Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[905er]

Halifax skyline is looking gorgeous in that shot

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by 905er

Halifax skyline is looking gorgeous in that shot

Do they have height restrictions in Halifax? It remind me of Ottawa (table top)

[Nouvellecosse]

Yes the height restrictions are severe.

[itom 987]

Then it is your job to get rid of them.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes the height restrictions are severe.

They are based on what? In Ottawa I believe it used to be from the Peace tower.

[KnoxfordGuy]

The sight lines from Citadel Hill to the harbour.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

They are based on what? In Ottawa I believe it used to be from the Peace tower.

There are a few different overlapping regulations:

There are "Viewplanes" from the Citadel which protect sightlines between specific points on Citadel Hill and the Harbour (historically from a few other points as well although I'm not sure if that's still the case)

There's the "Ramparts Bylaw" which prohibits construction of anything that can be seen from a specific point within the Citadel itself (this one is ultimately the most restrictive and IMO the most arbitrary)

There's also an urban design framework called HalifaxByDesign which further limits building height/massing to control for things like sunlight penetration, wind mitigation, and unit density. Fun fact: Andy Fillmore, who is currently MP for Halifax, was one of the main urban designers who co-ordinated this plan.

[kool maudit]

Every Canadian height limit is a failure. They create underwhelming skyscraper cities without giving focus or pride of place to the things they are meant to protect.

The Peace Tower is dwarfed. The Citadel is invisible. Mount Royal is glimpses of green fuzz behind a shelf.

Complete and total failure.

The skylines of cities whose natural features and monuments stand out look like this:





They don't look like this:

[kool maudit]

Imagine Montreal, built like Turin. The mountain, the Oratory, Notre-Dame.

Mary Queen of the World and the gentle cascade of slopes down from Olmstead's park.



Why do the backers of these limits pretend that they do what it says on the tin? We can see with our own eyes. At this point these things are totally symbolic, just weird little shibboleths for councilors to squabble over.

[Nouvellecosse]

I'd say it's often just an attempt at finding a compromise or middle ground. Planners and civic officials can only ignore non-affluent, non-prominent citizens so they need to find ways to show that they're listening and responding to those who cannot be ignored. Problem is, the prominent and powerful interests don't all want the same things. On one hand, you have developers and other business interests pushing for laissez-faire development policies to allow them more flexibility (and profitability) in their projects, while on the other hand you have affluent residents who have a certain idea of what their neighbourhoods should look like and 90% of the time those ideas are rooted in the past. If cities have strict height limits that allow some height but not very much, they can go to one side and say, "Look, we're denying all these projects and forcing all these height reductions based on your wishes" while on the other side saying, "We've allowed all kinds of highrises despite opposition calls for them to be banned."

Recent urban planning practice in Canada is still somewhat in retreat and in a defensive posture after the flack they took during the urban renewal era of the 60s and 70s when they were condemned from multiple directions. They've taken a very passive, mediator-status approach where they view their role as basically just listening to the community's feedback and translating that into plans that apply the community's wishes desire while avoiding being seen as injecting any of their own values or preferences into the process. It's similar to the challenges that the news media has faced. They're afraid to ever imply that there's any sort of objective truth in the sense of saying, "Ok, I hear and understand your perspective, and as a planning/design expert there are some problems that need to be addressed. Let me present a better approach." They're attempting to be neutral rather than to be objective. It's, "One side says X, the other side says Y, let's just meet in the middle rather than figure out whether X is true or Y is true and risk one side or the other getting mad".

In other words, the goal is now the process rather than the outcome. I'm critical of this turn of events because, while I understand and agree with the sentiments behind it, I don't believe the response is appropriate. The power dynamics that determine which voices are allowed to dominate the process is problematic (to say the least), it prevents any sort of cohesive vision to be carried forth, and it is inherently reactionary rather than visionary which is antithetical to the whole concept of planning which is supposed to be about looking forward and planning for the future. Hopefully things will continue to evolve and move beyond the current malaise.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Hali87

There are a few different overlapping regulations:

There are "Viewplanes" from the Citadel which protect sightlines between specific points on Citadel Hill and the Harbour (historically from a few other points as well although I'm not sure if that's still the case)

There's the "Ramparts Bylaw" which prohibits construction of anything that can be seen from a specific point within the Citadel itself (this one is ultimately the most restrictive and IMO the most arbitrary)

There's also an urban design framework called HalifaxByDesign which further limits building height/massing to control for things like sunlight penetration, wind mitigation, and unit density. Fun fact: Andy Fillmore, who is currently MP for Halifax, was one of the main urban designers who co-ordinated this plan.

