Great Canadian Suburban Skyline Thread!

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by LeTravailleur

http://suttonhumania.com/en/propriete/11210584 (at the end of the photo album)
Full size : http://centris.lime-media.ca/imgs/11210584_22-117818202.jpg

I had no idea Laval had a theatre like the one in Vaughan!

[WhipperSnapper]

Colossus is a brand. They genuinely all look the same.

[giallo]

^There's one in Langley (Metro Vancouver) that looks the exact same too.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

Yes I heard they plan to stay the ugliest suburb in Canada... it's very well done for the moment.

I'm not sure if you've ever heard of Airdrie then . I mean, Laval's highrises might be ugly, but at least it has some density. Airdrie is basically a under-6-storey hellscape of suburbanity with a population of around 60 000 now. Just insane. They do have nice parks though.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

Yes I heard they plan to stay the ugliest suburb in Canada... it's very well done for the moment.

Don't feel bad, Franks. A good chunk of suburban St. John's looks like this:



Or this:



Or this:



Or this:



A little Laval, while not ideal, could work wonders.

[FrAnKs]

^^ Don't worry guys, I just like to bash my hometown sometimes !

But I still think Laval is the worst example in the province in Urbanism.

Lemme describe it in few words : Parking lots, commercial centers, large expressways with large interchanges, empty lots, industrial parks. Pour on : Bungalows everywhere and pancake flat land... and it get me allllll

Laval is between 7:42 and 9:37

• Video Link

[phesto]

Metrotown:

2015-01-08 WEst Vancouver Cypress Bowl Fog View-3a by Michael Schmidt Photography Vancouver, on Flickr


2015_01_08_0276 by [url=ht

[Monolith]

Another Metrotown

2015-01-08 WEst Vancouver Cypress Bowl Fog View-6a by Michael Schmidt Photography Vancouver, on Flickr

East of Metrotown, with the island of Burnaby Mtn. in a sea of fog.

2015-01-08 WEst Vancouver Cypress Bowl Fog View-14a by Michael Schmidt Photography Vancouver, on Flickr

[north 42]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Don't feel bad, Franks. A good chunk of suburban St. John's looks like this:



Or this:



Or this:



Or this:



A little Laval, while not ideal, could work wonders.

Wow, where are all the trees? That alone makes it look so bleak and ugly. A little landscaping can go a long way!

[SignalHillHiker]

Believe it or not, I ACTUALLY KNOW THE FUCKING ANSWER NOW. It happened to come up over Christmas with a relative who works in construction.

I thought it was just stupidity... laziness. Clear cut it all and build. But there actually is a slightly more tolerable reason:

Nowhere here is flat.

So take this bunch, for example:



They flatten the terrain to create a good surface for building homes. Doing this means they have to remove a lot of soil from the uphill side, and they have to buy a lot of fill for downhill side.

Removing all of the trees and making all of the land flat is simply the cheapest, easiest way to do this because it creates a shitload of free fill that they can use. So the right side of the properties above, they had to remove a tonne of earth to get that ground flat. And they added it to the left side to raise that up so the whole property was flat.

If they left the trees, it couldn't be flattened. And by doing it this way - free fill. Saves a fortune. Seriously... every time a new project is started here, they're a year just blasting into the bedrock trying to get the ground flat. We've only got a couple of inches of "soil" in most areas. And at the elevation of the example houses above, there would've been basically no soil before they were there. Exposed rock with moss and shrubs and trees in every nook and cranny.

As for why they don't then plant saplings - some do, but the landscaping packages are expensive and optional so many homeowners opt out. However, lots of private homeowners do add their own. That said, there's also a cultural thing that trees = living in the woods = being a hick. You'll hear people look at homes with gorgeous trees out front and say things like, "Look at that, sure the branches are almost touching the house. That's poverty."

Everyone here loves trees in their backyard, though. That's where they're usually found.

