Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[megadude]

I'm actually a fan of surface parking in smaller cities like that. As a vistor though. Might change my tune if I were a resident looking for a more vibrant city.

Those lots are very convenient when you're going to a game and can park for relatively cheap and also tailgate. And when you wanna just zip into town, cover like three attractions or whatever and head out. No time wasted trying to figure out how much the parking garage costs and zig zagging down multi levels to park and then walking back up. And no time wasted looking for a open curb spot then fiddling for change for the meter.

Though outside of working hours and football games, you can usually find plenty of meter spaces that are free or fairly cheap and not too far from where you're going.

Actually, the last two times I went to Hamilton for events were 2012 and 2013 for Pearl Jam and Monster Jam. Both times parked in surface lots for I wanna say 8 bucks. And that was 5 minutes walk. 2011 TiCats game I parked in a small retail lot for 5 bucks I think that was less than 10 minutes walk.

I wouldn't even bother trying this in TO anymore. 10-15 years ago I knew of lots within 10 minutes walk of the Dome, ACC and BMO for no more than $10. Actually, I knew some free places to park if I was willing to walk 15 minutes. Examples being on the street in front of the old Globe and Mail head office, quasi laneway parking lot for like 8 cars in the Entertainment District and a construction site just west of Fort York.

Getting parking like that is basically unfathomable now. Either those lots don't exist anymore, the prices got way jacked up or there is permit only signs now. You gotta be a real city insider to have that knowledge now.

Of course, NYC is the hardest parking I've ever tried. Went in 2005 and 2013 with the latter for 12 days. Both times Manhattan. A real exercise in patience to find temporary parking without paying an arm and a leg or free overnight parking, which is certainly possible on the curb, which isn't by permit, but good luck finding that. I actually found that first night at my cousins place like four spots from her door but never again after that. Settled for a valet garage where I dropped like $250 for 11 days, which was actually the monthly rate.

And ya, lots of lower tier cities in the US that look much bigger when standing in certain spots. You look at the population and look at some of the towers there and ask how in the hell was there a need for x amount of towers this tall? At the same time, I'm sure some US people would be impressed by EDM or CGY skylines given the population if comparing to other similarly sized US cities. And some bigger US cities like BOS, PHI, DAL, HOU, etc. have underwhelming skylines you might say given their population, history and importance.

[Chadillaccc]

The thing about that Tulsa photo is that it's not isolated to teir three cities like that. Look at inner Houston, looks to be around 40% surface lots, Phoenix and many others aren't much different.

Being in my glass house I of Calgary I shouldn't be throwing stones, but none of these places have a site like Stampede Park (undevelopable due to private ownership for a historic exhibition of course), nor are there lots along a removed rail yard like at the devision between the Beltline and CBD where the CP mainline is.

[Peggerino]

Wow it's like four blocks of city surrounded by a sea of parking. I can't think of a Canadian city that is even close to being that bad really. There's some bad angles of Winnipeg that can make it look like we're all parking too but we're still a long ways away from looking like that.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by megadude

I'm actually a fan of surface parking in smaller cities like that. As a vistor though. Might change my tune if I were a resident looking for a more vibrant city.

Those lots are very convenient when you're going to a game and can park for relatively cheap and also tailgate. And when you wanna just zip into town, cover like three attractions or whatever and head out. No time wasted trying to figure out how much the parking garage costs and zig zagging down multi levels to park and then walking back up. And no time wasted looking for a open curb spot then fiddling for change for the meter.

Though outside of working hours and football games, you can usually find plenty of meter spaces that are free or fairly cheap and not too far from where you're going.

Actually, the last two times I went to Hamilton for events were 2012 and 2013 for Pearl Jam and Monster Jam. Both times parked in surface lots for I wanna say 8 bucks. And that was 5 minutes walk. 2011 TiCats game I parked in a small retail lot for 5 bucks I think that was less than 10 minutes walk.

