Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by alps

That's the new Nova Scotia Power headquarters. It used to be an old coal-fired power station but was dramatically renovated a few years back:



(image source)

Cool. Thanks for the info. I like when old buildings get repurposed.

[mcminsen]

Part of the Metrotown skyline in Burnaby as seen from Lougheed Highway near Brentwood Town Centre.



July 30 '16, my pic

[caltrane74]

Etobicoke Shores/Humber Bay Skyline

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BIh8XwFhGod/?tagged=montreal


https://www.instagram.com/p/BIhxkgMAtbH/?taken-by=xfrankxphotox


https://www.instagram.com/p/BHmuK1HAGvB/?taken-by=xfrankxphotox


https://www.instagram.com/p/BHcVh10AuX6/?taken-by=xfrankxphotox


https://www.instagram.com/p/BGo1VxNOZr9/?taken-by=xfrankxphotox


https://www.flickr.com/photos/wpointw/28056656373/

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Halifax should consider building a new downtown near the McDonald Bridge and stretching towards the old Halifax Forum. In the distant future, the entire peninsula will likely become the core with residential bits in the south end and along the Northwest Arm. Maybe even the area near the MacKay bridge will one day be high rise and dense. It would be a spectacular skyline juxtaposed the bridge(s) and overlooking the Bedford Basin.

You make it sound like you expect us to maintain long term growth. We've managed to grow continually over the last few decades while much of the rest of the Maritimes struggled, mainly by attracting people from the rest of the region and NFLD. However, with the population of all four provinces stagnating or shrinking, eventually this source of population will be tapped out, and unless we find some new source of growth, then the population will level off or even decline. The only other sources for such growth would be increased birth rates (unlikely) or national migration and international immigration.

If the economy is reasonably strong, attracting outsiders may be viable (especially luring back Maritimers who have left) but I suspect the most realistic best case scenario would be to maintain a zero population growth environment, and to work on making the province more sustainable and economically innovative. Some of the most prosperous places with the highest quality of life such as Scandinavia have little to no growth, and the planet doesn't have an infinite carrying capacity, so we're eventually going to have to forget the idea that for a place to be vibrant and healthy its population must be constantly growing.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You make it sound like you expect us to maintain long term growth. We've managed to grow continually over the last few decades while much of the rest of the Maritimes struggled, mainly by attracting people from the rest of the region and NFLD. However, with the population of all four provinces stagnating or shrinking, eventually this source of population will be tapped out, and unless we find some new source of growth, then the population will level off or even decline. The only other sources for such growth would be increased birth rates (unlikely) or national migration and international immigration.

If the economy is reasonably strong, attracting outsiders may be viable (especially luring back Maritimers who have left) but I suspect the most realistic best case scenario would be to maintain a zero population growth environment, and to work on making the province more sustainable and economically innovative. Some of the most prosperous places with the highest quality of life such as Scandinavia have little to no growth, and the planet doesn't have an infinite carrying capacity, so we're eventually going to have to forget the idea that for a place to be vibrant and healthy its population must be constantly growing.

I think that if stronger investments were made into the ports of the maritime provinces, that you would see a lot more growth in both the population and economy sectors. But I do agree that population growth isn't everything.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

https://www.flickr.com/photos/denis_labine/27794851584/in/dateposted/

This is a great photo.

This would be one of the greatest skyline vistas in the country, except two things are missing:

1) Nobody really sees this view in real life. It's a bit wider than normal human perspective.

2) A wall of tall skyscrapers - similar to Toronto's financial district - is missing in the background.

I never understood what the 205 m Montreal height limit was meant to serve. You can't see the top of Mont Royal through the skyscrapers from the south shore, and you can't see over the skyscrapers from the top of Mont Royal.

The height limit feels like a misguided "class photo" where you get the tall kids to stand in front of the short kids who are standing on a bench, but you really only see the front row.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by giallo

My hope is that we see something really cool proposed/approved this year or next in Vancouver. Something tall and beautiful enough to really give Vancouver's skyline a punch in the arm.

