Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[biguc]

Originally Posted by ue

Yeah, I agree about Terminal Ave. Could turn Pacific Central into a sort of RER hub too. It would be an extension of the downtown core and its skyline, and there is ample underutilized space.

My thoughts exactly. That's big city stuff; Vancouver is just about ready for it.

[Martin Mtl]

IMO, Montreal is more a "peeks and valleys" kind of skyline, than a table-top à la Ottawa. I think it looks fine now and it will even more with the 6 new 200 meters coming up. In any case, the height limit is there to stay. In Montreal, it's a dogma. And frankly, except for skyline geeks, absolutely nobody in Montreal is loosing any sleep over the so-call table top issue.


https://www.instagram.com/p/CHrMWjChdcg/

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

IMO, Montreal is more a "peeks and valleys" kind of skyline, than a table-top à la Ottawa. I think it looks fine now and it will even more with the 6 new 200 meters coming up. In any case, the height limit is there to stay. In Montreal, it's a dogma. And frankly, except for skyline geeks, absolutely nobody in Montreal is loosing any sleep over the so-call table top issue.

Vancouver is starting to get some more peaks and valleys as well with the addition of taller buildings (Burrard Place & Vancouver House namely). Projects like the Butterfly, 601 Beach Crescent, and 1059-1079 Nelson Street will help to create more height diversity in Vancouver's skyline. Plus there will be more projects that are U/C that will add more depth to it like 1550 Alberni and the Post. IMO, Vancouver is polishing up what it already has (in terms of a skyline) before moving onto new heights hopefully.

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Source: https://jsca.bc.ca/services/streamcam-ptz/

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

IMO, Montreal is more a "peeks and valleys" kind of skyline, than a table-top à la Ottawa. I think it looks fine now and it will even more with the 6 new 200 meters coming up. In any case, the height limit is there to stay. In Montreal, it's a dogma. And frankly, except for skyline geeks, absolutely nobody in Montreal is loosing any sleep over the so-call table top issue.

Agreed I don't see the mtl skyline as a table top. Too many gaps. A true table top is Halifax or the Ottawa CBD.

I like the peaks and valley look. It allows for individual skyscrapers to breath a bit, and to be seen from close and far away. Looking at the Montreal skyline, one can appreciate the individuality of most towers instead of a smother of wall to wall skyscrapers.

[Nouvellecosse]

I think Montreal was a peaks and valleys skyline but is on the fast track to becoming a tabletop with the new development. For around two decades there were about 5 dominant towers with roof heights between 187m and 205m. Everything else was at least 30m shorter allowing these 5 to be dominant peaks. And since they were spaced well enough to breath they were individual peaks rather than a more singular cluster. But now with all these towers being built in the same height range, that is being lost. What I would have preferred is if the dominant 5 either remained dominant or were joined by no more than a few high quality peers in that range - also spaced appropriately - and have all other infill be limited to around the 152m range. As it is, having the tallest and highest quality office towers limited to the 200m range just makes it easier for the weeds to sprout up and smother them.

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHrfcyAgGk0/


https://www.instagram.com/p/CHrfcyAgGk0/


https://www.instagram.com/p/CHrfYOLAwFL/

[ue]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think Montreal was a peaks and valleys skyline but is on the fast track to becoming a tabletop with the new development. For around two decades there were about 5 dominant towers with roof heights between 187m and 205m. Everything else was at least 30m shorter allowing these 5 to be dominant peaks. And since they were spaced well enough to breath they were individual peaks rather than a more singular cluster. But now with all these towers being built in the same height range, that is being lost. What I would have preferred is if the dominant 5 either remained dominant or were joined by no more than a few high quality peers in that range - also spaced appropriately - and have all other infill be limited to around the 152m range. As it is, having the tallest and highest quality office towers limited to the 200m range just makes it easier for the weeds to sprout up and smother them.

Yeah, I agree. Montreal had a very nicely defined skyline of buildings from different eras that stood out distinctively in a way Vancouver hadn't for decades. The peak-and-valley look is more apt at describing its skyline, but it's changing fast. For decades, there were 5 buildings above 180m in Montreal, and in the last 5 there's been 1 built and 4 more currently under construction, most (4 out of 5) at the 200m peak.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Hali87

That's sort of what's happening already - the parts of the South End adjacent to DT (Spring Garden/South Park area) and along the edges of the university campuses have been densifying quite a bit. To clarify though the Robie/Young area is between the Hydrostone and Forum areas (so sort of the boundary between the North and West ends). There's more "brownfield development" scale stuff happening in that area whereas the South End is more "infill".

