The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Beedok, stop being a jackass. You're purposely trying to get a rise out of me by twisting my words or being obtuse. You can tell I care, and take Hamilton personally. Stop trolling.

I'm not trying to troll, I'm simply trying to state my opinion. I apologise if I have in any way seemed confrontational, that was not my intent in the slightest. I was merely attempting to express the fact that some of us have different opinions.

Originally Posted by rousseau

That is not a traditional walk-up. For fuck's sakes. These, the townhouses in your link up-thread, are walk-ups.

I've always heard the term walk up used for apartment buildings that lack elevators. Those 3-4 floor brick apartment buildings across the street from those rowhouses seem like they lacked elevators, so I refered to them as walk ups. If 'walk ups' and 'walk up apartments' are different things and I didn't realise the former was a separate issue as I had heard of 'walk up apartments' usually dropping the 'apartments' when describing the building.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Hamilton would be gorgeous if it consisted of streets and streets of walk-ups like this, and their presence would mitigate the fact that they have front lawns in front of them. But, sadly, this photo does not characterize Hamilton's vernacular.

I suppose we're in a degree of agreement there, but I think the front lawns are good on a quite side street like that. Now in surburban neighbourhoods they seem totally abandoned, but in an older neighbourhood where they have proper trees and whatnot they work fine. (At least in my opinion.)

Originally Posted by rousseau

Yeah, people like trees. Nobody said otherwise. One of the problems with downtown Hamilton is all the stupid front lawns everywhere taking up space and preventing the city from having as good an urban fabric as it could.

The blocks would still be the same size, and any houses would still be the same thickness, so they'd just have bigger backyards. That or we make wider roads. Or demolition every historic building in the city and start over.

Originally Posted by rousseau

No front lawns would mean greater density. Greater density would encourage foot traffic. You'd have, you know, a city. This is basic urban design 101.

The density difference would be fairly minimal. Maybe an extra apartment per floor, which if Ottawa's front lawn free apartment buildings are anything to go by would just mean slightly shorter buildings ending in the same density.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Instead, the Durand area of Hamilton has a collection of what are essentially suburban-style apartment towers. They are exactly the same as the ones you see in Stoney Creek.

http://goo.gl/maps/iZhFY -downtown Stoney Creek, way more waster space
http://goo.gl/maps/zrWsF -not quite Stoney Creek, but probably what you were after, way way way more wasted space
http://goo.gl/maps/6wBo2 -the closest I could find to downtown Hamilton build (though it has a massive surface parking lot in back)
http://goo.gl/maps/Fm48u - another more typical Stoney Creek one, front area is a good 4-5 times bigger than downtown

The buildings downtown are substantially more compact than those Stoney Creek ones. However, despite being a neighbourhood that includes massive amounts of parking space Eastgate area manages to have one of the densest populations of any Hamilton postal code area.

Originally Posted by rousseau

I was referring to the lawns around the 1960s and 70s apartment blocks.

Those lawns are the exact same scale as the historic buildings beside them though. They're that size as much because of Victorian planning as 1960s planning.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Hamilton is lush and green everywhere. There is not a single solitary residential neighbourhood anywhere in the city of Hamilton that is not full of greenery itself or more than close enough to parks and nature. Virtually all houses in Hamilton have front and backyards.

It wasn't my idea to complain about that. I've seen it complained about in many places. The north end isn't very green all things considered.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Just imagine all of the towers closer to each other and the street. Then imagine taking all of those useless front lawns and channelling them into an awesome park that would actually get used.

Except that won't really work. The amount of land used for greenery in those downtown apartment buildings in negligible. We're talking about an apartment or two per floor maximum. It isn't the vast fields of suburban buildings. It's barely a lane wide. It would realistically just result in slightly shorter buildings. Also those ground floors that have apartments would probably struggle to get someone to move in with a window right beside the sidewalk. People like privacy when they can afford it. It would be nice if we could somehow transport all that saved space, but it's basically a rounding error on every lot. If you really want to save space adding even one extra floor to most buildings would do more to increase densities.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Again, urban design 101. You could stand to learn something about it.

I realise density is good, but I just don't see tiny amounts of space that would just be wasted in some other way if they weren't used for greenery as being that much of an issue. Maybe way down the line once we've dealt with the hundreds of issues that make a substantial difference we can address minor things like 10 foot wide front lawns on residential highrises in quiet residential neighbourhoods, but really they're some of the densest neighbourhoods in Canada so they're doing decently.

Content removed

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I realise density is good, but I just don't see tiny amounts of space that would just be wasted in some other way if they weren't used for greenery as being that much of an issue. Maybe way down the line once we've dealt with the hundreds of issues that make a substantial difference we can address minor things like 10 foot wide front lawns on residential highrises in quiet residential neighbourhoods, but really they're some of the densest neighbourhoods in Canada so they're doing decently.

It's not "tiny amounts of space." It's the difference between the Montreal and Hamilton photos above. That's substantial. It's the difference between a great neighhourhood and a shit neighbourhood. These things matter.

