Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^^ But at the same time, should we not be equally harsh with cities with actual highways such as the Gardiner running through the city's core?

Of course. The rebuttal that other things are equally bad/worse is endlessly exasperating ...and a cop out. That there are terrible examples elsewhere should NEVER mean that something gets a pass.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Of course. The rebuttal that other things are equally bad/worse is endlessly exasperating ...and a cop out. That there are terrible examples elsewhere should NEVER mean that something gets a pass.

But at the same time, doesn't it seem a bit odd that someone visiting Vancouver would be so surprised that Vancouver has a car dominated corridor downtown when coming directly from a city that had worse?

[vanman]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That's like saying it's ok that the Canucks 🞵🞵🞵🞵 because there are other teams one can watch. Something doesn't get a pass because there's something nice/good somewhere else. What a terrible mindset.

Yeah that doesn't make sense at all given the unique context of downtown Vancouver.

The trade off for not strangling downtown with freeways like what was originally planned is that some of our arterials are quite congested and thus somewhat unpleasant for pedestrians.


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=210691

[Sonog]

@jefrosonic

[itom 987]

Edmonton

Beautiful Edmonton Sundown by Judith A. Gale, on Flickr

[FrAnKs]

That new tower in Edmonton is massive and has a big impact on the skyline.

[rousseau]

Nice view. I think I'll take a picture of myself.

[Chadillaccc]

Fire Clouds at Calgary Downtown by Bluesky251, on Flickr

Peace Bridge Fall Season by Bluesky251, on Flickr

Color Clouds at Calgary Downtown by Bluesky251, on Flickr

[q12]

sunset by Gordon Gillespie, on Flickr

[Brizzy82]

Winnipeg


source


source


source
Central Park neighbourhood in the foreground. One of Winnipeg's most ethnically diverse neighbourhoods. Home to a lot of African and Filipino immigrants. Also one of the densest, at 15,277.3/km2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_(Winnipeg)

an old pic showing more of the park, great views from the apartment blocks on Cumberland (and yes, some ugly architecture)

source

[giallo]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Nice view. I think I'll take a picture of myself.

And without the decency of putting the skyline in the background of her shot.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by vanman

Yeah that doesn't make sense at all given the unique context of downtown Vancouver.

The trade off for not strangling downtown with freeways like what was originally planned is that some of our arterials are quite congested and thus somewhat unpleasant for pedestrians.

At this point I'm more baffled by your unwillingness to accept that cities get some things wrong. Improvement is impossible if one can't acknowledge failings, sub-optimal outcomes, and/or problems. We have missed opportunities like that in Toronto too (Jarvis) but it's NEVER going to get fixed if we refuse to believe that there is a problem (the head in the sand approach).

And I'm not sure why you're dwelling on car volumes. One can get rid of 80% of the traffic on that street and it wouldn't change how underwhelming/unappealing it is. How these buildings meet the street, the design of the public realm, the interaction with buildings at grade, etc. are the bigger issues. West Georgia could have been a great Vancouver street but it fell way way short of that.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by isaidso

West Georgia could have been a great Vancouver street but it fell way way short of that.

With all due respect, this just doesn't seem to bother anyone else very much, even those who agree with you

(I can see your points if you really fixate on JUST West Georgia and its own specific qualities but given its context I think the way things turned out makes sense)

[Coldrsx]

https://twitter.com/mlphotography77/status/1231793430419738624
@mlphotograhy77

[O-tacular]

Taken yesterday. Forgive the reflections as it was taken from inside a gallery.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^^ But at the same time, should we not be equally harsh with cities with actual highways such as the Gardiner running through the city's core? Wouldn't such highways deserve even greater criticism since not only are they not vibrant, successful, pedestrian-friendly urban boulevards, but in fact aren't pedestrian accessible boulevards at all? And that having vibrant and inviting areas elsewhere doesn't make the state of such a thoroughfare acceptable? Or should it be acceptable for a corridor to mainly function as a traffic artery as long as it's as inoffensive as possible and there are plenty of inviting areas elsewhere?

