The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

LOL you need to take a break from the internet man. Seriously. And stop saying "us, we, you guys". Stop generalizing Calgary and Montreal posters. Its really just you and that GS guy from Montreal. Maybe 1-2 others I'm forgetting.

Typical Chad. The world revolves around him, then around Calgary...

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

No sorry I wasn't referring to your comment or your photo. I guess my comment was late but was just a general comment regarding the Calgary skyline which was being talked about. Trust me, I realize those houses are nowhere near the core.

Ok. Bad timing I guess.

[O-tacular]

In light of all this ridiculous back and forth I thought I'd post this picture of Sauron's castle in DT Laval.

[koops65]

I think the negativeness and the back & forth should stay, makes for a far more interesting read.

I noticed a few people commented about the number of tall buildings in various cities (I'm not going to bother going back to quote them) but I decided to throw in my $0.02 and throw out some actual stats, courtesy of the SSP database...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I respect that. This post is about numbers, and math. I will attempt to show skylines based on building heights and numbers, and will leave their built form, and placement, and the surrounding topography out of it.

Only built and U/C are included.

Cities with buildings over 274.3 metres or 900 feet: 1
Toronto - 3

Cites with buildings between 243.8 metres or 800 feet and 274.2 metres: 2
Toronto - 3
Calgary - 1

Cities with buildings between 213.4 metres or 700 feet and 243.7 metres: 4
Toronto - 8
Calgary - 3
Montreal - 1
Edmonton - 1

Cities with buildings between 182.9 metres or 600 feet and 213.3 metres: 6
Toronto - 16
Montreal - 4
Calgary - 3
Vancouver - 2
Burnaby - 2
Edmonton - 1

Cities with buildings between 152.4 metres or 500 feet and 182.8 metres: 8
Toronto - 28
Calgary - 11
Montreal - 4
Vancouver - 2
Mississauga - 2
Burnaby - 1
Surrey - 1
Niagara Falls - 1

Cities with buildings between 121.9 metres or 400 feet and 152.3 metres: 12
Toronto - 73
Calgary - 22
Vancouver - 19
Montreal - 18
Edmonton - 9
Mississauga - 5
Burnaby - 3
Winnipeg - 2
Quebec City - 1
Coquitlam - 1
Hamilton - 1
Gatineau - 1

Cities with buildings between 91.4 metres or 300 feet and 121.8 metres: 22
Toronto - 194
Vancouver - 78
Calgary - 43
Montreal - 40
Mississauga - 26
Burnaby - 20
Edmonton - 16
Ottawa - 12
Surrey - 6
Winnipeg - 5
Coquitlam- 5
Niagara Falls - 4
Vaughan - 4
London - 4
Quebec City - 3
Hamilton - 3
New Westminster - 3
Windsor - 2
Markham - 2
Gatineau - 1
Longueuil - 1
Halifax - 1

A closer look at the totals of the top cities now:
Toronto - 325
Vancouver - 101
Calgary - 83
Montreal - 67
Mississauga - 33
Edmonton - 27
Burnaby - 26

@ the Montreal booster who claimed there are as many high-rises in Montreal as Calgary, or possibly Vancouver, (I cant be bothered to go back and check that now) you are simply wrong or mistaken. Possibly once you go below 300 feet the numbers jump up in Montreal's favour, but for Canada's second largest city, there is a definite lack of tall buildings compared to the next 2 largest cities.

Clearly Toronto dominates Canada, with more tall buildings than all the rest of the big cities combined. Has the tallest towers, and by far the most over 500 feet, 58 of them. Throw in those extra 33 towers in Mississauga since its just a suburb.
Vancouver has the next most tall buildings, but only 1 breaks above 200 metres, and only 4 are taller than 500 feet. Conclusion - lots of shorter towers. Canada's 4th tallest city. Add Burnaby's 26 towers as well.
Calgary is next, with fewer tall buildings than Vancouver but far more taller ones, 18 over 500 feet. Canada's second tallest city.
Montreal is also taller than Vancouver, but has fewer tall buildings over all. Third tallest Canadian city with 9 towers over 500 feet.
Edmonton is growing up fast, hopefully the economy doesn't cause a slow-down in construction.

