Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[WhipperSnapper]

I would say personality ... infatuation supported by obscure, competitive, comparisons ... than your post count.

[Chadillaccc]

Fair enough, but I don't do that in this thread, except for the couple of times where Cold has initiated it. Certainly has happened relatively frequently in a couple other threads though.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

The last two are nicer than the first one, so I doubt that has anything to do with the teasing... since the teasing began on this page before that post obviously. The photos I post are no worse than many of the photos of other cities post here. The teasing comes from the fact that I frequently am the first person to post skyline photos when a new page starts on the 20-post-per-page format.

Don’t take it too seriously. It was meant in light hearted way.

[Coldrsx]

I appreciate your enthusiasm Chad, but the OCD nature of always wanting Calgary to be at the top is, well, a bit over the top.

I've been there man, just saying.

[Chadillaccc]

My obsessive compulsive disorder is barely the tip of my iceberg of fuckery. But yes, it is that.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by dleung

I'm curious how that modern house in shaughnessy got approved. I remember the First Shaughnessy Design Panel being really rigid about "craftsman style" and a nightmare to deal with.

Are you kidding? Vancouver hasn't updated it's historic structures registry since the early 1980s and if your house isn't registered then you can essentially tear down absolutely anything and rebuild almost absolutely anything. In density-crazed Vancouver, all it takes is a paltry $5000 application fee and is basically automatic as long as you DON'T increase the density. Increasing the density is when all the city's bureaucracy kicks into high gear. This is why of the tens of thousands of SFH destroyed in Vancouver over the last 20 years, the VAST majority have simply been replaced by other SFH except the new ones have no one living in them and, of course, have the proper Fengshui.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Are you kidding? Vancouver hasn't updated it's historic structures registry since the early 1980s and if your house isn't registered then you can essentially tear down absolutely anything and rebuild almost absolutely anything. In density-crazed Vancouver, all it takes is a paltry $5000 application fee and is basically automatic as long as you DON'T increase the density. Increasing the density is when all the city's bureaucracy kicks into high gear. This is why of the tens of thousands of SFH destroyed in Vancouver over the last 20 years, the VAST majority have simply been replaced by other SFH except the new ones have no one living in them and, of course, have the proper Fengshui.

Everything you post is misinformation. The Vancouver Heritage Register was last updated December 10, 2019. They update it quarterly, 4 times a year.

And while you can tear down a house not protected, like in any city, there are also new incentives to retain character houses (and disincentives to demolishing them in many neighbourhoods), including increased density to convert them into multi-family structures with laneway strata units behind. This program seems quite popular. There are 3 or 4 multi-family conversions of character homes in a 2 block vicinity of my place alone.

[Chadillaccc]

Part of a set I took last week...


By me

By me

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

The last two are nicer than the first one, so I doubt that has anything to do with the teasing... since the teasing began on this page before that post obviously. The photos I post are no worse than many of the photos of other cities post here. The teasing comes from the fact that I frequently am the first person to post skyline photos when a new page starts on the 20-post-per-page format.

I'd say you are doing just fine.

[Sheener]

North End Kelowna, BC. Poor quality but wanted to get some smaller city representation on here! 8 Towers >25 stories will be added to this view in the next 3 years (5 u/c or approved and 3 proposed).

[Chadillaccc]

Hot DAMN! Nice shot man! Thanks for that, I miss me some Kelowna.

[giallo]

Nice shot and perspective.

Knox Mountain will be the premier place to get good, consistent skyline shots of Kelowna in the future. I love the view descending from West Kelowna on Hwy. 97 just before the bridge, but it's a hassle to get good shots from that location.

[Monolith]

Vancouver

https://globalairphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/canada-bc-vancouver-2020-03-15-002-8917.jpg


https://globalairphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/canada-bc-burnaby-2020-03-15-002-8934.jpg

Courtesy Global Air Photos https://globalairphotos.com

[Coldrsx]

My old Brents... unrecognizable.

[giallo]

Vancouver's starting to look pretty hefty in those pictures.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by giallo

Vancouver's starting to look pretty hefty in those pictures.

She's getting there. But you can totally see the streets upon streets of SFH's - a blight of modern urban society.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by scryer

She's getting there. But you can totally see the streets upon streets of SFH's - a blight of modern urban society.

Those condo towers with their soulless glass facades are more blighting than those houses (imo).

Most of those houses have been sub-divided into 2 or 3 units by the way. Decent amount of density in those neighbourhoods. Burnaby Heights is a SFH neighbourhood, and is and probly always will be more walk-able and urban than Brentwood.

[Marshal]

In the right balance, there is room for both. SFH have been around since the Greeks and Romans. It's hardly worth noting at this point that wasteful SFH suburbs gone wild, since the 50's, have been an urban disaster. But, besides stopping that kind of development, get over it. The SFH neighbourhoods in those photos are relatively dense, well treed and pleasant parts of the city. If you want all towers, China's rural, suburban typology is might interesting.

[Nouvellecosse]

Other place places with a need for extreme density, the actual choice isn't "SFHs and some towers" vs "all towers". If anything it's the presences of SFHs that necessitates greater numbers of towers since they make it harder to achieve reasonable density otherwise. The more common choice is between more SFHs and more towers or fewer SFHs and fewer towers. I'd consider a city with a good balance to be one characterised by fewer instances of either as they both represent opposite extremes.

Personally I don't find SFH areas to be pleasant parts of a city. Despite their trees they more often come across as lacking vitality or charisma and seem like a wasted opportunity. There's usually an atmosphere of exclusion in the sense that these areas are for their occupants and not part of the city's common identity. There are always exceptions of course, but the most enjoyable parts of the cities that I've been in have generally been ones with more lowrise density (town/row houses or lowrise multi-unit), although I generally count tightly packed SFHs as more or less in the same category.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by logan5

Those condo towers with their soulless glass facades are more blighting than those houses (imo).

Agree. It works because it's not glass towers from one end to the other. Vancouver needs those SFH neighbourhoods to break up the sterile monotony of those glass tower clusters. My big beef has always been the towers. Improve high rise design and we'd have the perfect city scape.