The Gardiner was built on heavy industrialized land. The city grew around it. I disagree. The Gardiner throughout its lifetime has promoted walkability throughout the downtown core by redirecting heavy traffic loads away from the neighbourhoods. It is a success. A wide boulevard with truck traffic is a poor pedestrian experience. It's not a valued compromise, IMO. You can't get rid of trucks and cars and inclusivity of trucks, cars, transit, pedestrians, bicycles is not always the best recourse. They don't get along.

[Nouvellecosse]

^^ You seemed to have missed the part that I was responding to which is that isaidso doesn't feel that having other parts of a city be vibrant and pedestrian friendly is an acceptable excuse for having any parts that aren't. Based on his earlier comments he wouldn't accept the idea of routing traffic away from one area in order to improve the other if it resulted in the area where the traffic becoming unattractive. And l have to be honest here. Other than the views of other things from the Gardiner, the expressway is the epitome of unattractive, regardless of its origins.

To be fair, I don't totally disagree with him. I've never been to BC so I haven't experienced W Georgia St. in person, but based on street view, it seems that it's mostly highrise towers-in-the-park. He's probably right that it doesn't seem very urban and more could have been done to make the street vibrant and inviting to pedestrians. Most cities have areas where that's the case. I'm not totally convinced of the idea that a city shouldn't be allowed to have any unattractive or utilitarian areas even if most of it is attractive, but when it comes to very prominent, highly-visible areas, well, I find it less acceptable for them to be automobile sewers.

But with that being said, i don't want to stir up any more drama between the two of you.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^^ You seemed to have missed the part that I was responding to which is that isaidso doesn't feel that having other parts of a city be vibrant and pedestrian friendly is an acceptable excuse for having any parts that aren't.

To be clear, I said having a vibrant street/area doesn't give other streets/areas a pass; especially a prominent downtown street. Injecting the word 'any' changes the meaning substantially.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^^ You seemed to have missed the part that I was responding to which is that isaidso doesn't feel that having other parts of a city be vibrant and pedestrian friendly is an acceptable excuse for having any parts that aren't. Based on his earlier comments he wouldn't accept the idea of routing traffic away from one area in order to improve the other if it resulted in the area where the traffic becoming unattractive. And l have to be honest here. Other than the views of other things from the Gardiner, the expressway is the epitome of unattractive, regardless of its origins.

To be fair, I don't totally disagree with him. I've never been to BC so I haven't experienced W Georgia St. in person, but based on street view, it seems that it's mostly highrise towers-in-the-park. He's probably right that it doesn't seem very urban and more could have been done to make the street vibrant and inviting to pedestrians. Most cities have areas where that's the case. I'm not totally convinced of the idea that a city shouldn't be allowed to have any unattractive or utilitarian areas even if most of it is attractive, but when it comes to very prominent, highly-visible areas, well, I find it less acceptable for them to be automobile sewers.

But with that being said, i don't want to stir up any more drama between the two of you.

I don't know Vancouver well enough to comment in on that discussion. You guys are wasting your time having a thoughtful, informative conversation with that company too. His ideas are extreme and there's absolutely no compromise. The Gardiner was an eyesore when it stood alone. I find it innocuous as development has hidden it from most sight lines and pedestrian connections below it have been greatly enhanced. The much wider Union Station rail corridor is more hostile akin to Lake Shore Drive in Chicago or any of the numerous suburban boulevards throughout the GTA.

In a perfect world, it would have been buried in the 1980s.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by isaidso

To be clear, I said having a vibrant street/area doesn't give other streets/areas a pass; especially a prominent downtown street. Injecting the word 'any' changes the meaning substantially.

There will always be streets that are both visually and functionally utilitarian even if we had the megatall population to support vibrancy and destination retail on every street. One example, We don't build at a neighbourhood scale anymore. 5 grocers with 8000 square feet is not as profitable as one 40,000 grocer serving the same catchment. 5 schools with 300 students each is also much costlier than one school with 1500 students.