Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Biff

Seems like such and abrupt right angle of skyscrapers to single storey (or short) buildings along Rene Levesque and Montagne/Mountain. (I am not familiar with the area in Montreal - I got the street names from Google)

Very exotic.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Sorry for a heavy Ottawa page. West face of Downtown skyline from Pimisi station.


https://twitter.com/Chris_Livett/status/1308459092332236802

Don't be sorry..Those were nice Ottawa shots. The first overhead on page 727 (Nov 2017) really showed that nice beltline of density that Ottawa has..Thanks for posting.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Biff

Seems like such and abrupt right angle of skyscrapers to single storey (or short) buildings along Rene Levesque and Montagne/Mountain. (I am not familiar with the area in Montreal - I got the street names from Google)

There are the train tracks that separate the upper part (where the skyline continues westward) and the lower part (which used to be heavy industry and lower-class tenements, along with shunting yards, freight terminals, etc.)

[drizzo_613]

From several years ago.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Biff

Seems like such and abrupt right angle of skyscrapers to single storey (or short) buildings along Rene Levesque and Montagne/Mountain. (I am not familiar with the area in Montreal - I got the street names from Google)

That transition isn't that abrupt, as the "low" buildings are dense 3-4 story urban form - the kind of stuff one expects in a city (therefore, not "exotic", to me).

I wouldn't raise an eyebrow upon seeing tall buildings next to much less tall buildings. In fact, the Manhattan "thin needles for billionaires" skyline pic I posted earlier is a good example of that: in that very view, if you could see street level, you'll see that plenty of buildings are classic attached NY-style tenements (usually 4-5-6 stories), huge height contrast between the new supertall towers.

Toronto I'm sure also has survivor bay and gable areas next to skyscrapers - again, nothing exotic to me, just older dense urban form, the kind of form you expect in or near the core of a city.

To me, the step, or gap if you prefer, between a skyscraper and low-rise urban density is way smaller than the step/gap between a skyscraper and suburban-style detached wooden SFHs. The former isn't anything special.

Now, note that I was not pissed or angry at your comments - I'm merely addressing them Opinions are welcome, it's a discussion thread.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Very exotic.

I think you'll find such transitions in pretty much every city I can show you examples in Montreal, NYC, Toronto...

Now if you were to find me a tiny rural-style detached wooden SFH right outside the downtown core of any of those - now THAT would be exotic

[Prometheus]

From the twitchiest drone operator ever, but if you slow down the video speed to 0.75X or just hit pause a few times when this guy is panning around like a spaz, this 4K footage is somewhat instructive regarding the eastern half of Vancouver's downtown peninsula:

• Video Link

[craner]

^ Very cool.
What are they doing to the old post office building ?

[SpongeG]

they are building office towers on top, not tall ones, it will be home to new Amazon offices and shopping/retail at street level.

[TallBob]

Edmonton....Big City!

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by zoomer

Whoa.. when you’re scrolling past this picture at 7 a.m. with one eye open at 1/4 brightness on a phone screen - well, let’s just say I thought it was aliens bathing in a steamy hot river on another planet.

Yeah, I was half awake too biking in at that time of the morning. Looked even more alien in real life.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by lio45

That transition isn't that abrupt, as the "low" buildings are dense 3-4 story urban form - the kind of stuff one expects in a city (therefore, not "exotic", to me).

I wouldn't raise an eyebrow upon seeing tall buildings next to much less tall buildings. In fact, the Manhattan "thin needles for billionaires" skyline pic I posted earlier is a good example of that: in that very view, if you could see street level, you'll see that plenty of buildings are classic attached NY-style tenements (usually 4-5-6 stories), huge height contrast between the new supertall towers.

Toronto I'm sure also has survivor bay and gable areas next to skyscrapers - again, nothing exotic to me, just older dense urban form, the kind of form you expect in or near the core of a city.

