Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[Coldrsx]

^Improve/expand mid-rise/missing middle and we would have the perfect city.

[csbvan]

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.

A lot of them are duplexes, actually most supposed SFHs are duplexes, triplexes or greater in the City of Vancouver, and about 1/3 of the "SFHs" in the region are duplexes. You will notice that the Metro Vancouver region actually has the lowest percentage of single-detached houses in Canada (likewise, BC has the lowest percentage of single-detached houses of any province):

Housing by csbvancouver, on Flickr

All data from the 2016 census: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016005/98-200-x2016005-eng.cfm

[Sonog]

@jefrosonic

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^Improve/expand mid-rise/missing middle and we would have the perfect city.

That's my take as well. Having a lot of towers and SFHs may be a balance, but it isn't a good balance imo. A better balance is one not characterised by such stark extremes.

[Coldrsx]

^^not another one with the white bridge and same view....



Also, very a nice

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/B-dYEjrAcau/


https://www.instagram.com/p/B-dYEjrAcau/


https://www.instagram.com/p/B-e0ZY4nTew/


https://www.instagram.com/p/B-f0menjlrt/


https://www.instagram.com/p/B-ccc8FDr_6/


https://www.instagram.com/p/B-XYludDOAP/


https://www.instagram.com/p/B-XYludDOAP/


https://www.instagram.com/p/B-NzfgvJOG7/


https://www.instagram.com/p/B-PHsbujbZC/


https://www.instagram.com/p/B-Nz9ZypIL2/

[scryer]

Originally Posted by logan5

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.

#okboomer..

It isn't about towers vs. SFH's. It's about the city not zoning densely enough to house a working majority. Those SFH areas, as pointed out by other users, can be rezoned as mid-rises or denser missing middle housing.

If you seriously think that 2-3 units per plot are cutting it in this housing market then you are seriously out of touch.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by scryer

#okboomer..

It isn't about towers vs. SFH's. It's about the city not zoning densely enough to house a working majority. Those SFH areas, as pointed out by other users, can be rezoned as mid-rises or denser missing middle housing.

If you seriously think that 2-3 units per plot are cutting it in this housing market then you are seriously out of touch.

There are plenty of mid-rise and low-rise in Vancouver. The missing middle is ground oriented housing, where you get housing that is more affordable, especially for families. The price of a 3 bedroom condo in Vancouver is outrageous.

The most ideal land use policy for RS zones in Vancouver would be around 1.2 FSR, which is about double what is allowed now. That would equate to densities of close to 30 000/sq mile.

Towers are absolutely unnecessary outside of the downtown area.They are the biggest scam going in real estate.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by logan5

There are plenty of mid-rise and low-rise in Vancouver. The missing middle is ground oriented housing, where you get housing that is more affordable, especially for families. The price of a 3 bedroom condo in Vancouver is outrageous.

The most ideal land use policy for RS zones in Vancouver would be around 1.2 FSR, which is about double what is allowed now. That would equate to densities of close to 30 000/sq mile.

Towers are absolutely unnecessary outside of the downtown area.They are the biggest scam going in real estate.

Not to mention the cost of construction (woodframe, no underground parking) means that these gentler forms of missing-middle infill are often substantially cheaper per square foot than highrise or even mid-rise condos.

Increasing the overall average number of units per "single-family" lot in Vancouver by even 1, so that the average number of units per lot is 3, would add enough housing for 130-140k people (about 70k lots with one extra unit, averaged, at about 2.1 people per unit in Vancouver).

There are lots of ways of increasing density, towers and mid-rises have their place, but so does more incremental forms of densification.

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/B-T-jckHw-U/

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Not to mention the cost of construction (woodframe, no underground parking) means that these gentler forms of missing-middle infill are often substantially cheaper per square foot than highrise or even mid-rise condos.

Increasing the overall average number of units per "single-family" lot in Vancouver by even 1, so that the average number of units per lot is 3, would add enough housing for 130-140k people (about 70k lots with one extra unit, averaged, at about 2.1 people per unit in Vancouver).