(Robie/Young is Young Street, wheras Young Ave which is in the South End is totally separate and doesn't cross Robie. Yes, this is confusing for everyone.)

In response to the above I'd say there's three main development clusters along Robie right now, focusing roughly at Robie/Spring Garden, Robie/Quinpool and Robie/Young.

Oh, that makes much more sense. But also that's annoying. Sort of like how there's a St Mary's Road and St Mary Ave in Winnipeg not far from one another. Robie-Young is more North End and there's a lot more redevelopment potential with the box stores, parking lots, and Canada Post.

[Robertpuant]

Since we are talking about skyline aesthetics; there are positive and negative aspects to tabletop skylines (vs volcano/peaks skylines). One of my first ''Oh wow!'' moments with the former was my first visit to Boston in the early 2000's. At that time SSP was in its early days. I remember browsing through diagrams of cities. Judging solely by theses, Boston looked underwhelming compared to the higher (more modern at that time) Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Los Angeles, etc. However, my in-person experience changed my perspective. Volcano skylines are great if your focus is mainly on height. One drawback is that you can generally count the tallest towers on one or two hands. Tabletop skylines have the quality of looking like a forest in which one can get lost in. They generally have a sheer mass to it.

If Boston was a Canadian city, it would have the 2nd biggest skyline in the country and probably the greatest stock of old prewar buildings (eclipsing Montreal on that front). Boston is one of America's greatest city and one hell of an under-rated skyline.





Also for extra, similar tabletop chunky skylines;

Rio


Paris/La Defense


San Fran (before Salesforce Tower)



Northern part of Calgary's skyline


Vancouver without Shangri-La and Trump towers



Montreal always looked too gappy for me. I'm glad we're gonna add some mass to it. I'd love it if we could increase the height limit. Since it's not going to happen, a large and dense forest is the best we can do skyline wise for now. A 200m tabletop isn't so bad, Midtown Manhattan was a 225m tabletop with a few taller buildings here and there before the last batch of supertalls.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Robertpuant

Since we are talking about skyline aesthetics; there are positive and negative aspects to tabletop skylines (vs volcano/peaks skylines). One of my first ''Oh wow!'' moments with the former was my first visit to Boston in the early 2000's. At that time SSP was in its early days. I remember browsing through diagrams of cities. Judging solely by theses, Boston looked underwhelming compared to the higher (more modern at that time) Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Los Angeles, etc. However, my in-person experience changed my perspective. Volcano skylines are great if your focus is mainly on height. One drawback is that you can generally count the tallest towers on one or two hands. Tabletop skylines have the quality of looking like a forest in which one can get lost in. They generally have a sheer mass to it.

If Boston was a Canadian city, it would have the 2nd biggest skyline in the country and probably the greatest stock of old prewar buildings (eclipsing Montreal on that front). Boston is one of America's greatest city and one hell of an under-rated skyline.

While i think much of that is true, I'm not sure about Boston being the second biggest skyline if it was in Canada. I mean, compared to Calgary in terms of completed & u/c by roof height, Boston has 25 buildings over 150m compared to Calgary's 21, while in terms of 100m+, Calgary has 83 vs Boston's 65. And Calgary is slightly taller with its two tallest being 247m and 236m compared to Boston's 241m and 228m. So they're almost indistinguishably close but I think Calgary has a slight edge.

I'm sure Boston would make for a lovely 3rd though.

[le calmar]

I always thought Boston’s skyline was kinda short and not so remarkable, but that diagram puts things into perspective. There is a fair amount of buildings over 200 m, which is not so obvious given the table-top effect. That view of Montreal's skyline from the Champlain bridge is nice when you see it on a picture, but I always thought it was way more impressive in person.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

While i think much of that is true, I'm not sure about Boston being the second biggest skyline if it was in Canada. I mean, compared to Calgary in terms of completed & u/c by roof height, Boston has 25 buildings over 150m compared to Calgary's 21, while in terms of 100m+, Calgary has 83 vs Boston's 65. And Calgary is slightly taller with its two tallest being 247m and 236m compared to Boston's 241m and 228m. So they're almost indistinguishably close but I think Calgary has a slight edge.

I'm sure Boston would make for a lovely 3rd though.

In the SSP database Boston has 402 buildings and Vancouver has 1051.

To my eyes, downtown Boston looks kind of small and the rest of the metro is pancake flat, but it has nicer heritage buildings than any Canadian city.

[ssiguy]

Vancouver's skyline is far better than it was 20 years ago with it's table top.

