single, solitary section of a street filled with soul-crushing apartment blocks with large setbacks and grass lawns in front of them. In fact, look right across the phreaking street from those lovely New York-esque townhouses. Like what you see? Of course not.

Across the street we have brick walk up lowrises. Across the street the other way we have another brick low rise walk up. Diagonally across the street we have a more modern brick dominated mid-rise. you have to travel about a block to get any highrise apartment blocks. That's more or less the heart of one of the most high rise dense parts of the city, yet it's loaded with historic buildings between them.

Originally Posted by rousseau

And yes, the lawns in front of those lovely townhouses are a disgrace, and actually do ruin what would otherwise would have been a nice section of the street. Look at all of those lawns. Do kids play in them? Do people sit in them, enjoying them? Do they look nice? Do they soothe the eye, give the street a pleasant vista?

I think most people in the neighbourhood would say they look nice and sooth the eyes. People tend to like trees.

Originally Posted by rousseau

No, no, no, no and no. They are a product of a mid-century mindset bereft of design ideas that didn't involve carving new highways and subdivisions out of the countryside.

The front yards of Victorian (maybe Edwardian) stone rowhouses are the result of a mid-century mindset focused on subdivisions and highways?

Originally Posted by rousseau

What on earth are you talking about? Who mentioned anything about retail? What does that have to do with anything?

In a city of Hamilton's size going up to the property line is generally a design for retail or offices.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Only complete idiots who feel faint at the notion of having to traverse urban territory without their trusty automobiles would ever claim that Hamilton lacks greenery. The very idea is farcical.

No, actually it's directed at many of the lower income neighbourhoods of the inner city where there's been fairly large discussions about the psychological effect of a lack of greenery and such. The area around those apartment builds is one of the more desirable downtown neighbourhoods due to the trees and grass you seem to hate so much.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Nobody is claiming they don't like residential buildings. I'm claiming that Hamilton's residential high-rises are ugly and depressing, making for an ugly skyline. Just because they replaced houses with front lawns is no excuse for them having front lawns themselves, but that was the sad mentality of the era.

Trying to be in keeping with the existing urban fabric is still something practiced today.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Declaring Hamilton's skyline anything other than hideous is akin to praising St. Jamestown in Toronto for how lovely it is. Don't be ridiculous.

I like St. Jamestown. I realise there's crime and poverty issues, but from an architectural stand point is one of my favourite highrise segments in Canada. I also like Yonge and Eglington area (apart for the rather ugly office towers in the area).