Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[esquire]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's something odd that you don't normally see - it goes squarely against the natural outcomes you see from basic land value principles, so it takes rare circumstances for it to happen.

???

Not at all. In a boomtown type of scenario, it's normal to see extremely rapid evolution of land use. Where a generation ago there were modest commercial buildings, there are now mammoth, soaring office towers. Winnipeg went through the same thing a century ago in its era of explosive growth, when big office blocks and warehouses went up in the middle of what were then residential districts.

I find your fixation with making this look like some kind of shortcoming on Calgary's part to be odd coming from you, but totally in keeping with SSP homerism generally so at least there's that

[q12]

https://twitter.com/JenniferM_Law/header_photo

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by lio45

These are mountainside mansions. Perfectly normal that a city would have some inner city neighborhoods with those.

I know, that's why my comment came with a wink.

For the record, I didn't post the pic to troll you. It's a new pic that I found yesterday.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by esquire

???

Not at all. In a boomtown type of scenario, it's normal to see extremely rapid evolution of land use. Where a generation ago there were modest commercial buildings, there are now mammoth, soaring office towers. Winnipeg went through the same thing a century ago in its era of explosive growth, when big office blocks and warehouses went up in the middle of what were then residential districts.

Well, that's pretty much just a rephrasing of my original point, which was that to me (someone used mostly to the cities of Northeastern North America and Western Europe), "a boomtown type of scenario" especially at the level of a large-ish city, is fascinating/weird/exotic (I believe those were the three words I originally used).

And a boomtown type of scenario is not the norm, at all. It goes against normal land value principles (which say that you likely shouldn't ever observe that some of the tallest towers in the country are coexisting with cheap wooden shacks) because it's an exceptional situation.

I find your fixation with making this look like some kind of shortcoming on Calgary's part to be odd coming from you, but totally in keeping with SSP homerism generally so at least there's that

I don't even recall calling that a shortcoming, just that it's striking in that particular picture.

It's always been obvious that the fact I've been observing can be interpreted both ways: Calgary has an overgrown CBD that's massively out of proportion with the detached SFHs you can find right outside it. Seen that way, it's a positive thing.

[Coldrsx]

Sadly, Edmonton demolished most of its Downtown mansions.


https://www.edmontonsarchitecturalherita...ABE-DE6A-4E55-A0991A6C7ACCBD42_popup.jpg

[esquire]

Originally Posted by lio45

And a boomtown type of scenario is not the norm, at all. It goes against normal land value principles (which say that you likely shouldn't ever observe that some of the tallest towers in the country are coexisting with cheap wooden shacks) because it's an exceptional situation.

How does it go against "normal land value principles"? All it tells me is that the surrounding areas around the CBD haven't caught up with the explosive growth of the CBD itself yet. I'm sure in a Chinese city those SFHs would be long gone, but it is totally normal that here, someone may want to continue living in the SFH until they get an offer so good they can't refuse it. It's not all going to happen at once.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by lio45

These are mountainside mansions. Perfectly normal that a city would have some inner city neighborhoods with those.

What's commentworthy/striking is to have modest wooden shacks a few blocks away from some of the tallest towers in the country. It's something odd that you don't normally see - it goes squarely against the natural outcomes you see from basic land value principles, so it takes rare circumstances for it to happen.

Not really. The land values around dt Calgary, including those of the wooden shacks, went stratospheric almost overnight in the 1970's. It only makes sense to redevelop those wooden shacks into towers, but given the unpredictable economy, they can sit for many decades. In more conventional cities, the land values would appreciate gradually and development would proceed through successive stages of densification. Boomtowns aren't that anomalous. Canada just doesn't have many.

Inner city Calgary has many empty lots that have been vacant for decades. Unlike in say Detroit, these lots persist because they are worth too much. The low quality SFH of Eau Claire (immediately north of dt), for example, met the wrecking ball in the late 70's in preparation for high end office and condo towers. Only a few were built before the 80's bust and then only a few during the mid 90's to 2014 boom. Most of the land is owned by insurance companies and pension funds with long investment horizons. They would rather wait 20 or 30 years for the market to suport big towers than develop as mid rises sooner.

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by lio45

These are mountainside mansions. Perfectly normal that a city would have some inner city neighborhoods with those.

What's commentworthy/striking is to have modest wooden shacks a few blocks away from some of the tallest towers in the country. It's something odd that you don't normally see - it goes squarely against the natural outcomes you see from basic land value principles, so it takes rare circumstances for it to happen.