[MTLskyline]

^ What would be interesting would be to have a full breakdown of when these buildings were constructed. Obviously Vancouver and Calgary did not always have more 300 footers than Montreal. I suspect Vancouver may have overtaken Montreal in number of buildings in the 80s or 90s, and Calgary overtook Montreal in the 2000s.

I think what hurts Montreal in a ranking like this is that it had some long droughts of skyscraper building. Not many substantial buildings were built in most of the 1970s, the mid-to-late 1990s, or the 2000s.

I don't think the height limit is a huge factor, as many lots zoned for 200m are being built on with 140-150m buildings.

Montreal is actually building quite a bit these days compared to other recent decades.

[O-tacular]

Thanks for the numbers breakdown koops!

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

^ What would be interesting would be to have a full breakdown of when these buildings were constructed. Obviously Vancouver and Calgary did not always have more 300 footers than Montreal. I suspect Vancouver may have overtaken Montreal in number of buildings in the 80s or 90s, and Calgary overtook Montreal in the 2000s.

I think what hurts Montreal in a ranking like this is that it had some long droughts of skyscraper building. Not many substantial buildings were built in most of the 1970s, the mid-to-late 1990s, or the 2000s.

I don't think the height limit is a huge factor, as many lots zoned for 200m are being built on with 140-150m buildings.

Montreal is actually building quite a bit these days compared to other recent decades.

I'm actually delighted to see you guys getting more tower proposals. It seemed like the skyline never changed from my childhood. I'd love to see a new tallest to replace 1000 de la gauchetiere and 1250 Rene Levesque. Montreal deserves something crazy and interesting!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Why do people think Calgary goes from skyscrapers to single family houses immediately?

Because it does?

Here's again a random spot I picked which is a mere few hundred meters from the CBD. If those aren't single family houses, then please tell me what the buildings are currently used for? From the looks of it, you can live there in detached housing with your own private backyard and still be a short walk away from your CBD office.

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.05639...AOcbAWz3MbeuSg&cbp=12,64.65,,0,-2.1&z=21

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

And yet, despite being less than one-third the size of Montreal, Calgary manages to best it in many respects. You have to accept this.

lio45, stop posting about Calgary, it's making you look like an imbecile.

Thanks for the classy insult. Are those two posters quoted below imbeciles too? They dared point out the same thing...

I'm starting to doubt you live in Calgary, it either seems you've never heard of Sunnyside or else Google (with both Street View and Sat View) is taking part in a big conspiracy.

Originally Posted by coolcanadian

Calgary, while taller than Montreal, seems to be more suburban beyond its tall towers (for the most part, excluding the Beltline)

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

What I don't like about the Calgary skyline is that its surrounded by lowrise/houses. I prefer skyscrapers popping out of an urban jungle. That's why I'll take a Boston or Philadelphia over Houston any day.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

Because it does?

Here's again a random spot I picked which is a mere few hundred meters from the CBD. If those aren't single family houses, then please tell me what the buildings are currently used for? From the looks of it, you can live there in detached housing with your own private backyard and still be a short walk away from your CBD office.

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.05639...AOcbAWz3MbeuSg&cbp=12,64.65,,0,-2.1&z=21

Again that is on the north side beneath the bluff. It is sandwiched between two higher density areas (Kensington and Bridgeland). Do a street view of 10th street on this side. There are also plans for many more condos such as Pixel, Lido, the Kensignton, Ezra on the Park and others coming down the pipeline. Better yet, do a street view of anywhere south of the CBD in the Beltline. The fact that there are SFH's in one area north of DT in no way means that represents everywhere and that Calgary in general just goes from office towers to houses in the suburbs immediately. Check the areas he mentioned such as Inglewood on 9th or 4th street in Mission. Also check the corner of 16th and centre St. in the north. Or better yet just visit our damn city before you make such sweeping statements.

[Ashok]

Originally Posted by koops65

I think the negativeness and the back & forth should stay, makes for a far more interesting read.

.