If you mean a new tallest, then that will NOT be happening, not this year or the next or the next, etc. Under current city council policy and attitude, Vancouver is in a state of virtual lockdown. Vancouver has commanded the highest prices per square foot for downtown residential towers for years; nowhere in Canada is the economic case for constructing the tallest residential towers in the country greater than in Vancouver. But city policy and attitude have ensured, and will continue to ensure, that Vancouver's skyline will remain artificially neutered, for as long as they remain in place.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

If you mean a new tallest, then that will NOT be happening, not this year or the next or the next, etc. Under current city council policy and attitude, Vancouver is in a state of virtual lockdown. Vancouver has commanded the highest prices per square foot for downtown residential towers for years; nowhere in Canada is the economic case for constructing the tallest residential towers in the country greater than in Vancouver. But city policy and attitude have ensured, and will continue to ensure, that Vancouver's skyline will remain artificially neutered, for as long as they remain in place.

Could you elaborate? I know Vancouver has view corridors, but besides width of a building could it really affect height?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Could you elaborate? I know Vancouver has view corridors, but besides width of a building could it really affect height?

Viewcones control height, not width (although they can inadvertantly affect width in cases where two different viewcones, with two different height limits, pass over portions of the same site, forcing the builder to carve out the part of the tower which hits the lower viewcone). And with the exception of three or four potential sites, downtown is completely smothered in viewcones. Moreover, on the few sites where there are no viewcones overhead, height is still limited by zoning restrictions, which the city has demonstrated it has no intention of relaxing beyond 168 metres, with the exception of one theoretical site (the building currently there is apparently still offering 10-year leases to tenants), where the city has announced it is potentially prepared to allow 700 feet, a baby compared to Edmonton's Stantec Tower currently under construction.

So, no, Edmonton (or potentially one of the Vancouver suburbs) is where Vancouverites will have to go if they want to see tall buildings in person, until or unless there is a fundamental change in city policy and attitude, something not likely to happen anytime soon.

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/csaba_demzse/28401917740/

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Viewcones control height, not width (although they can inadvertantly affect width in cases where two different viewcones, with two different height limits, pass over portions of the same site, forcing the builder to carve out the part of the tower which hits the lower viewcone). And with the exception of three or four potential sites, downtown is completely smothered in viewcones. Moreover, on the few sites where there are no viewcones overhead, height is still limited by zoning restrictions, which the city has demonstrated it has no intention of relaxing beyond 168 metres, with the exception of one theoretical site (the building currently there is apparently still offering 10-year leases to tenants), where the city has announced it is potentially prepared to allow 700 feet, a baby compared to Edmonton's Stantec Tower currently under construction.

So, no, Edmonton (or potentially one of the Vancouver suburbs) is where Vancouverites will have to go if they want to see tall buildings in person, until or unless there is a fundamental change in city policy and attitude, something not likely to happen anytime soon.

Well that's shitty. Would being in an earthquake zone also affect the feasibility of super tall towers in Vancouver? I know it can be done as evidenced by the Salesforce tower in San Francisco, but would it make the already prohibitively expensive condo market that much more expensive?

[ainvan]

My pic.

[speedog]

How many major cities in Canada still have actual height restrictions in place for their downtown cores?

I know Calgary does in the form of buildings not being able to shadow the Bow River at certain times of the year. Edmonton doesn't have anything as far as I'm aware of, Montreal sounds like it's gone, Vancouver sounds like it doesn't really have one either.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gabbzug/27968084713/in/dateposted/

The (former) Royal Victoria hospital: what a gem!

[Laceoflight]

Originally Posted by speedog

Montreal sounds like it's gone

I don't have the most recent map, but Montreal still has height restrictions.
On the following image, the area inside the green dashed line has been increased to 170 m., though.


(C) La Presse / Cadillac Fairview, 2015.


Source : Ville de Montréal, Cadre de vision 9R, en ligne.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by speedog

How many major cities in Canada still have actual height restrictions in place for their downtown cores?

I know Calgary does in the form of buildings not being able to shadow the Bow River at certain times of the year. Edmonton doesn't have anything as far as I'm aware of, Montreal sounds like it's gone, Vancouver sounds like it doesn't really have one either.

Every city has something

[mr.John]

The major problem with Montreal is not really the height restrictions. (210m is pretty tall)
it's where you can put up a 210m tower, the areas are not very appealing for developers.

[Rico Rommheim]

Also, Montreal could well have a 10,000m height limit, developers will still continue to build 120m buildings.

[Martin Mtl]

/\ Exactly.

Icone1 and 2, L'Avenue, Rocabella 1 and 2, Tour des Canadiens, Holiday Inn and YUL 1 and 2 are all in the 210 meters zone, yet none reach that limit. The demand is simply not there.