I wouldn't even bother trying this in TO anymore. 10-15 years ago I knew of lots within 10 minutes walk of the Dome, ACC and BMO for no more than $10. Actually, I knew some free places to park if I was willing to walk 15 minutes. Examples being on the street in front of the old Globe and Mail head office, quasi laneway parking lot for like 8 cars in the Entertainment District and a construction site just west of Fort York.

Getting parking like that is basically unfathomable now. Either those lots don't exist anymore, the prices got way jacked up or there is permit only signs now. You gotta be a real city insider to have that knowledge now.

Of course, NYC is the hardest parking I've ever tried. Went in 2005 and 2013 with the latter for 12 days. Both times Manhattan. A real exercise in patience to find temporary parking without paying an arm and a leg or free overnight parking, which is certainly possible on the curb, which isn't by permit, but good luck finding that. I actually found that first night at my cousins place like four spots from her door but never again after that. Settled for a valet garage where I dropped like $250 for 11 days, which was actually the monthly rate.

And ya, lots of lower tier cities in the US that look much bigger when standing in certain spots. You look at the population and look at some of the towers there and ask how in the hell was there a need for x amount of towers this tall? At the same time, I'm sure some US people would be impressed by EDM or CGY skylines given the population if comparing to other similarly sized US cities. And some bigger US cities like BOS, PHI, DAL, HOU, etc. have underwhelming skylines you might say given their population, history and importance.

That’s exactly the sort of thinking that resulted in dreadful decimated downtown like Tulsa and so many other american cities. To praise surface parking lots for their so call convenience is beyond comprehensible to me.

[megadude]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

That’s exactly the sort of thinking that resulted in dreadful decimated downtown like Tulsa and so many other american cities. To praise surface parking lots for their so call convenience is beyond comprehensible to me.

Probably shouldn't be all that surprising for certain segments of the population in certain places. Imagine all the pickup trucks in Tulsa.

There's lots of places where maybe even the majority of the people aren't looking for urban vibrancy where downtown is somewhere you go for work or entertainment and head back home.

But it's true. If the city had developed in a way such that surface parking was discouraged then quite possibly the downtown would have ended up more attractive with more people calling it home, creating that dynamism.

If I'm spending a while visiting a city, I'd rather be somewhere without that sprawl of parking lots but if I'm just there for a day, I don't care.

I was in Louisville a year ago for a ball game on a Sunday. I parked two blocks away from their entertainment district called Fourth Street Live! That ten minute walk between there and the stadium was the best part of downtown from what I could tell. Still passed a couple of lots on the walk, and ya, it would have looked nicer if those weren't there, but me personally, I'm not seeking an urban experience in these smaller cities. I'm there for a game and couple of attractions. In that case, Louisville Slugger museum and Churchill Downs, which is way outside of downtown. Basically I don't care whether they surface lots or not.

Closer to home, I would like to see Hamilton develop more because that's only half hour away from me. As convenient as the parking was for Copps, I'd be fine with putting up with more parking headaches if that meant a more vibrant experience. Though with that, higher prices tend to eventually follow. But not a big deal for me for a once in a while kind of thing.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by megadude

I'm actually a fan of surface parking in smaller cities like that. As a vistor though. Might change my tune if I were a resident looking for a more vibrant city.

Those lots are very convenient when you're going to a game and can park for relatively cheap and also tailgate. And when you wanna just zip into town, cover like three attractions or whatever and head out. No time wasted trying to figure out how much the parking garage costs and zig zagging down multi levels to park and then walking back up. And no time wasted looking for a open curb spot then fiddling for change for the meter.

Though outside of working hours and football games, you can usually find plenty of meter spaces that are free or fairly cheap and not too far from where you're going.

Actually, the last two times I went to Hamilton for events were 2012 and 2013 for Pearl Jam and Monster Jam. Both times parked in surface lots for I wanna say 8 bucks. And that was 5 minutes walk. 2011 TiCats game I parked in a small retail lot for 5 bucks I think that was less than 10 minutes walk.