Okay, Durand is actually kind of pleasant, with lots of wonderful houses and one or two really charming streets. But the problem is that it's right next to downtown. Hamilton doesn't have good density anywhere downtown. Ten minutes from King and James in any direction and you're among front yards and driveways. That is a disgrace.

We're on an urban design website. Yes, we should cure cancer and feed the poor in Africa, but in the meantime things could be done to improve the urban fabric in Hamilton.

Proper urban design would make an incredible impact on the city. And people are indeed starting to get it. You've been to the Art Crawls on Fridays, yes? That's what we're talking about. James North has some great energy, and several stretches are really great. But leave the street and you're immediately struct by how depressingly uninspiring and mostly irredeemable the urban fabric is.

The die was cast long ago in Hamilton, so you have to work with what you have, but there are some heartening developments, don't get me wrong. But lots of optimistic people on this site overstate the case for Hamilton's bones and urban density. It doesn't have a lot to work with. You can do interesting things on certain streets, but it's not the Plateau. Not be a long shot. There's still way too much of this:

Content removed

[Innsertnamehere]

^that small skyline will be changing quiet a bit over the coming years..

residential high density apartment streets with garden / lawn setbacks can be great in certian contexts as well, Jameson street in Toronto is a great example of a street that works in this sort of model. its ultra high density, but still retains that residential street type feel.



even Tyndall works fairly well, if not quite on the same level as Jameson:




St. Jamestown is a mess because it is a tower in a park with no streetgrid, and where there is a street, the towers generally turn their back to it. The select amount of retail in the neighborhood faces the scattered parking lots in the "park". Its a failure of urban planning much beyond one of tall, slightly setback residential building from the late 1960's.

This:



is extremely different, and far, far better, than this. (notice the retail facing the parking lot at the bottom of the tower)



The Hamilton style depicted is common all across Ontario in apartment neighbourhoods, from towns of 10,000 people to cities of 6,000,000. Its not a failure from an urbanism perspective, even if it isn't a blowout success. The stuff in St. Jamestown is what people automatically associate with these towers built in the 1960's due to their similar architectural style, even though they are worlds apart from an urbanism perspective.

Seriously, the stuff is everywhere. Every image is from a different town in Ontario, and I just jumped to 6 random towns and found these, (Bradford, Uxbridge, Lindsay, Cobourg, Napanee, Brockville) They are in every town and city in the province.

If you were to ask me what the most common, most representative form of residential construction in this province was, I would answer with these residential apartments. They are literally everywhere in this province, and are absolutely not failures. Its high density residential with retail needs served by local commercial strips.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

Montreal, seen from the top of mont Saint-Grégoire, 36 kms ESE.


Montreal viewed from Mont-St-Grégoire by pegase1972, on Panoramio

Cool. Great place for Maple Syrup. Erablière La Goudrelle.

[MolsonExport]

Add me to the group that finds most apartment commie blocks soul-suckingly depressing and fugly as sin. They are extremely fugly. They hold my attention the way that I can't pry my eye away from a hawk ripping the innards from a freshly-killed rabbit. Repulsive, but the eye is nevertheless drawn to them. For all the wrong reasons.

London's (Ontario) skyline is poisoned by a plethora of soul-crushing 60s-70s apartment blocks. Especially when viewed from the shakier side of town (East London).

Doesn't quite beckon to hidden urban treats:


itsabouttravelling.com

And there are four other nodes that are dominated by these hulking concrete slabs: Wonderland/Oxfart area across from Costco, Cherryhill village mall area, Proudfart Lane area, and Westmount area across from the eponymous mall.

[caltrane74]

St. Jamestown looks like something out of Africa or Brazil, just pure gross.

I don't know why anyone would want their city to look like that dump.

[Beedok]

I will admit some apartment blocks are ugly. Ottawa has some very ugly ones. London seems to have a fair number of iffy ones. Hamilton has a few that are questionable here and there (but mostly sticks to a very standardised design that looks decent). At the very least when they're ugly they have character. I have rarely seen an office tower that feels like it really has character. To me balconies show that humans live there and it's a place where people raise their families, make their meals, enjoy their favourite books, etc. Office towers just feel like cubicle storage facilities to me. They can be very nice cubicle storage facilities, but I still can't shake the feeling that they're a place that drains the life from people rather than a place for life to happen.

I do have to ask Rousseau: What is it that you prefer for residential?

I've defended what's probably my favourite Canadian neighbourhood (all things being equal it would probably be my first choice to live somewhere between Main, Queen, the Escarpment and Wellington). I've tried to say what I like about it, and such. I'm now interested in seeing what you want from a neighbourhood. Maybe we should start a thread about people's favourite neighbourhoods?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Maybe we should start a thread about people's favourite neighbourhoods?

No need to start a new thread, there's already an active thread for you to post yours: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=187464

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I do have to ask Rousseau: What is it that you prefer for residential?

