Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BimCoypFYVQ/?taken-by=sicorps

[Rico Rommheim]

I truly do prefer the Montreal build-up model over what's happening in TO and Calgary. A few tall towers among a solid canopy of mid-rise buildings. It makes for a more enjoyable walking experience imo.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

I truly do prefer the Montreal build-up model over what's happening in TO and Calgary. A few tall towers among a solid canopy of mid-rise buildings. It makes for a more enjoyable walking experience imo.

It's undeniably true. But it doesn't make for a great skyline and that's what most forumers here care for. By the way, that vacant lot in the middle is for the wonderful Humanité project. now UC, 39 storeys of eye candy that will complete the wonderful Place Jean-Paul Riopelle.

[mistercorporate]

I think it's way too subjective and dependent on personal preference to throw phrases like "undeniably true" around. I like hefty, dense and energetic places like Yonge-Dundas over midrise lower energy environments when I'm going for a walk. I wouldn't trade that neighbourhood over any other walking experience in Canada.

[megadude]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

I think it's way too subjective and dependent on personal preference to throw phrases like "undeniably true" around. I like hefty, dense and energetic places like Yonge-Dundas over midrise lower energy environments when I'm going for a walk. I wouldn't trade that neighbourhood over any other walking experience in Canada.

Wait a minute. In the Ugly Canada thread in reference to the 60s era school I posted you said "good design transcends beauty in the eye of the beholder". Isn't that practically tantamount to what was said above about being "undeniably true"?

Because it sure sounds like your statement leaves no room for personal opinion regarding whether a particular building can or can't be beautiful.

[megadude]

Originally Posted by megadude

Wait a minute. In the Ugly Canada thread in reference to the 60s era school I posted you said "good design transcends beauty in the eye of the beholder". Isn't that practically tantamount to what was said above about being "undeniably true"?

Because it sure sounds like your statement leaves no room for personal opinion regarding whether a particular building can or can't be beautiful.

Actually never mind, my apologies. I mixed you up with someone else. Lots of TO guys on here and sometimes I confuse who wrote what. Should have gone back to the other thread to double check.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by megadude

Actually never mind, my apologies. I mixed you up with someone else. Lots of TO guys on here and sometimes I confuse who wrote what. Should have gone back to the other thread to double check.

Ya, you were thinking of WhipperSnapper.

[mistercorporate]

No worries

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

I truly do prefer the Montreal build-up model over what's happening in TO and Calgary. A few tall towers among a solid canopy of mid-rise buildings. It makes for a more enjoyable walking experience imo.

It bears mentioning that Calgary and Toronto are still in the process of filling in. Toronto's far further along but there are still huge swaths of the downtown that feel bare, forgotten, disjointed, or under construction. You could be standing next to a 200m tower then right next to it 2-3 floor row housing with shabby retail at the bottom.

Toronto is attempting to completely transform the entire core from one end to the other in 25-30 years; we're only about 12 years in. We'll need another 200-300 towers before there's a solid canopy of high-rise buildings to match the solid canopy of mid-rise buildings in Montreal. Perhaps you should wait till it fills in a little more before drawing conclusions. Montreal certainly feels more 'finished'.

[ainvan]

thompson-hotel-rooftop-wedding-photographer-toronto-patio-27 by Keith Acedera, on Flickr


‘and.then.I.almost.said.the.thing.I.almost.felt’ by Jonathan Castellino, on Flickr


Toronto by Brock Cruess, on Flickr

[Black Star]

^ Beautiful....

[Wpg_Guy]

• Video Link

[Monolith]

Indian Arm Lunch Cruise-11 by Craig Upshaw, on Flickr


Indian Arm Lunch Cruise-8 by Craig Upshaw, on Flickr

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BinFOl_Aodv/?taken-by=dom4good

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Take away the bridge, the harbour and the opera house, and Sydney's skyline for me is a Calgary+ at best!

Agree. I've never understood the praise some give to Sydney's skyline. It's decent but in no way one of the world's top skylines. No doubt Sydney is much nicer at street level than Calgary but the skylines are on par with each other.

Australia's best skyline, by far, is Melbourne.

[niwell]

IMO Melbourne has a pretty bad skyline. Looks pretty good from a distance but the architecture is... not good.

[Coldrsx]

@ianoyeg

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by megadude

Wait a minute. In the Ugly Canada thread in reference to the 60s era school I posted you said "good design transcends beauty in the eye of the beholder". Isn't that practically tantamount to what was said above about being "undeniably true"?

Because it sure sounds like your statement leaves no room for personal opinion regarding whether a particular building can or can't be beautiful.

Forgot about this

Really? That was your conclusion? Good design not being based solely on personal opinion as prescribed by this forum means you can't formulate your own opinions on design? What the point of taste then? Everything is so black and white on this forum. No grey.

It's also sad how much time is spent on this forum posting opinions of things liked and how little time is spent appreciating things not liked.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by niwell

IMO Melbourne has a pretty bad skyline. Looks pretty good from a distance but the architecture is... not good.

It's about to get worse too with Melbourne 101.

[Coldrsx]

@niztalifa