Interesting thanks. Are there lots of people who want to get rid of that height limit in the city? Is there a talk about that? (Outside of the skyscraperpage community...)

[Nouvellecosse]

Outside of skyscraper enthusiasts and a few developers? No. It isn't considered important enough to even think about. Generally there are two sides to the debate: Those who hate tall buildings (some who get worked up to the point of a panic attack over the idea that one might be constructed) and those who are mostly indifferent. They want more development and don't like to see barriers that could reduce the city's growth, raise prices, etc. so they're fine if highrises are built but not terribly concerned either way, at least at this point when we can still increase growth and density through smaller scale projects. I don't think I've ever heard anyone who was actually worked up about taller buildings not being permitted outside of these forums.

[Nouvellecosse]

Personally I fall more into the second group then into the SSP height fan category. I'm much more concerned with transportation planning and sprawl aversion than I am about the height of buildings. I want major improvements to active transportation and public transit so all the effort that I devote to activism at the local level tends to focus on these.

But yes, the skyline would look cuter with a few interesting peaks.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Montreal Skyline by Maxence Lefort, sur Flickr

This is an amazing vantage of the Mtl skyline, I much prefer this layered look to the more common view from Mt Royal or straight east.

[GreaterMontréal]

The view from Mount Royal is better in person. Our eyes are not wide-angle lenses.

The Best view imo, is from Samuel-de-Champlain bridge.


https://gramho.com/media/2206035159711299477

https://gramho.com/media/2210421792059970197

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

The view from Mount Royal is better in person. Our eyes are not wide-angle lenses.

The Best view imo, is from Samuel-de-Champlain bridge.

Yes - hands down best view of the skyline is from the bridge. Fantastic way to enter a city.

[LeftCoaster]

My preference is not the bridge, the gaps bother me, it makes the skyline appear so shallow and linear. I much prefer the Angle posted by SkahHigh, so much more texture and layers.

And I've been to the lookout at Mt Royal several times, it's a nice view, but I just can't get over the big gaps. Personal preference is all.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

My preference is not the bridge, the gaps bother me, it makes the skyline appear so shallow and linear. I much prefer the Angle posted by SkahHigh, so much more texture and layers.

And I've been to the lookout at Mt Royal several times, it's a nice view, but I just can't get over the big gaps. Personal preference is all.

The Mount Royal view is much nicer in person. By picture it can appear quite unimpressive.

If the hypothetical Cominar project rises above Central Station then the Place Bonaventure gap won’t exist anymore.

I personally prefer the Champlain Bridge angle followed closely by the Jacques-Cartier bridge one.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by KnoxfordGuy

The sight lines from Citadel Hill to the harbour.

Yet you can't see the harbour from Citadel Hill as the downtown towers block it. Only to each side of downtown is the water visible. In other words, the height restrictions in downtown Halifax are completely pointless. It doesn't accomplish a bloody thing other than to make some people's desire to control everything around them to their personal preferences.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

The Mount Royal view is much nicer in person. By picture it can appear quite unimpressive.

If the hypothetical Cominar project rises above Central Station then the Place Bonaventure gap won’t exist anymore.

I personally prefer the Champlain Bridge angle followed closely by the Jacques-Cartier bridge one.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

My preference is not the bridge, the gaps bother me, it makes the skyline appear so shallow and linear. I much prefer the Angle posted by SkahHigh, so much more texture and layers.

And I've been to the lookout at Mt Royal several times, it's a nice view, but I just can't get over the big gaps. Personal preference is all.

He's been there many times it sounds like and still doesn't like it.