The standard issue stuff that goes with good neighbourhoods like West Queen West, Mile End, Cabbagetown, the Plateau. These areas are expensive because they're so desirable, so, sadly, I wouldn't be able to afford to buy anything there.

I think there's already a "good neighbourhoods" thread somewhere.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by rousseau

The standard issue stuff that goes with good neighbourhoods like West Queen West, Mile End, Cabbagetown, the Plateau. These areas are expensive because they're so desirable, so, sadly, I wouldn't be able to afford to buy anything there.

I think there's already a "good neighbourhoods" thread somewhere.

Well that seems to prove we have very different taste and views on what's urban. I see a lot of those neighbourhoods as being a bit wasteful with their space by sticking to lowrises and midrises. Also the fact that the apartments have a real view is something important in my book, though smaller buildings exist for folks who don't care as much.

We have different tastes, and that's what helps ensure discussion and valuable debate about how best to build cities. I appreciate your alternate view point and hope that you appreciate mine.

[PhilippeMtl]

fumie@ https://www.flickr.com/photos/fumie/


Chris Forsyth @ https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrismforsyth/

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Monolith

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


Untitled by Christian_Habel, on Flickr

Lookin' big, Vancouver.

[Ashok]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2010001/article/11134/map-carte/map-carte002-fra.htm

Is it just me, or Montreal-Ottawa almost touching here. But no, for 2 hours of car ride, and all we see is trees.

[The_Architect]

"Grand Sudbury" lol.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Ashok

Is it just me, or Montreal-Ottawa almost touching here. But no, for 2 hours of car ride, and all we see is trees.

That's because the 417-40 freeway bypasses all the populated areas. The only communities visible from that route between Ottawa & Montreal's urban areas are Casselman and Rigaud (both with only a few thousand people). Many other communities are a few kilometres away from the highway. In fact, when driving between the two, from Ottawa's eastern urban edge to Montreal's western urban edge, you're actually passing within 10km of the homes of about 100,000 people for those 2 hours, you'd just never know it if you never left the highway.

In fact, most of Ontario's freeways do just that. Highway 416 seems to be completely empty for its whole route but there's plenty of people living nearby. Even the 401 is like this for much of its route.

Driving along the 400-series between Toronto & Ottawa you'd think of Ontario as being a giant emptiness. But drive the old 2-lane roads that the 400-series bypassed, and you'll be passing through dozens of towns every few kilometres. Highway 2 between Montreal & Toronto is a real treat, along the way you'll hit a Victorian-era village core every 5-10 kilometres for pretty much the whole way. One of the most scenic drives in the country for human scenery.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

But drive the old 2-lane roads that the 400-series bypassed, and you'll be passing through dozens of towns every few kilometres. Highway 2 between Montreal & Toronto is a real treat, along the way you'll hit a Victorian-era village core every 5-10 kilometres for pretty much the whole way. One of the most scenic drives in the country for human scenery.

Thanks for the recommendation - checked it out on Google Maps and it looks like a great drive. A little slower, but the old highways and back roads are always more enjoyable than the mega freeways - so long as you know where you're going. On that note, when I last went to Hamilton a few months ago I took Lakeshore back to the city, which made for a much more interesting trip than the grim industrial surroundings of the QEW.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Beedok

To me balconies show that humans live there and it's a place where people raise their families, make their meals, enjoy their favourite books, etc. Office towers just feel like cubicle storage facilities to me. They can be very nice cubicle storage facilities, but I still can't shake the feeling that they're a place that drains the life from people rather than a place for life to happen.

This is probably a major source of the disagreement (for the record, I agree with Rousseau on some issues and Beedok on others, but I'm not personally a fan of most 60s-70s residential). There are many cities where the dominant assumption is that "home is where life happens", whereas there are others where the dominant assumption is that "everywhere outside the home is where life happens". These mentalities shape/are shaped by the urban form. Neither is necessarily correct and it basically just boils down to lifestyle and preference (and to an extent, wealth).

Does anyone honestly think that commie blocks built up to the sidewalk, but still with just one real entrance and no ground-floor retail would have created a better urban environment?

I think the "front yards" question probably depends on what you're used to. I don't mind a small garden or a couple trees out front of a house, but it appears that some people do. What actually bothers me a lot more are fenced-in front yards, which are very uncommon in Halifax but seem to be ubiquitous in many other cities. I'm also not a fan of front lawns if the street has no trees (agoraphobia, I guess) and I prefer a consistent streetwall, whether the buildings are right up against the sidewalk or set back a bit. Personally I think in the Hamilton example, if the Victorian/Edwardian buildings are set back and the modernist apartment blocks are interspersed and set up right against the sidewalk.. that would look much worse than what's there now. Again, this is probably greatly influenced by my experiences growing up in Halifax.

[Hali87]

Basically, I don't think it's fair to say that Hamilton's skyline is objectively bad. It's very distinctive, and either you like it or you don't. It doesn't really look like any other large city in Canada. If Beedok doesn't like glass or office buildings, then I can see why it would appeal to him!