Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes if you don't know anything about a topic it's possible to draw associations based on the crudest most superficial similarities (like, "is a suspension bridge"), but really...

I don't think you're setting the threshold for "abnormal ignorance" reasonably at all, if you expect the average Saskatchewanian to answer "well duh, orange!" when asked what color the suspension cables of the Dartmouth bridge are.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

The last one I have no idea unless I spend some time looking for that angled white building. The foliage and the historic building on the left say more East Coast to me, but the smaller scale of the prewar structures compared to the 60s-80's office towers leans towards Midwest frontier town. I'm also pretty comfortable naming any skyline of this size on the East Coast, so when I see one that I can't recognize I immediately think flyover country somewhere between Chicago and California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita,_Kansas

This was pretty tough! I could (barely) tell the first was Winnipeg (only thanks to years on this forum)... the other three, I would not have been sure.

Thanks J.OT13!

[O-tacular]

This thread went from being the driest and least interactive or dramatic to a marathon of Real Housewives.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

I don't think you're setting the threshold for "abnormal ignorance" reasonably at all, if you expect the average Saskatchewanian to answer "well duh, orange!" when asked what color the suspension cables of the Dartmouth bridge are.

I suppose if we're talking abnormal ignorance, then sure. The same standard could extend to other structures such as where one city's tallest building is blue and the other is white and they're not really in the same style like one is POMO and the other is international style, but since they're both tall buildings they're interchangeable. But with a standard that lax, anything can be confused with anything else whether it's similar or not. Victoria can be mistaken for Washington because the BC Legislature and the US capitol building are both historic masonry buildings with domes.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita,_Kansas

This was pretty tough! I could (barely) tell the first was Winnipeg (only thanks to years on this forum)... the other three, I would not have been sure.

Thanks J.OT13!

It's interesting because, having also spent years on this forum, I instantly recognized Winnipeg and I'm honestly surprised that a long time forumer and Canadian skyscraper afficianado would barely be able to do the same (just as I would be able to do the same for all of Canada's ~10 biggest cities). Maybe I'm just more interested in such things than other people.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by 905er

more pics with you in it ...yeesssss please..

Awe shucks, too kind!

Your wish is my command. Another couple shots from my whirlwind trip to Milan!


Under the Late Summer Sun by Chadillaccc, on Flickr
Explorer Pup by Chadillaccc, on Flickr



And one from the Rotterdam canals!


Now thats the shit right here! by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by lio45

Just the fact that you can name these towers pretty much outs you as a Calgary expert, so yeah, of course, you would be able to tell. And as mentioned earlier, I never doubted that Albertans wouldn't be fooled - it's their cities. Similarly, I can guarantee MonctonRad and FrAnKs won't be fooled by my pics above.

I'm no more of an expert on Calgary than I am on any other city in Canada... I could identify "Landmark Place" in Hamilton but would struggle to tell you much more about that city (for example). I know those buildings are EAP and Banker's Hall mostly because of this website lol. Just because you don't know much about Calgary doesn't mean that everything there is obscure

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

It's interesting because, having also spent years on this forum, I instantly recognized Winnipeg and I'm honestly surprised that a long time forumer and Canadian skyscraper afficianado would barely be able to do the same (just as I would be able to do the same for all of Canada's ~10 biggest cities). Maybe I'm just more interested in such things than other people.

We probably have (slightly) different interests. I'm first and foremost an architecture enthusiast, a fan of history and of old buildings (having restored a few already - and don't intend to stop). Skyscrapers per se, as a subcategory of buildings, only interest me if they're, well, interesting.

So, if you show me a picture of a generic 1980s office tower, I'm unlikely to immediately know that that particular one is in Saskatoon and not Winnipeg (or vice versa).

On the other hand, show me a 2.5 story rowhouse with five-sided Scottish dormers and it'll be child's play to tell you that's a Nova Scotia style. Let alone all the Quebec styles from the 1600s to WWII. (And even after that - in fact if I may say so myself I'm an expert on postwar styles too, I just don't like them very much. I was recently looking at a multiplex for sale, I could have narrowed down the construction date (1964) quite precisely even without looking in the file.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I suppose if we're talking abnormal ignorance, then sure. The same standard could extend to other structures such as where one city's tallest building is blue and the other is white and they're not really in the same style like one is POMO and the other is international style, but since they're both tall buildings they're interchangeable. But with a standard that lax, anything can be confused with anything else whether it's similar or not. Victoria can be mistaken for Washington because the BC Legislature and the US capitol building are both historic masonry buildings with domes.

IMO, yes, if you show most Canadians one pic from a distance of one city that looks like a Prairie city of ~300,000, they might not be sure whether it's Regina or Saskatoon even though by looking at that pic they're in possession of the "giveaway" information that that city's tallest is white instead or blue or vice versa. (In truth, I expect many would turn out to be even more clueless than the level of narrowing it down to Saskatoon or Regina; I'm probably being generous already.)

[WhipperSnapper]

You can think you are an architecture enthusiast, a fan of history and of old buildings but, that doesn't make it so. I don't need to explain it any further. It would be suicidal for you to jump off the pedestal you built yourself and everyone else already shares that impression.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

IMO, yes, if you show most Canadians one pic from a distance of one city that looks like a Prairie city of ~300,000, they might not be sure whether it's Regina or Saskatoon even though by looking at that pic they're in possession of the "giveaway" information that that city's tallest is white instead or blue or vice versa. (In truth, I expect many would turn out to be even more clueless than the level of narrowing it down to Saskatoon or Regina; I'm probably being generous already.)