That got me thinking - how many Canadian cities have mountainside or hilly areas adjacent to downtown that are filled with historic mansions? I think we can rule out the Prairies, same with Vancouver although they have many mansions and mountains, just not within a 5-10 minute walk of downtown? Anywhere in Ontario or in the East? How many cities have mansions next to downtown - much more common I think.

I actually love seeing old shacks or historic single family dwellings downtown, such a nice juxtaposition.

Took a bunch of photos yesterday and in the past couple weeks in a rocky outcrop neighbourhood next to downtown - the Rockland neighbourhood in Victoria. I'll post more in the Victoria thread in Found photos, but for now THREE.

It's nice to be able to step off a busy road and then be in a totally different world - with narrow stone lined roads in some areas, no sidewalks in some areas, and overgrown gardens with mansions hidden behind. Many of the larger homes have now been divided up into a dozen different living units, the truly wealthy prefer oceanside mansions.

Craigdarroch by JohnnyJayEh, on Flickr


Rockland and Camosack by JohnnyJayEh, on Flickr

Ok, to keep this within the subject of skyline - the condo in the picture above can be seen at the upper right corner of this shot by Gary Hoyer. You can see the higher ground rising up.

DSC08364_DxO by Gary Hoyer, on Flickr

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, that's pretty much just a rephrasing of my original point, which was that to me (someone used mostly to the cities of Northeastern North America and Western Europe), "a boomtown type of scenario" especially at the level of a large-ish city, is fascinating/weird/exotic (I believe those were the three words I originally used).

I thought you owned property (and regularly visited) Florida?

[Marshal]

Of all threads, are there any that are clearer in subject matter than this one? We have drifted away and will soon drown if we don't get back to Canadian skylines.

[Coldrsx]

Agreed.

A picture or two sure, but other threads for city photos please and thank you.

[Maldive]

night by Michael Monastyrskyj, on Flickr


City of Imagination by Siddharth Dabas, on Flickr

[Martin Mtl]

Lever de lune sur Montréal by Axel Drainville on Flickr


Lever de lune sur Montréal by Axel Drainville on Flickr

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I thought you owned property (and regularly visited) Florida?

Yep, my "big city" errands are done in Orlando when I'm there. Despite being a bigger city than Calgary (and economically vibrant too), it does not have the same CBD size nor does it have any wooden shacks - usually even the most modest houses in urban areas are concrete structures in FL.

So that stark contrast in that Calgary pic (where you can walk from your wooden shack to your Bow office) isn't really present there, nor did it ever strike me.

This type of gradual reduction in height (Orlando pic below) probably matches, say, Ottawa/Gatineau, at first sight.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Doug

Boomtowns aren't that anomalous. Canada just doesn't have many.

In other words, boomtowns are exotic in Canada. Especially when they're actually large-ish cities (rather than little boomtowns). Boom-cities are pretty rare - especially in Canada.

BTW, is there any other First World Country where some of the tallest towers in the entire country are mere blocks away from detached wooden shacks?

[Hali87]

Certainly New Zealand, possibly Australia.

If by "First World" you essentially mean US + CAN + AUS + NZ + Western Europe + Israel + Japan + S. Korea + Taiwan, then those are probably the only two.

This is just outside downtown Auckland: https://www.google.ca/maps/@-36.8507909,...f8_m-rGbba8QJDZEyClUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Just outside downtown Wellington:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@-41.2832895,...cqb69gNDVHatterMAZgnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Mister F]

https://funkyimg.com/view/379Fa

[Hali87]

I can kind of see what you mean about Calgary though. I think a lot of it has to do with it being a very young/new city in Canadian terms, and most other cities of that relative vintage, in other countries, either wouldn't have many wooden houses, or wouldn't have many highrises.

[O-tacular]

Oh FFS quit calling 100 year old houses wooden shacks! You can find it remarkable that there are SFH’s along Memorial drive across the river from DT but it’s beyond dishonest and underhanded to call some of the nicest homes in the city wooden shacks.

[O-tacular]

Isn’t it remarkable how Montreal has so many hideous mansard faced seniors centres? The whole city is filled to the brim with Residences Soleil complexes. Just an observation as I find it so exotic and unfamiliar to have ugly clocktowers overlooking the streets in my city. Not in any way meant to be an asshole. Just an opinion.

Also interesting that Quebec city is so dense and historic and beautiful and across the river is a suburban dump called Levis that consists of nothing but St. Huberts and a Four Points Sheraton Inn.