The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! - Page 147

lio45 · #**2921** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 12:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

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.

Last time I crossed Ontario I (randomly) stopped in Grafton, ON for refueling, and discovered a lovable little hamlet on Highway 2. Reminded me a lot of home (i.e. the rural Eastern Townships of QC) for Loyalist/Victorian architecture.

If I did not always end up being in a hurry on those cross-Ontario trips I would LOVE to drive on Hwy 2 the whole time

I'm pretty sure what I saw was pretty typical... one random village among plenty of others like it.

Acajack · #**2922** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 2:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Architect

"Grand Sudbury" lol.

''Grand'' is French for ''Greater''. it sounds awkward I agree.

Greater-Grand Sudbury is even worse though.

isaidso · #**2923** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 3:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

If there's a photo that actually makes a good case for Montreal's height limit, it's this one.

What? So the development of an entire city of 4 million should be stunted so a few people can see Mount Royal from 40km away? Surely it cements how absurd the height restrictions are. To add insult to injury, from that vantage point it's the city I'm focused on not the hill behind it.

Rico Rommheim · #**2924** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 3:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

What? So the development of an entire city of 4 million should be stunted so a few people can see Mount Royal from 40km away? Surely it cements how absurd the height restrictions are.

That's precisely the reason. The mighty and only reason.

#**2925** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 3:51 AM**

Content removed

isaidso · #**2926** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 3:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

St. Jamestown has many flaws. The street grid was torn up, the buildings don't engage the street, and the architecture doesn't suit modern tastes. That said the buildings are solidly built and have a sense of permanence. Despite all the negatives it's still superior to City Place.

City Place is of questionable construction, the neighbourhood is sterile beyond belief, and most of those buildings don't even feature proper walls. City Place might sparkle from the window of a Porter jet, but people shouldn't be so easily fooled by that veneer.

isaidso · #**2927** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

That's precisely the reason. The mighty and only reason.

Montreal matters less than a few people's view of a hill? How ass backwards.

Hali87 · #**2928** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 4:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

Montreal matters less than a few people's view of a hill? How ass backwards.

I somehow doubt that Montreal would be this vastly superior place if only they'd been allowed to block the view of that hill! But I guess you never know.

Personally I love the view looking down "onto" downtown from MR as well as the fact that you can see it from many different vantage points, including the airport.

Same goes for Citadel Hill in Halifax. Do I think the viewplanes should be re-evaluated and tweaked a bit? Sure. Do I think the skyline would be much better without them? Not really. And I love (and I'm sure half the Halifax forumers are going to hate me for saying this, but) that the buildings inside the Citadel are visible in the skyline. What would be really interesting is if those signal masts were modded and lit up or something - the scaffolding they have around them lately has me thinking.

Hali87 · #**2929** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 4:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

St. Jamestown has many flaws. The street grid was torn up, the buildings don't engage the street, and the architecture doesn't suit modern tastes. That said the buildings are solidly built and have a sense of permanence. Despite all the negatives it's still superior to City Place.

City Place is of questionable construction, the neighbourhood is sterile beyond belief, and most of those buildings don't even feature proper walls. City Place might sparkle from the window of a Porter jet, but people shouldn't be so easily fooled by that veneer.

Is it an Ontario thing to consider curtain wall "not real walls" and impermanent? Genuinely curious. Could it have something to do with the panes of glass that occasionally fall from the sky? Because that (AFAIK) is a phenomenon limited (at least within Canada) to Toronto, and probably has more to do with the questionable construction than the actual materials. (Would it be better to have bricks falling from the sky instead?)

Innsertnamehere · #**2930** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 5:01 AM**

cityplace is far, far better than St. Jamestown. Seriously, have you been to the two neighborhoods? cityplace has restaurant patios, people walking around, parks that are actually well used, retail facing the street instead of parking lots, etc. It works. St. Jamestown doesn't.

seriously, take a look at the photos I took in semptember and tell me that is a worse urban planning disaster than St. Jamestown.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=214169

Trans Canada · #**2931** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 5:12 AM**

Behold, the underrated star of Toronto's skyline!

Credit Simon Pulsifer, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_James_Town1.jpg

Ramako · #**2932** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 5:49 AM**

Toronto, Canada by Len Theivendra, on Flickr

Toronto by Storm Rider Photography, on Flickr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/srosat/15847500142

rousseau · #**2933** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 5:51 AM**

That's not Toronto, that's Moscow.

Monolith · #**2934** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 5:56 AM**

Wow! That last Toronto shot just screams Big City. Love it!

middeljohn · #**2935** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 6:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trans Canada

Behold, the underrated star of Toronto's skyline!

Credit Simon Pulsifer, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_James_Town1.jpg

Back home in the Soviet Union...

middeljohn · #**2936** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 6:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rousseau

That's not Toronto, that's Moscow.

God dammit you beat me to the joke.

rousseau · #**2937** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 7:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by middeljohn

God dammit you beat me to the joke.

You blew it anyway, 'cause you should have said "Back in the U.S.S.R."

• Video Link

Monolith · #**2938** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 7:41 AM**

IMG_6988 by pchow2ca, on Flickr

kool maudit · #**2939** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 8:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

Montreal matters less than a few people's view of a hill? How ass backwards.

montreal has never been very skyscraper-friendly on a cultural level. since the 1890s, the debate has always been about how to limit, occlude and prevent these buildings.

if they could have been hamburg, they would have. but it's north america. and so the result is a fairly stunted north american skyline that, in its restraint, reminds one more of baltimore than of hamburg, amsterdam or copenhagen.

MolsonExport · #**2940** Posted **Nov 26, 2014, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trans Canada

Behold, the underrated star of Toronto's skyline!

Credit Simon Pulsifer, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_James_Town1.jpg

Beautiful!

danieldistant