I wouldn't even bother trying this in TO anymore. 10-15 years ago I knew of lots within 10 minutes walk of the Dome, ACC and BMO for no more than $10. Actually, I knew some free places to park if I was willing to walk 15 minutes. Examples being on the street in front of the old Globe and Mail head office, quasi laneway parking lot for like 8 cars in the Entertainment District and a construction site just west of Fort York.

Getting parking like that is basically unfathomable now. Either those lots don't exist anymore, the prices got way jacked up or there is permit only signs now. You gotta be a real city insider to have that knowledge now.

Of course, NYC is the hardest parking I've ever tried. Went in 2005 and 2013 with the latter for 12 days. Both times Manhattan. A real exercise in patience to find temporary parking without paying an arm and a leg or free overnight parking, which is certainly possible on the curb, which isn't by permit, but good luck finding that. I actually found that first night at my cousins place like four spots from her door but never again after that. Settled for a valet garage where I dropped like $250 for 11 days, which was actually the monthly rate.

And ya, lots of lower tier cities in the US that look much bigger when standing in certain spots. You look at the population and look at some of the towers there and ask how in the hell was there a need for x amount of towers this tall? At the same time, I'm sure some US people would be impressed by EDM or CGY skylines given the population if comparing to other similarly sized US cities. And some bigger US cities like BOS, PHI, DAL, HOU, etc. have underwhelming skylines you might say given their population, history and importance.

That's a very "driver" perspective. I completely agree that it's much easier to find parking when a city is invaded by surface lots. You can see if there's space, no need to go down ramps and up stairs/elevator. But for anyone who cares about the urban experience, it's a killer.

Taking the example of the Canadian Tire Centre however, I hate everything about the parking situation. Having to park a few hundred meters away (for the better price) and have to walk in the cold with no wind protection is brutal.

In Downtown Ottawa, where surface parking lots and few and far between, I usually hit one of my parking garages of choice (underground City Hall, parking structure in the Market) and avoid driving around to find sidewalk parking.

In Montreal, I don't even bother driving. I park at the Namur and ride the Metro. I would do the same in Toronto or any city with a decent rapid transit system. That's what was exciting for those few years when a downtown NHL arena was being discussed in Ottawa. The idea of taking transit to the game, grabbing a bear after and hoping on the O-Train to get back home was amazing.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by ue

I think the only thing I'm jealous of in American urbanism is their legacy infrastructure and urban fabric. We don't really have ample cities filled with pre-war bones like Cincinnati or St Louis. We have some, and it tends to be less substantial. We don't have the art deco skyscrapers of Chicago, Detroit, or New York. Outside of Montreal and Quebec City, we don't have endless rowhomes or low-rise pre-war apartments (like tenements), like Boston, Philly, New York, Chicago, or Washington have. Halifax, Saint John, and St John's have some, but it's not as extensive. We don't have a lot of grand City Beautiful architecture like San Francisco does. Stuff like that. But the stuff happening now, and the conditions of urban life in Canadian cities vs American ones, means that there is little to be jealous of that isn't just historical legacy for us up here.

I would argue that in the case of Montreal, while it's true that the city doesn't have soaring art-deco skyscrapers, it's pre-war bones are pretty up there with the likes of Boston or Philadelphia. While the pre-war commercial buildings in Montreal are less impressive than they are in these other cities (Philadelphia is particularly spectacular in that respect), the "grandiosity" of Montreal lies in its churches and other religious institutions; that is where the efforts went in terms of ambitious, sometimes over-the-top constructions.

For exemple, just look at the old Dawson college (first picture) which used to be the Mother House Congregation of Notre Dame, a convent! Just a few blocks away, there is the Grand Séminaire (second picture), and also a few blocks away, you have the Grey Nuns convent (third picture, now own by Concordia University). These buildings are the palaces of Montreal, and they are numerous in the cities, especially downtown.