What are your sources? If you are using SSC diagrams, they are not complete. Also, why are you only looking at building over 90m tall, are buildings under 90m not considered part of the skyline?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

... in no way means that represents everywhere and that Calgary in general just goes from office towers to houses in the suburbs immediately.

If the larger cities you're used to are the ones in the Northeast, then yes you are likely to feel that Calgary in general goes from office towers to "houses in the suburbs" relatively quickly compared to what you're used to. It's a crime to point it out? As you said yourself, most cities on this continent do, except for the older, denser ones in the Northeast... (Did you not say exactly that earlier?)

You can't live in a neighborhood looking like the one shown in the street view I posted and still be a few minutes walk away from the CBD in Montreal. Or NYC. Or Boston. etc. You don't find areas full of detached SFHs each with their own yard, you don't find dirt streets, etc. right next to the CBD. You just don't.

On aerial shots it's pretty visible that the CBD gives way quickly to lower density neighborhoods. I am not inventing this. I did not even start this discussion, someone else made that remark (and since then, a few others said basically the same thing) and you said it made you laugh.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

If the larger cities you're used to are the ones in the Northeast, then yes you are likely to feel that Calgary in general goes from office towers to "houses in the suburbs" relatively quickly compared to what you're used to. It's a crime to point it out? As you said yourself, most cities on this continent do, except for the older, denser ones in the Northeast... (Did you not say exactly that earlier?)

You can't live in a neighborhood looking like the one shown in the street view I posted and still be a few minutes walk away from the CBD in Montreal. Or NYC. Or Boston. etc. You don't find areas full of detached SFHs each with their own yard, you don't find dirt streets, etc. right next to the CBD. You just don't.

On aerial shots it's pretty visible that the CBD gives way quickly to lower density neighborhoods. I am not inventing this. I did not even start this discussion, someone else made that remark (and since then, a few others said basically the same thing) and you said it made you laugh.

Forget it. You're not worth arguing with. Out of curiosity have you ever visited Calgary for more than a layover? If so, when? If I was to make sweeping statements like Montreal is all old and ugly because I streetviewed some areas at random that looked that way would you not protest? You're not saying there are some SFH's next to DT, you're saying that's all there is. And for the record GS MTL never said that, he said the DT looked small.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Forget it. You're not worth arguing with.

I was going to say the same thing, we can agree on that.

Out of curiosity have you ever visited Calgary for more than a layover? If so, when?

I have never set foot in AB. I have, however, had the chance to visit its neighbors BC and Montana and loved both. I generally like the West. I'm a fan of open spaces. To be frank I am not sure at all that Calgary would impress me for its urbanity, but I would probably like little dusty prairie towns in the southern third of AB. Anyway, it's not about me or my tastes, right? Apparently it's about what I said... and if I can back it up with street views, then who cares if I've been there or not, Google's car has.

If I was to make sweeping statements like Montreal is all old and ugly because I streetviewed some areas at random that looked that way would you not protest? You're not saying there are some SFH's next to DT, you're saying that's all there is. And for the record GS MTL never said that, he said the DT looked small.

The way I see it, the equivalent statement would be something like "As a born and raised Calgarian, from this set of pics, Montreal strikes me as gritty". And if I said something like "no, it's not gritty, you're an imbecile", then showing street view Montreal grit would indeed be a way of proving your point.

I have never said that SFHs were all that there was. I can't claim to possibly know "all" that there is, so I would never make such a broad statement. The DT looks small when viewed from above because the zone that contains tall buildings is very limited in area (it did remind me of LA in that respect compared to the Northeastern cities... big big cluster of tall buildings then quickly turns into low density, and I am still standing by that observation of mine) and it gives way to much lower buildings and even SFHs quite rapidly.

Anyway, several other forumers have been pointing out the exact same thing in this very thread, so I'm not inventing it. If you want to disagree then fine, whatever.

[lio45]

Also, if you saw any statement I made that was sweeping to the point of being factually inaccurate because it was too generic, please point it out and I will gladly retract it or amend it.

I'm curious to know too, you don't take issue with posts like this one?

