Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[Monolith]

DSC01262.jpg by Dakota Monk, on Flickr Taken on February 27, 2016


DSC01254.jpg by Dakota Monk, on Flickr Taken on September 11, 2016

[Martin Mtl]

Comparing those aerials make Vancouver actually looks denser than Toronto. It is not a very flattering aerial of Toronto; it makes the city look flat and almost empty between the towers outside the financial district.

[csbvan]

Interesting to see an aerial of the Broadway corridor/VGH

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Morning view from my bedroom.

Good lord!

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Comparing those aerials make Vancouver actually looks denser than Toronto. It is not a very flattering aerial of Toronto; it makes the city look flat and almost empty between the towers outside the financial district.

In a way, Vancouver is. Vancouver is more 'built out' than Toronto while Toronto has a ton of spots where intensification can still take place.

Vancouver has good uniform density of buildings over 10 floors. In Toronto, one gets significantly taller buildings but more than half of the downtown has buildings under 10 floors. Overall, population density in Toronto's core is higher due to those tall buildings. When Toronto's core finally does get built out, the population density will be far higher than what one sees in Vancouver.

[softee]

Downtown Toronto currently has way more buildings over 10 floors than downtown Vancouver, it's just that downtown Toronto covers a much bigger area than downtown Vancouver and also takes in a lot of low slung areas outside of the hi-rise core.

The population density of downtown Toronto's hi-rise core is already comparable to downtown Vancouver if not higher.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Comparing those aerials make Vancouver actually looks denser than Toronto. It is not a very flattering aerial of Toronto; it makes the city look flat and almost empty between the towers outside the financial district.

Vancouver has a much greater tower density than Toronto. Part of that is the scale of towers there compared to Toronto ( 3 points towers taking up the same space as one giant slab) but also Toronto still has a lot more room to grow in established high rise districts. I don't care for the lowrise neighbourhoods such as the one in the photo to be replaced with high rises. I'm supportive of intensification through higher density development with more commercial space intermixed.

Edit: Sorry, didn't see other responses.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by softee

Downtown Toronto currently has way more buildings over 10 floors than downtown Vancouver, it's just that downtown Toronto covers a much bigger area than downtown Vancouver and also takes in a lot of low slung areas outside of the hi-rise core.

The population density of downtown Toronto's hi-rise core is already comparable to downtown Vancouver if not higher.

Unfortunately I changed my database long ago so I no longer have towers listed under neighbourhood and have been wondering for some time how many ten storey buildings there actually are in downtown Toronto and how it compares to Vancouver's peninsula. They were pretty equal ten years ago and Toronto was half of Chicago.

[Beedok]

That is a very unflattering angle of Toronto. Looks so worn and empty it's on par with a good angle of Hamilton.

[flipv]

Canadian cities look like crap in the winter when the leaves are gone.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Vancouver has a much greater tower density than Toronto. Part of that is the scale of towers there compared to Toronto ( 3 points towers taking up the same space as one giant slab) but also Toronto still has a lot more room to grow in established high rise districts. I don't care for the lowrise neighbourhoods such as the one in the photo to be replaced with high rises. I'm supportive of intensification through higher density development with more commercial space intermixed.

Edit: Sorry, didn't see other responses.

What would be the reaction of heritage groups? Or are those low rise generally considered not worth much by everyone, so it's just a matter of time before they disappear?

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by flipv

Canadian cities look like crap in the winter when the leaves are gone.

I find that Vancouver does not.

I don't see much difference also between summer and winter Calgary aerials.

It's not about the trees.

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BKHUuJFBu4V/?taken-at=15695130


https://www.instagram.com/p/BKYg7N1A2jv/?taken-by=moglemogle


https://www.instagram.com/p/BKYkcgAgBFY/?taken-by=thanerobyn


https://www.instagram.com/p/BHAPGFyoP55/?taken-by=mtl_crane


https://www.instagram.com/p/BKdeQFxBQyk/?taken-by=mooremoo


https://www.instagram.com/p/BKLuezRhGx5/?taken-by=duke_fred

[flipv]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

I find that Vancouver does not.

I don't see much difference also between summer and winter Calgary aerials.

It's not about the trees.

Lol - those cities have primarily evergreens. Toronto and Montreal do not. Deciduous trees lose their leaves in the winter, or do they skip teaching that in Quebec?

And if this is some feigned insult at Toronto's density... Lol! Take an aerial of Montreal above those wastelands in the east and west of downtown and see how that looks. Or an aerial of Calgary above the beltline. Vancouver gets away with it due to its constraints (lucky buggers). Anyway nice try.

[Martin Mtl]

/\ Aren't you sensitive. Relax. Also, I did not even mentioned Montreal.

And you did say canadian cities, so that would include Vancouver, right?

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

What would be the reaction of heritage groups? Or are those low rise generally considered not worth much by everyone, so it's just a matter of time before they disappear?

Those low rise areas are largely 100+ year old Victorian bay & gables that are unique to Toronto, so I think they're here to stay for the most part.

[Monolith]

Fly in to Vancouver by Mike-Hope by Mike Hope, on Flickr Taken on September 9, 2016


A Night View From Kits by Stephen Tam, on Flickr Taken on September 9, 2016

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Ramako

Those low rise areas are largely 100+ year old Victorian bay & gables that are unique to Toronto, so I think they're here to stay for the most part.

That's one thing that's always bothered me about modern North American cities (or young/recently booming cities anywhere I suppose). One of the things I love to see most in a city is sustained, uninterrupted low and midrise density that spreads well out past the inner city. What I mean is that all the buildings are a good 3-6 story base level with the odd larger or smaller one here and there, all built with a good street interface. You generally see this in cities that grew to a large size pre war (generally well over a million), but cities that grew large after that can mostly only grow denser with highrises, and often only in certain parts of the city as to not disturb the lower intensity housing.

There just doesn't seem to be any reasonable way around this either. I don't want to see tons of beautiful historic houses destroyed, but I also don't want large cities to be stuck with such a timid urban fabric in their central areas. I've often wished it was cheaper and more practical to move older buildings from one site to another, but it doesn't seem to be feasible.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's one thing that's always bothered me about modern North American cities (or young/recently booming cities anywhere I suppose). One of the things I love to see most in a city is sustained, uninterrupted low and midrise density that spreads well out past the inner city. What I mean is that all the buildings are a good 3-6 story base level with the odd larger or smaller one here and there, all built with a good street interface. You generally see this in cities that grew to a large size pre war (generally well over a million), but cities that grew large after that can mostly only grow denser with highrises, and often only in certain parts of the city as to not disturb the lower intensity housing.

There just doesn't seem to be any reasonable way around this either. I don't want to see tons of beautiful historic houses destroyed, but I also don't want large cities to be stuck with such a timid urban fabric in their central areas. I've often wished it was cheaper and more practical to move older buildings from one site to another, but it doesn't seem to be feasible.

Ayreonaut is in Tokyo right now. His pic.

But, yeah... I get you.

[Nouvellecosse]

Of course I wouldn't want to get there the Tokyo route either, having practically the whole city bombed, burnt and rebuilt. But that doesn't stop me from being awe'd by the density.

Although for a city of that size, it wouldn't kill them to have a half dozen km2 of upper east/west side-scale density too would it?

I know, I'm insufferably picky.