I think it's very telling that in the US, the grand buildings are mostly commercial and finance, while in Montreal they are mostly religious. Here, we didn't build that many skyscrapers, but a lot of domes and bell towers.


https://www.instagram.com/p/CHt0ewGHmhO/


https://www.instagram.com/p/CHt3wwwnLOx/


Source

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by megadude

Probably shouldn't be all that surprising for certain segments of the population in certain places. Imagine all the pickup trucks in Tulsa.

There's lots of places where maybe even the majority of the people aren't looking for urban vibrancy where downtown is somewhere you go for work or entertainment and head back home.

But it's true. If the city had developed in a way such that surface parking was discouraged then quite possibly the downtown would have ended up more attractive with more people calling it home, creating that dynamism.

If I'm spending a while visiting a city, I'd rather be somewhere without that sprawl of parking lots but if I'm just there for a day, I don't care.

I was in Louisville a year ago for a ball game on a Sunday. I parked two blocks away from their entertainment district called Fourth Street Live! That ten minute walk between there and the stadium was the best part of downtown from what I could tell. Still passed a couple of lots on the walk, and ya, it would have looked nicer if those weren't there, but me personally, I'm not seeking an urban experience in these smaller cities. I'm there for a game and couple of attractions. In that case, Louisville Slugger museum and Churchill Downs, which is way outside of downtown. Basically I don't care whether they surface lots or not.

Closer to home, I would like to see Hamilton develop more because that's only half hour away from me. As convenient as the parking was for Copps, I'd be fine with putting up with more parking headaches if that meant a more vibrant experience. Though with that, higher prices tend to eventually follow. But not a big deal for me for a once in a while kind of thing.

Hamilton is smaller than either Louisville or Tulsa so why would you care about an urban experience from it but not from the others?

But regardless, it sounds like we're all basically in agreement. High quantities of surface parking results in cities that aren't enjoyable except for outsiders visiting things in the city while not caring about the city itself.

[MolsonExport]

As others have said, those Tulsa shots are incredibly jarring (btw have we ever before discussed Tulsa in the Canada forum?). The first two shots showcase first-rate urban bones and density, whereas the last resembles a bombed-out landscape (a la 1980s Houston, but also, somewhat like what parts of downtown Montreal suffered from in the 90s).

Like others have said, there is something about the massive masonary buildings that give heft to a city's downtown. This feeling is not replicated with the dull blue glass towers that are taking over the landscape. I wish there was some way to convince developers to go back to building in the style of the amazing towers that went up in the 1920s-1930s.



stuffnobodycaresabout.com

[megadude]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Hamilton is smaller than either Louisville or Tulsa so why would you care about an urban experience from it but not from the others?

But regardless, it sounds like we're all basically in agreement. High quantities of surface parking results in cities that aren't enjoyable except for outsiders visiting things in the city while not caring about the city itself.

Because it's close to home. DT Hammer is half hour from me. If there was more vibrancy then I'd have more excuses to visit more often. Give me more options on what to do on a weekend. As it is right now, I visit "Hamilton" about 15 times a year, but that's rural Hamilton to go fish the reservoirs there. I only go DT once a year probably. Though there are some interesting things about the city that I'd like to explore more of but there's lots of other things to see and do elsewhere as well.

I could say the same for Buffalo. If there were better vibes I would have visited not just for a Bills or Sabres game. Actually, I've never set foot in DT Buffalo. I've always just driven through. Unless the parking lot of the arena counts. I've been to the zoo too but don't think that is DT. Oh, and the orginal Anchor Bar. Not sure if that is DT. And the city hall observation deck is only open during the week. It would be cool to go up there and look out over Lake Erie and see the Falls in the distance.

Louisville I don't see myself ever going back, unless I find I have time and money in my older years to go visit during the Kentucky Derby.