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

What I don't like about the Calgary skyline is that its surrounded by lowrise/houses. I prefer skyscrapers popping out of an urban jungle. That's why I'll take a Boston or Philadelphia over Houston any day.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by Ashok

What are your sources? If you are using SSC diagrams, they are not complete. Also, why are you only looking at building over 90m tall, are buildings under 90m not considered part of the skyline?

Yes I'm using SSC diagrams, and they are quite comprehensive... (in Canada at least, I cant speak for other countries) They may not be totally perfect and completely up-to-date, but no source is, and the SSC diagrams are better than most for accuracy too... if a few buildings are missing here and there, so be it, I'm not going to worry about that, because any other source anybody uses will also be missing buildings. Besides, I'm looking at the taller buildings, the ones that stand out, and I would bet there are very few 500 foot+ buildings not in the diagrams. Possibly none missing at all. The reason I stopped at 91.4 metres is because below that you start getting into literally thousands of towers. The next cut-off is 61 metres or 200 feet and in Canada that represents approximately 2300 towers and I just couldn't be bothered going through that many... of course they are part of the skyline, but if you want to add to my list, be my guest!

[csbvan]

Delete

[DarthMalgus]

To be fair, density in Calgary does drop off quite quickly from the downtown across the river and once outside the super-dense Beltline, at least compared with other large Canadian cities (even places like Ottawa or Hamilton). But it's a city that has grown from probably less than 150,000 after World War 2 to 10 times that population now and in spite of that has maintained a remarkably strong downtown core. In fact, driving around downtown today I was struck by how Calgary looks like a city of 3 million or more when you are downtown; then once you leave it, it becomes apparent that its actually more like 1.5m. that said, there is a ton of intensification happening in the inner ring communities, although most of it (outside of the densest inner city neighbourhoods) is of moderate densities (I was in Portland recently and the scale of development in those inner ring neighbourhoods was quite similar).

We definitely do not have the dense fabric of streetcar suburbs that the other big cities can claim (except perhaps Edmonton, which is also a young city). However, urbanity discussion aside, the skyline is awesome, and this is, after all, the Skyline thread.

[Ashok]

Originally Posted by koops65

Yes I'm using SSC diagrams, and they are quite comprehensive... (in Canada at least, I cant speak for other countries) They may not be totally perfect and completely up-to-date, but no source is, and the SSC diagrams are better than most for accuracy too... if a few buildings are missing here and there, so be it, I'm not going to worry about that, because any other source anybody uses will also be missing buildings. Besides, I'm looking at the taller buildings, the ones that stand out, and I would bet there are very few 500 foot+ buildings not in the diagrams. Possibly none missing at all. The reason I stopped at 91.4 metres is because below that you start getting into literally thousands of towers. The next cut-off is 61 metres or 200 feet and in Canada that represents approximately 2300 towers and I just couldn't be bothered going through that many... of course they are part of the skyline, but if you want to add to my list, be my guest!

I don't want to discredit the work you put into making that list, because it looks like you put in a lot of effort and good effort too.

I agree with your approach of using data, but there is something flawed in what your data represents. According to your data, Calgary has a skyline 25% bigger than what is below... (this mismatch happened because you only considered buildings 90m.) Also, this photo doesn't show the entirety of Montreal's downtown.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

Also, if you saw any statement I made that was sweeping to the point of being factually inaccurate because it was too generic, please point it out and I will gladly retract it or amend it.

I'm curious to know too, you don't take issue with posts like this one?

I did respond to that statement. It annoyed me when I thought he made that statement based on a picture but it turned out he didn't. He can have that opinion if he wants to. So can you. All I'm saying is that if you've never been here you can't really claim you actually know anything about the feel of this city. What rubbed me the wrong way is the conviction with which you argue about a place you've never been. I know Montreal quite well and have family there. I've seen first hand it's density, something a mere skyline shot might miss. I don't deny that. I can however tell you that Calgary's DT feels much larger than Montreal's. not the urban fabric or whatever else you guys love to talk about, just the core of the city where all the towers are. That doesn't mean Calgary feels like a bigger city, just it's skyline is visually larger and more striking.