There are lots of ways of increasing density, towers and mid-rises have their place, but so does more incremental forms of densification.

There's no value developing a single family home into a triplex in Toronto. I imagine its even worse in Vancouver. Little interest at the price points needed for a profit. I've also yet to see a hard cap develop on monster homes.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

There's no value developing a single family home into a triplex in Toronto. I imagine its even worse in Vancouver. Little interest at the price points needed for a profit. I've also yet to see a hard cap develop on monster homes.

If you double the density of a single family home lot, it will get redeveloped fairly quickly. The Norquay neighbourhood in Vancouver has done just that, except you have assemble at least 2 single lots that are side by side before you can redevelop, so it's a slower process, but there are lots of developments underway or completed. These are ground oriented units that are more affordable ($/sq ft) than condos.

[RoshanMcG]

Halifax 2013 vs 2020:




Source

[Nouvellecosse]

From a strictly skyline perspective as viewed from a distance I like the first one better. Just has more of a colourful, charming, St. John's-y vibe to it. From the street level, things are much better now tho.

[Hali87]

I have sort of mixed feelings. While the skyline has gotten more tabletopish and blue-glassy, and the wide, flat nature of the new buildings isn't something I intuitively think of as attractive, I find there is a certain "heft" to buildings like the Maple (especially as it relates to the Maritime Centre) that is somewhat unique to our skyline. The design approach contrasts starkly with most other Canadian cities (sometimes incidentally, sometimes very deliberately) and while I hope that more variety in terms of shapes/colours is reintroduced, the "layer upon layer of wide, angular towers" aesthetic is starting to grow on me a bit. If the constraints we had placed on ourselves had been different we could have ended up with a skyline like a smaller Vancouver, or a bigger St. John's, or an Anglo Quebec City, or a Canadian San Francisco, or an East Coast Victoria, or a coastal Toronto or Hamilton or Banff, but because of the constraints we did/didn't choose, we don't actually look like any of those in practice, and I think that's interesting. Hopefully the Cogswell developments will somehow find a way to compliment what we currently have - I feel that design expectations have increased to the point that it could end up looking quite impressive. Time will tell, I guess.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I have sort of mixed feelings. While the skyline has gotten more tabletopish and blue-glassy, and the wide, flat nature of the new buildings isn't something I intuitively think of as attractive, I find there is a certain "heft" to buildings like the Maple (especially as it relates to the Maritime Centre) that is somewhat unique to our skyline. The design approach contrasts starkly with most other Canadian cities (sometimes incidentally, sometimes very deliberately) and while I hope that more variety in terms of shapes/colours is reintroduced, the "layer upon layer of wide, angular towers" aesthetic is starting to grow on me a bit. If the constraints we had placed on ourselves had been different we could have ended up with a skyline like a smaller Vancouver, or a bigger St. John's, or an Anglo Quebec City, or a Canadian San Francisco, or an East Coast Victoria, or a coastal Toronto or Hamilton or Banff, but because of the constraints we did/didn't choose, we don't actually look like any of those in practice, and I think that's interesting. Hopefully the Cogswell developments will somehow find a way to compliment what we currently have - I feel that design expectations have increased to the point that it could end up looking quite impressive. Time will tell, I guess.

The height limits in Halifax, Ottawa, and (to a lesser extent) Montreal are really annoying. They really are the worst of both worlds as you don't really get the short human scale that allows the landmarks they're preserving (Parliament, the Citadel, Mont Royal) to stand very prominently while simultaneously giving a stunted skyline. In Montreal it was relatively ok because the limit is higher and the tallest were well-spaced apart and distinctive enough, but with the explosive development Downtown and in Griffintown, it's starting to produce a table top. The new Montreal tallest skyscrapers should be approaching 250-270m IMO. Ottawa would have a good skyline that compliments the old (Parliament, Chateau Laurier) without stunting dynamism if it was able to have maybe 2-3 180-200m tall buildings and half a dozen in the 140-180m range. That Halifax 2020 shot shows the wasted potential of the city's boom over the past decade. While the growth is impressive and definitely fills the core in nicely at street level, it is stubby and table top-y from across the harbour. I personally think it would be really neat to be able to see a couple skyscrapers around 150 or 170 m tall peek out from behind the citadel walls when viewed from inside.