Tulsa I'm fairly confident I won't ever be visiting. There's lots of games I would go see on a trip between KS, OK, MO and TX, but none involve Tulsa. I would only have to pass through it perhaps. The quickest way would be to take the interstate outside the city but I'm one of those guys that would take a slight detour and go through the downtown to see what it's like and maybe stop for an hour if there's an attraction worth seeing for me.

[MolsonExport]

Some of Montreal's best Masonary zones:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5012937,...734VSLPhdUROeEiYhuf6w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5029824,...tFLpeWCtTHH6ZWbnYPpAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5051232,...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5045708,...MvGyjiqMGligDlcT_PRFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5002866,...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5007487,...6BWrk9fuMEFxbA7IMCP2A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5024631,...VD79esnccDViKott6XBfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Like others have said, there is something about the massive masonary buildings that give heft to a city's downtown. This feeling is not replicated with the dull blue glass towers that are taking over the landscape. I wish there was some way to convince developers to go back to building in the style of the amazing towers that went up in the 1920s-1930s.

It's an unfortunate result of Canada really hitting it's stride in the 60's and then again in the 00's as opposed to pre-WW2. It's not like we can ever go back to a world where stone masonry is a viable building material on a large scale. Even the skill itself is largely lost to time at this point.

Montreal is the only example we have a major Canadian city that "peaked" pre-war, and I'd say it holds it's own or better against similar American counterparts. Imagine the Big 5 banks all built their head offices in 1930 instead of the 60's-80's. I love all the current buildings, but Toronto (or likely Montreal at that point) may have something akin to a mini lower Manhattan at the core of its downtown. A lot of American cities are extremely fortunate to have peaked at the height of new world urbanism. unfortunately they did their best to throw it all away mere decades later.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Outstanding post. The third image, juxtaposed with the first two, is so jarring. Those amazing city blocks (in the first two photos) are an oasis in the desert.

Jumping in late here, but I agree totally. I've never seen anything quite like that before. Fascinating post.

I wonder what downtown Tulsa is like "on the ground"? I personally wouldn't expect much... I've spent time walking around in big non-east coast American downtowns like Minneapolis and Houston and despite the soaring skylines they generally feel pretty dead relative to their size. Minneapolis has pockets of bustle around Nicollet Mall, but apart from that it feels empty for the most part. Houston feels about as lively on the streets as Edmonton... yet Edmonton is like 1/7 the population of Houston.

[megadude]

My co-worker from my last job should be a part of this discussion. He also rues TO's lack of masonry highrises (so many were torn down). He loves those old school buildings and would have loved to have worked in the Canada Life building instead of the other lifeco we worked for situated down the street in a late 60s building. Manulife also has an old building on Bloor of course.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by megadude

My co-worker from my last job should be a part of this discussion. He also rues TO's lack of masonry highrises (so many were torn down). He loves those old school buildings and would have loved to have worked in the Canada Life building instead of the other lifeco we worked for situated down the street in a late 60s building. Manulife also has an old building on Bloor of course.

Funny enough, they're usually pretty terrible to work in. Unless you're talking like Empire State Building type scale, the pre-war skyscrapers typically all have tiny floorplates and very small open spaces due to restrictions in construction techniques from 100 years ago. The largest one I've been in is 40 Wall Street in New York, and it definitely has a claustrophobic prison vibe at some parts with very little natural light. The floor plans for the upper floors at Commerce Court North in Toronto are actually hilarious. Like paying for 5,000 SF and probably having <2,000 of it actually be usable because of how much space the core and structural elements take up. Not to mention paying twice as much in operating costs psf compared to a brand new building.

I love the buildings, but I'd actually much rather work in something like CIBC Square and look at them from a distance.

[niwell]

I was in Omaha exactly 2 years ago (just had to check - damn time flies) and found the same sort of juxtaposition. Though the surface parking situation isn't as dire as Tulsa, and the city was surprisingly vibrant and seemed to have a big arts scene.