To me, the step, or gap if you prefer, between a skyscraper and low-rise urban density is way smaller than the step/gap between a skyscraper and suburban-style detached wooden SFHs. The former isn't anything special.

Now, note that I was not pissed or angry at your comments - I'm merely addressing them Opinions are welcome, it's a discussion thread.

My comment was in no way any kind of criticism or negative. Having not been to Montreal and seeing that particular picture it just seemed like a cool corner of very stark contrasts - low rise surrounded by skyscrapers. It was just an interesting picture to me. It was the 90 degree angle aspect that caught my eye.

I know this exists in other cities as well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

That transition isn't that abrupt, as the "low" buildings are dense 3-4 story urban form - the kind of stuff one expects in a city (therefore, not "exotic", to me).

I wouldn't raise an eyebrow upon seeing tall buildings next to much less tall buildings. In fact, the Manhattan "thin needles for billionaires" skyline pic I posted earlier is a good example of that: in that very view, if you could see street level, you'll see that plenty of buildings are classic attached NY-style tenements (usually 4-5-6 stories), huge height contrast between the new supertall towers.

Toronto I'm sure also has survivor bay and gable areas next to skyscrapers - again, nothing exotic to me, just older dense urban form, the kind of form you expect in or near the core of a city.

To me, the step, or gap if you prefer, between a skyscraper and low-rise urban density is way smaller than the step/gap between a skyscraper and suburban-style detached wooden SFHs. The former isn't anything special.

Now, note that I was not pissed or angry at your comments - I'm merely addressing them Opinions are welcome, it's a discussion thread.

My brain is programmed the same way.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Biff

My comment was in no way any kind of criticism or negative. Having not been to Montreal and seeing that particular picture it just seemed like a cool corner of very stark contrasts - low rise surrounded by skyscrapers. It was just an interesting picture to me. It was the 90 degree angle aspect that caught my eye.

I know this exists in other cities as well.

No problem

I just wasn't sure if you were poking on purpose or not (Pavlov seemed to think the same, given what he posted ) but in either case, I just went ahead treating you normally and just addressing/discussing your comments - which were perfectly reasonable and relevant in the first place, because it is true that that's a corner of stark contrasts.

(I'm noting other Montrealers did the same, everyone managed to keep their temper. Interesting )

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

No problem

I just wasn't sure if you were poking on purpose or not (Pavlov seemed to think the same, given what he posted ) but in either case, I just went ahead treating you normally and just addressing/discussing your comments - which were perfectly reasonable and relevant in the first place, because it is true that that's a corner of stark contrasts.

(I'm noting other Montrealers did the same, everyone managed to keep their temper. Interesting )

1642 vs. 1875

(Just teasing. )

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Razor

Don't be sorry..Those were nice Ottawa shots. The first overhead on page 727 (Nov 2017) really showed that nice beltline of density that Ottawa has..Thanks for posting.

I love those shots from higher up on the Quebec side. Those are the ones that show what we lack in height, we make up in density. And those are the ones where the 1.4 million population is more tangible. Skyline shots of just the downtown can make Ottawa seem much smaller than it truly is (like my first post on page 727).

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Very exotic.

Montreal must be the only city I’ve ever seen that goes from skyscrapers to cheap wooden slums in one city block.

[905er]

...that's a joke right?.... That's not the Montreal I know.. not even close.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by lio45

Now, note that I was not pissed or angry at your comments - I'm merely addressing them Opinions are welcome, it's a discussion thread.

That's because no one was trolling, like you were for two and a half straight weeks before. Genuine inquiry and wanton ignorance/arrogance are very different things. You're not a victim, bitch

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by 905er

...that's a joke right?.... That's not the Montreal I know.. not even close.

False! I am 100% serious. Fact: Montreal is nothing more than a handful of tall luxury condos surrounded by a sea of slums with monstrous Residence Soleil sentinels at the periphery. I can provide streeviews as proof!