Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[giallo]

Oddly, central Tokyo from the ground feels intimate and spacious (compared to what the aerials show) at times. Lots of greenery and modest, detached homes in hyper-dense districts like Shinjuku and Shibuya.


These were taken in an alley in the heart of Shibuya; home of the world's busiest crosswalk.

block alley by Andrew Rochfort, on Flickr



chilled by Andrew Rochfort, on Flickr



off by Andrew Rochfort, on Flickr

[SignalHillHiker]

They say it's like a really big town in many areas, yeah. Which is kind of cool.

[Nouvellecosse]

It's fascinating. Possibly the foreign city I'd most like to visit.

[WhipperSnapper]

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.

lowrise doesn't have to be timid and I'd rather a core of city offer a variety of neighbourhoods and housing styles. The Downtown Toronto market has a very active tall tower building boom but, it didn't really need to go in direction in order to increase density.

[Tosin007]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's fascinating. Possibly the foreign city I'd most like to visit.

You & me both! lol

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by flipv

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.

That may be the case for Vancouver with Stanley Park next to downtown full of Douglas Firs but Calgary's leaf canopy is pretty strongly made up of Poplars, Elm trees and Aspen. The rivers here are lined with cottonwoods. Sure we have lots of evergreens too but to say there's no real difference in winter is not true.

[Marshal]

Outside of large green spaces, Vancouver's urban forest is overwhelmingly deciduous. This is true of the suburban communities as well. The evergreens tend to take over only in neighbourhoods that are working their way up mountainsides.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

lowrise doesn't have to be timid and I'd rather a core of city offer a variety of neighbourhoods and housing styles. The Downtown Toronto market has a very active tall tower building boom but, it didn't really need to go in direction in order to increase density.

Why would the "core" of a city need to maintain this huge variety of scales when you have the entire city available to provide them?

Besides, we're not just talking about all "lowrise" being timid (I'd include anything up to 5 floors as lowrise, above which I'd call it midrise) we're talking about houses (and other very low slung) structures, particularly those not built to the sidewalk, as timid. And you don't need the entire core of a city to be uniform or monotonous in order for it to meet a minimum threshold of scale. That's just one common element that can be manifested in countless ways. In fact, I don't see uniformity as being a part of the issue at all, as it's just as easy (if not easier) to be uniform at a low slung scale as it is with a more metropolitan scale.

Overall, I mostly don't disagree with what said, nor do I really see it disagreeing with anything I said. I will point out though, that while even houses can be sufficiently metropolitan for urban neighbourhoods, being of adequate scale, tightly packed, and built to the sidewalk are necessary to achieve this.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by 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.

A lot of Tokyo's (and other Japanese city's) dense neighbourhoods were pure greenfields when the war happened.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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?

Actually, it might. Their height/density limits have more to do with earthquake safety than NIMBYISM or traffic concerns.

They do have a few areas with even more density, like Shinjuku.

Speaking of NYC, beyond market conditions, there is another reason why there is a lull in density between Lower Manhattan and Midtown: geology. The bedrock of some areas is much closer to the surface and better suited for skyscraper construction.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by isaidso

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.

The main factor is probably land use. Toronto has way more jobs in its inner city, and historically way, way more industrial land than Vancouver will ever have. The result in Toronto is super-dense financial core, with plenty of residential density on 3 sides and a gigantic wasteland by Cherry Beach. I'd love to see the same angle photographed in 25 years.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by landpirate

by Skyview Ultralights

Are people seriously embarrassed by this angle? It just looks like a big North American city. It looks like Toronto.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Actually, it might. Their height/density limits have more to do with earthquake safety than NIMBYISM or traffic concerns.

They do have a few areas with even more density, like Shinjuku.

Speaking of NYC, beyond market conditions, there is another reason why there is a lull in density between Lower Manhattan and Midtown: geology. The bedrock of some areas is much closer to the surface and better suited for skyscraper construction.

That old chestnut about Manhattan has been debunked, according to a prominent publication in The Journal of Economic History.

freely available version of article here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tro...-1915/links/0c96051a74b086ad33000000.pdf

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Are people seriously embarrassed by this angle? It just looks like a big North American city. It looks like Toronto.

I agree, but it's kind of an "out-of-character" shot of downtown Toronto. Almost all of the angles we usually see (lake, due north, etc.) show an impressive and continuous skyline heft.

I suppose it bugs people who have Manhattanesque aspirations for the city.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Why would the "core" of a city need to maintain this huge variety of scales when you have the entire city available to provide them?

Besides, we're not just talking about all "lowrise" being timid (I'd include anything up to 5 floors as lowrise, above which I'd call it midrise) we're talking about houses (and other very low slung) structures, particularly those not built to the sidewalk, as timid. And you don't need the entire core of a city to be uniform or monotonous in order for it to meet a minimum threshold of scale. That's just one common element that can be manifested in countless ways. In fact, I don't see uniformity as being a part of the issue at all, as it's just as easy (if not easier) to be uniform at a low slung scale as it is with a more metropolitan scale.

Overall, I mostly don't disagree with what said, nor do I really see it disagreeing with anything I said. I will point out though, that while even houses can be sufficiently metropolitan for urban neighbourhoods, being of adequate scale, tightly packed, and built to the sidewalk are necessary to achieve this.

Because different pockets of density and built form in a community is far more interesting. The city is a sprawling mass of communities and people don't tend to move around that much between them if they don't have to. What happens in Don Mills has no impact on the downtown area.

The width of the asphalt has a greater impact on the look of a street than whether or not a residential street is built to the sidewalk. I like having room for trees to grow. It doesn't matter if its between the roadbed and sidewalk or the houses and sidewalk. There's enough hard concrete surfaces in Toronto. These houses can pack a ton of population density with the ability to be converted to apartments and infill in the rear.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

The main factor is probably land use. Toronto has way more jobs in its inner city, and historically way, way more industrial land than Vancouver will ever have. The result in Toronto is super-dense financial core, with plenty of residential density on 3 sides and a gigantic wasteland by Cherry Beach. I'd love to see the same angle photographed in 25 years.

Cherry Beach and the Portlands isn't downtown. Not much will change over the next 25 years there either.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

That old chestnut about Manhattan has been debunked, according to a prominent publication in The Journal of Economic History.

freely available version of article here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tro...-1915/links/0c96051a74b086ad33000000.pdf

Interesting and thanks!

It turns out bedrock depth only contributed to 7% of construction costs, paling in comparison to other factors. However, 7% is not nothing.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Cherry Beach and the Portlands isn't downtown. Not much will change over the next 25 years there either.

We'll see.

I think a downtown relief line would do a lot to spur development on the east side.

[WhipperSnapper]

This is not my opinion. Every plan I've seen says at least 25 to 30 years. There's hundreds of millions to be poured into flood prevention, decontamination and infrastructure upgrades before a single residential project can proceed. The city also has their hands full with the West Donlands, East Bayfront and a whole whack of TCHC urban renewal projects Regent Park, Lawrence Park, Aktinson Co-op, Allenbury Gardens to name a few.

[mistercorporate]

If we win the bid for the 2025 Expo, it may be the required stimulus to speed up the process, which is one of the reasons they're most likely bidding for it. The 25 year projection for Portlands development assumes we use existing city budgetary allocations, special events can change all that and will garner more provincial/federal money.