[MonkeyRonin]

This don't look like poverty to me: https://maps.google.ca/maps?ll=47.573855...H7QakBk9ZZlh0Ol6gQ&cbp=12,32.01,,0,-5.63

[SignalHillHiker]

No, me either.

It really other bothers me closer to the downtown.

For example, in my neighbourhood, it looks ridiculous:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.563793,-5...1!3m2!1sGToMDLKBVtks0i3CAZyEYw!2e0?hl=en

[FrAnKs]

FUCK, that intersection is large. A nice roundabout filled with flowers something, would be nice !

[SignalHillHiker]

Before cars we used to use these wide ones as neighbourhood squares. So this was almost certainly where residents of Rabbittown would sell their work. Then they became roundabouts. Then, after we switched to driving on the right, they became pavement squares. There's a crapload just like that everywhere in the city. Lots have some sort of median.

MONKEYRONIN:

Here's a good example of the difference as it used to be, back when these sorts of impressions were made. Lower left - those two duplexes are nearly identical in design and, despite the colour difference, the one on the left is not in disrepair. But it's just so... soggy, wet, dark, blocked. Even with a bright colour, it just looks poorer than the one on the right. Do you get that impression looking at it as well, or does the treed one still look better?

http://i.imgur.com/VlTCBJs.jpg

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Here's a good example of the difference as it used to be, back when these sorts of impressions were made. Lower left - those two duplexes are nearly identical in design and, despite the colour difference, the one on the left is not in disrepair. But it's just so... soggy, wet, dark, blocked. Even with a bright colour, it just looks poorer than the one on the right. Do you get that impression looking at it as well, or does the treed one still look better?

http://i.imgur.com/VlTCBJs.jpg

From that perspective the one without the tree does look nicer, though generally I'd say tree-lined streets are more pleasant. But I'm just confused about an aversion to trees being cultural, at least as far as wealth is concerned, when some of the higher-end neighbourhoods are also very green.

There are different cultural attitudes about trees here too, though they're not along income lines. Note how the left side here is a lot more gray than the area to its right. It's not built any more densely, it was just traditionally dominated by Italians while greener areas were more Anglo.

[SignalHillHiker]

Yeah, that makes sense.

I don't know why it is that way with some people here. The only thing I can think is the preference developed when the city was young. Circular Road is quite new by our standards, I believe it's early 1800s, like Georgestown.

So, back in the day, the choice would've been between the red and beige duplex. That's it. Outside of that - country estates, farms, summer homes. Some of them prestigious, but all of them "woods".

In the core, these are the only trees I can think of that are in front of the houses instead of behind:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.566954,-5...1!3m2!1sECiOFtsd5NoA3GGWM_ChCw!2e0?hl=en

And they're a recent addition as well. The area wasn't built with them there.

[Monolith]

Floating Above the Metrotown Waves by Christopher J. Morley, on Flickr

[Prometheus]

Photo by Michael Muraz: https://www.flickr.com/photos/anotherangle/7253537566/in/set-72157629341854028/lightbox/

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

There are different cultural attitudes about trees here too, though they're not along income lines. Note how the left side here is a lot more gray than the area to its right. It's not built any more densely, it was just traditionally dominated by Italians while greener areas were more Anglo.

Not sure I'd agree it isn't along income lines. Many of the areas on the left were traditionally settled by low-income English immigrants who preferred to build on their own lot than rent in the city. They were pretty haphazard and slummy until the second half of the 20th century (at least north of St Clair). It only became more Italian later on. The green areas along the Yonge street spine were always more wealthy (also anglo) than the working class neighbourhoods to the west. They are also more likely to be planned subdivisions.

That being said the Italian and later Portuguese residents of the west end sure seem to love their paved and fenced in front yards. There's also a distinct lack of trees in the portion of East York north of Danforth. It looks almost exactly as pictures of when it was built in the 40s.

[Pinion]

Posted these in the wrong thread a few days ago

A couple rare angles of the City of North Vancouver (pop. 50,000) with the District of North Van and West Van off in the distance (total north shore population is about 200k).





I live near the cluster of taller condos