Regardless, there's some really great built form that Canadian cities of the same size would lack - just without the same level of infill. Would have loved to walk around more but it was freezing and extremely windy at the time.

Downtown:
https://goo.gl/maps/WWr12M2SXLyzzxCU9
https://goo.gl/maps/NHWvWhmzWv1aiYSS9
https://goo.gl/maps/u9vuBcbWW8iEC9619

Old Market
https://goo.gl/maps/4DP14ZRNcYBvpriN7

We stayed in an area called Benson which is about 7km outside downtown but has a nice commercial street with lots of bars, restaurants and performance spaces:
https://goo.gl/maps/C1pWVNUKAZMxVx6P6

The Farnham st corridor also had some nice commercial stretches and a number of old apartment buildings:
https://goo.gl/maps/9btoBWFwH5z8bgPk9

[esquire]

^ Interesting. I haven't really travelled directly south of Minnesota and the Dakotas into Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and such but I've always wanted to see some of the cities that are a bit more Winnipeg-like such as Omaha, Des Moines, Wichita and the like.

At first glance the downtown Omaha scenes remind me of Regina's urban fabric but with somewhat taller buildings. The Old Market area reminds me of Fargo.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Funny enough, they're usually pretty terrible to work in. Unless you're talking like Empire State Building type scale, the pre-war skyscrapers typically all have tiny floorplates and very small open spaces due to restrictions in construction techniques from 100 years ago. The largest one I've been in is 40 Wall Street in New York, and it definitely has a claustrophobic prison vibe at some parts with very little natural light. The floor plans for the upper floors at Commerce Court North in Toronto are actually hilarious. Like paying for 5,000 SF and probably having <2,000 of it actually be usable because of how much space the core and structural elements take up. Not to mention paying twice as much in operating costs psf compared to a brand new building.

I love the buildings, but I'd actually much rather work in something like CIBC Square and look at them from a distance.

I worked in Whitney Block for a couple years and while the classic opulence likely far outstrips anywhere else I'll work in my career it's really not set up for modern workspaces (though we'll see what happens with those). The main corridors have great marble floors and are quite wide, but the office wings that branch off are only nice if set up for large executive space. Partitioned into cubicles they are pretty awkward and can lack natural light depending on how you're situated. The upper tower of Whitney Block is closed of course, as there's no secondary egress required by the Fire Code - installing one would simply eat up too much space or an ugly external staircase. Though it would be cool having the Premier's office on the top floor.

[KnoxfordGuy]

Originally Posted by Peggerino

Wow it's like four blocks of city surrounded by a sea of parking. I can't think of a Canadian city that is even close to being that bad really. There's some bad angles of Winnipeg that can make it look like we're all parking too but we're still a long ways away from looking like that.

Moncton.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Funny enough, they're usually pretty terrible to work in. Unless you're talking like Empire State Building type scale, the pre-war skyscrapers typically all have tiny floorplates and very small open spaces due to restrictions in construction techniques from 100 years ago. The largest one I've been in is 40 Wall Street in New York, and it definitely has a claustrophobic prison vibe at some parts with very little natural light. The floor plans for the upper floors at Commerce Court North in Toronto are actually hilarious. Like paying for 5,000 SF and probably having <2,000 of it actually be usable because of how much space the core and structural elements take up. Not to mention paying twice as much in operating costs psf compared to a brand new building.

I love the buildings, but I'd actually much rather work in something like CIBC Square and look at them from a distance.

This is actually a really good point. It's also quite true of old historic hotels (relatively few of which have been re-done on the inside to reflect more spacious modern configurations).

I have stayed in both historic and modern hotels many times, and staying in an old hotel does bring a wow factor (especially and the point of entrance) but in my experience it fades extremely quickly when you're actually inside your room.

With some exceptions of course.