Vancouver's issue is there is a lack of variation in the building designs due to it's footprint restrictions. Vancouver buildings are remarkably thin due to this and I don't think people in Vancouver appreciate how skinny their towers actually are. It gives the city's a sort of toothpick skyline.

[Robertpuant]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

While i think much of that is true, I'm not sure about Boston being the second biggest skyline if it was in Canada. I mean, compared to Calgary in terms of completed & u/c by roof height, Boston has 25 buildings over 150m compared to Calgary's 21, while in terms of 100m+, Calgary has 83 vs Boston's 65. And Calgary is slightly taller with its two tallest being 247m and 236m compared to Boston's 241m and 228m. So they're almost indistinguishably close but I think Calgary has a slight edge.

I'm sure Boston would make for a lovely 3rd though.

I can't argue against numbers. Calgary might still have the edge!

Originally Posted by someone123

In the SSP database Boston has 402 buildings and Vancouver has 1051.

To my eyes, downtown Boston looks kind of small and the rest of the metro is pancake flat, but it has nicer heritage buildings than any Canadian city.

I think this is due to canadian members being more dedicated to it. Toronto's 1437 vs New York's 1339, Montreal having 301 (14th world wide on the list!)

Still, by canadian standards, Boston is huge! This is all outside the main CBD:

[Pavlov]

Calgary now has a bit of a tabletop skyline, but I think it helps that most of its taller buildings have mostly distinctive designs so they still stand out (even though they aren't much taller than each other or a lot of the other towers in the skyline). I definitely don't think there is anything inherently bad about a tabletop skyline.

[Pavlov]

No doubt that Boston is huge, very dense and (I think) very wealthy by Canadian standards.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Robertpuant

If Boston was a Canadian city, it would have the 2nd biggest skyline in the country and probably the greatest stock of old prewar buildings (eclipsing Montreal on that front). Boston is one of America's greatest city and one hell of an under-rated skyline.

I’d say Boston has a pretty featureless skyline. One that’s subpar for a city of its size in North America, and probably the worst for a city of its historical prominence and wealth in America.

For a city with such a rich history, its most prominent skyscrapers (at least from the first photo you linked) are mostly second tier PoMo offerings from the mid-1980s.

Montreal has a much better skyline. The highrises might all max out at the same height, but the buildings are much more varied and represent various affluent and ambitious periods in that city’s history, including its current boom.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Robertpuant

Still, by canadian standards, Boston is huge! This is all outside the main CBD

But you were showing towers like Prudential which are the well-known biggest towers in Boston that showed up in the diagram.

I don't doubt that different cities could be more or less covered in the database. However metro Vancouver has 50 storey or so towers in suburban areas like Metrotown or Brentwood. These pictures don't really look exceptional to me, though the square footage of the Boston towers might be bigger.

I'm not trying to say that Boston is bad or Vancouver is great but the starting point was that Boston would undeniably be #2 in Canada and I don't think that's obvious at all.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

For a city with such a rich history, its most prominent skyscrapers (at least from the first photo you linked) are mostly second tier PoMo offerings from the mid-1980s.

I've noticed that for all their wealth and size and history, American cities don't seem to offer up a lot to emulate in 2020. And I write that as somebody who often pushes back against anti-American sentiment.

What are their big infrastructure projects or buildings that Canadians feel jealous about these days? Boston's double digit billion dollar underground highway topped by bland "green space"? The imaginary California rapid transit projects? Those skinny condo towers for billionaires in NYC? If you asked the question in 1940 or 1970 there would be tons of answers because Americans built much more ambitious projects and Canadian cities were comparative backwaters.

I can also name a bunch of cutting edge European projects that have really interesting modern architecture, or great infrastructure projects, and lots of stuff in China that is being built far beyond the scale we see in North America.

[Robertpuant]

Originally Posted by someone123

But you were showing towers like Prudential which are the well-known biggest towers in Boston that showed up in the diagram.

I don't doubt that different cities could be more or less covered in the database. However metro Vancouver has 50 storey or so towers in suburban areas like Metrotown or Brentwood. These pictures don't really look exceptional to me, though the square footage of the Boston towers might be bigger.

I'm not trying to say that Boston is bad or Vancouver is great but the starting point was that Boston would undeniably be #2 in Canada and I don't think that's obvious at all.

Boston doesn't have high skinny towers, but a mass of shorter buildings, mostly offices. When it comes to suburban skylines, Vancouver is above every other cities in North America except Toronto, New York and Miami (maybe Los Angeles and Houston, but their secondary skylines are under built compared to Vancouver).