This whole discussion began regarding a (not so distant) picture of a City of 1.5 million (4th largest in the country), not a city of 300,000. Obviously one would expect your average Canadian to be much more familiar with the former than the latest. I'm not sure why the goalposts have moved to far?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

You can think you are an architecture enthusiast, a fan of history and of old buildings but, that doesn't make it so. I don't need to explain it any further. It would be suicidal for you to jump off the pedestal you built yourself and everyone else already shares that impression.

Lol. Is this post a joke? I know my own interests, thanks. You are clueless.

Also, it's not true that "everyone else" disagrees with me. In fact, lots of forumers agreed with my position that Calgary's CBD is essentially a boomtown and that density drops shockingly (by Eastern cities' standards) quickly outside it. Also, others did agree that when Calgary is viewed without any of its iconic "landmarks", it could be mistaken for Edmonton. Need me to name usernames...? This is getting ridiculous, but I dislike the way you make it sound like I'm the one who's wrong.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

This whole discussion began regarding a (not so distant) picture of a City of 1.5 million (4th largest in the country), not a city of 300,000. Obviously one would expect your average Canadian to be much more familiar with the former than the latest. I'm not sure why the goalposts have moved to far?

It wasn't really such a big change of topic, in my view. The original discussion was about whether Calgary from an angle where it's 100% devoid of any of the following "classics" visible, the Bow, the red KFC Bucket tower, the Rockies as backdrop, could pass at first sight for its fellow Alberta city Edmonton, even to Canadians who are decently well educated and traveled.

That original discussion morphed naturally into "when a given city is seen from an unusual angle where all the usual landmarks are absent, will people still recognize it as easily?", which is kinda the same line of conversation IMO.

And then that further (slightly) evolved into "is it abnormal for someone not to be able to instantly tell from distant skyline shots - even ones designed to be misleading - which city is which among the 20 or so largest cities of this vast country?"

(Which, again, is kind of a natural extension of the original discussion.)

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by lio45

We probably have (slightly) different interests. I'm first and foremost an architecture enthusiast, a fan of history and of old buildings (having restored a few already - and don't intend to stop). Skyscrapers per se, as a subcategory of buildings, only interest me if they're, well, interesting.

So, if you show me a picture of a generic 1980s office tower, I'm unlikely to immediately know that that particular one is in Saskatoon and not Winnipeg (or vice versa).

On the other hand, show me a 2.5 story rowhouse with five-sided Scottish dormers and it'll be child's play to tell you that's a Nova Scotia style. Let alone all the Quebec styles from the 1600s to WWII. (And even after that - in fact if I may say so myself I'm an expert on postwar styles too, I just don't like them very much. I was recently looking at a multiplex for sale, I could have narrowed down the construction date (1964) quite precisely even without looking in the file.)

Interesting... An architecture enthusiast referring to century old houses as wooden shacks, and a tower that is a founding member of the World Federation of Great Towers referred to as “the red KFC bucket thingy tower”.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Interesting... An architecture enthusiast referring to century old houses as wooden shacks, and a tower that is a founding member of the World Federation of Great Towers referred to as “the red KFC bucket thingy tower”.

It's cute that you think "being a century old" suffices in and of itself to render any building automatically interesting. Maybe that's true on the Prairies...

I've actually demolished a building that was over a century old... and don't even feel that bad. (It was far from the oldest or nicest in this downtown.)

For another example, my hometown acquired through eminent domain then razed a few buildings that were a century old, a few months ago. They were utilitarian buildings built after WWI to lodge factory workers in a semi-industrial inner city neighborhood, and they were no great loss architecturally.

So, yep, I'm an architecture enthusiast. I should know what I am, it's me that we're talking about.

[Hackslack]

Cool story

[niwell]

Hey so we are literally posting on a page called "SkyscraperPage." In the Canada subforum at that. It's not exactly weird to think people would know the differences in skylines from even obscure pictures. (It was obviously St. John and Quebec City to me FWIW).

Like, I'm fairly certian lio is a car guy. There are definitely car forums out there who talk about things I have zero clue about but he probably knows extremely well. Saying the "average person" can't tell the difference isn't really saying much here. I dunno, this doesn't seem crazy?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's cute that you think "being a century old" suffices in and of itself to render any building automatically interesting. Maybe that's true on the Prairies...

I've actually demolished a building that was over a century old... and don't even feel that bad. (It was far from the oldest or nicest in this downtown.)

For another example, my hometown acquired through eminent domain then razed a few buildings that were a century old, a few months ago. They were utilitarian buildings built after WWI to lodge factory workers in a semi-industrial inner city neighborhood, and they were no great loss architecturally.

So, yep, I'm an architecture enthusiast. I should know what I am, it's me that we're talking about.

Only you would be proud of razing a historic structure to build whatever cheap garbage you put in its place (though if memory serves you left it as a parking lot as a screw you to the city?). There’s more to historical structures than how pretty they are.

[Rico Rommheim]

This place is so weird. I've got to get out of here.

[Marshal]

This forum is careening into the ditch with all the nonsense. Skylines or fighting?

Please, can't we reign things in a bit.