I think the only city that does a short skyline well is Victoria. I'm not even sure if there is a proper height limit or the demand just hasn't been there, but it works regardless. The BC Legislature and Empress are still very prominent and is really the only case where a European-esque short skyline that favour prominent historical landmarks works. And I think part of it is how well the skyline scales with the small harbour. Halifax's is too big by comparison and the city is also a lot more 'big city' in vibe due to it being THE city for the Maritimes.

[someone123]

The goal of Halifax's height limits is to protect the views from the Citadel, not the views of the Citadel. When you're standing at certain points, you can still see features like George's Island from the Citadel (and there are flagpoles at these places that were used for communication by semaphore before the telegraph and telephone). And then there's the ramparts bylaw which is intended to prevent new buildings from being visible inside the courtyard of the Citadel.

They make more sense than it seems but I don't think the ramparts bylaw is worth it, and the height limits as they are have the bad side-effect of getting it "backward", encouraging short buildings up higher on the hill and taller buildings lower down toward the water. The Halifax skyline would look much more impressive and more buildings would have better views if it were the other way around.

I think that when these rules were being put in place and lobbied for, the notion of the city itself being "the view" was not appreciated much, at least on the pro-height-limit side.

[ue]

Originally Posted by someone123

The goal of Halifax's height limits is to protect the views from the Citadel, not the views of the Citadel. When you're standing at certain points, you can still see features like George's Island from the Citadel. And then there's the ramparts bylaw which is intended to prevent new buildings from being visible inside the courtyard of the Citadel.

They make more sense than it seems but I don't think the ramparts bylaw is worth it, and the height limits as they are have the bad side-effect of getting it "backward", encouraging short buildings up higher on the hill and taller buildings lower down toward the water. The Halifax skyline would look much more impressive and more buildings would have better views if it were the other way around.

I think that when these rules were being put in place and lobbied for, the notion of the city itself being "the view" was not appreciated much, at least on the pro-height-limit side.

Yeah, I knew that, and worded it weirdly as the other two (Ottawa, Montreal) are cases where it's view of, not from, a landmark. It just seems like an a wasteful exercise that doesn't allow Halifax to have a great skyline. I get skylines aren't really a big deal and I'm glad for the added density adding life and filling in the core at street level, but it just seems aesthetically the worst of both worlds.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

The goal of Halifax's height limits is to protect the views from the Citadel, not the views of the Citadel. When you're standing at certain points, you can still see features like George's Island from the Citadel (and there are flagpoles at these places that were used for communication by semaphore before the telegraph and telephone). And then there's the ramparts bylaw which is intended to prevent new buildings from being visible inside the courtyard of the Citadel.

They make more sense than it seems but I don't think the ramparts bylaw is worth it, and the height limits as they are have the bad side-effect of getting it "backward", encouraging short buildings up higher on the hill and taller buildings lower down toward the water. The Halifax skyline would look much more impressive and more buildings would have better views if it were the other way around.

I think that when these rules were being put in place and lobbied for, the notion of the city itself being "the view" was not appreciated much, at least on the pro-height-limit side.

I think that last line says it all. In Halifax, the city (with the exception of historic landmarks) is something that one looks past rather than at. Good planning is thought of as design that makes it easier to see past the city. If the city becomes difficult to ignore, it's seen as a failure. And ironically, squat buildings are hard to look past.

[TorontoDrew]

Toronto By The Lake by Jack Tome, on Flickr

Untitled by A Great Capture, on Flickr