Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Whoa.




https://twitter.com/KevinTuong
https://twitter.com/sonic1029/status/1456393535855362049

Wow, perks of a northern city I guess.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by ue

To chime in on the LA and Calgary thing, the two downtowns are really different. I can sort of see a comparison, but Los Angeles does feel bigger, although in the downtowns the two cities are closer. But the city as a whole feels far greater than Calgary could hope to ever be, boosterism be damned. However, the wealth of Art Deco high-rises remaining in the Historic Core is unparalleled in Canada, even in Montreal. As well, while the more corporate, newer skyline of Los Angeles may feel less compact, its towers are taller and are still distinctive (as are Calgary's to be fair, unlike the new schlock in Montreal, Toronto, and until recently, Vancouver). Being around Aon or US Bank, there is a weight to the presence of these towers that make up for the lack of intensity of skyscrapers that Calgary has. LA also has far more substantial other high-rise districts than Calgary, like Century City, Hollywood, and Koreatown.

There is no doubt LA is orders of magnitude bigger than Calgary and feels like a never ending city. I can't speak to the historic business district, just the cluster of tallest buildings in the CBD. Calgary's downtown feels more compact with many more midrise towers it seems. I'm sure the overall "Downtown" is much larger but the part with the tallest buildings didn't feel that way. The other thing I noticed was their lrt line only had like 2 cars per train and virtually no passengers waiting on the platform. It may have been an off peak period though. Can't recall what section it was in but it was off the highway.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

There is no doubt LA is orders of magnitude bigger than Calgary and feels like a never ending city. I can't speak to the historic business district, just the cluster of tallest buildings in the CBD. Calgary's downtown feels more compact with many more midrise towers it seems. I'm sure the overall "Downtown" is much larger but the part with the tallest buildings didn't feel that way. The other thing I noticed was their lrt line only had like 2 cars per train and virtually no passengers waiting on the platform. It may have been an off peak period though. Can't recall what section it was in but it was off the highway.

Well, that shouldn't be too surprising considering that the combined ridership of the four light rail lines is about 1/3 less than the Calgary C-train despite having over twice the route length. Even the whole LA "metro rail" system, including the two subway lines which is the busiest part, isn't much higher than Calgary.

Strange how the two US megacities are such polar opposites. In some ways they seem more different from each other than many cities in completely different countries.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I can't speak to LA's historic business district.

You should check it out in Street View. Blocks and blocks and blocks of amazing big-city, pre-war architecture (albeit in a state of dilapidation and dereliction from being the city's Skid Row for decades). The only real North American equivalent would be certain areas of New York City.

[Razor]

re: L.A. Just like D.C, it's a bit of a mystery city to me..What you see is NOT what you get. Both are cities of neighborhoods, and not skyscrapers. Two more cities, that neeed to be experienced on the ground.

re;:Out performing skylines..I used to think that Calgary had the most impressive skyline given it's size, but for myself and basing it on pure density, Vancouver actually has the best skyline relative to it's population IMO. After seeing more pics of Edmonton, it's actually pretty impressive in that department as well.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Montreal feels far, far larger on the ground than either Vancouver or Calgary. Only Toronto beats Montreal on both the ground-level "bigness" (which in all honesty, is a much cooler factor) and skyline "bigness" factors.

Years ago we spent back to back summer weekends in both Toronto and Montreal..Based on just those two nice weekends, the experience was similar...Sure, getting into Toronto was more frantic with the traffic, but the street activity, and just the general ramped up energy felt similar. There was lots going on in both cities.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

You should check it out in Street View. Blocks and blocks and blocks of amazing big-city, pre-war architecture (albeit in a state of dilapidation and dereliction from being the city's Skid Row for decades). The only real North American equivalent would be certain areas of New York City.

I visited Los Angeles for the first time in 2012 and I didn't have high expectations for DTLA based on my cursory knowledge, but I was blown away. It is just epic and oddly underrated for what it is.

I'm not sure if things have changed much since then, but I thought it was astonishing that those impressive looking buildings in the heart of a prosperous place could be in such rough shape.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Montreal feels far, far larger on the ground than either Vancouver or Calgary. Only Toronto beats Montreal on both the ground-level "bigness" (which in all honesty, is a much cooler factor) and skyline "bigness" factors.

Having been to Montreal multiple times, I never got that feeling that Montreal was far far larger than Vancouver. The downtown peninsula has a population of 110 000 people in 2.2 square miles, which I don't think any area of comparable size in Montreal comes close to, so you might be able to argue that Vancouver feels bigger than Montreal. The dense neighbourhoods along the Broadway Corridor have densities comparable to Le Plateau.

[ue]

^ Bigness isn't just about how many people are crammed into an artificially defined neighbourhood of a metropolitan area. Seattle's downtown is busier than Los Angeles', but there's no way Seattle feels bigger than Los Angeles. Montreal does feel bigger -- the aged architecture showing off the city's relatively longstanding importance in that grandeur, the older residential architecture being dominated by triplexes rather than Vancouver's SFHs, the grand public spaces, the more developed cultural amenities, etc make Montreal feel bigger. Plus, it literally is bigger, so there's just more stuff due to needing to cater to a bigger population. Calgary looks big from the downtown, but its amenities are not on par with larger cities like Denver, Houston, or Boston, which have arguably comparable or less impressive skylines.

Originally Posted by Razor

re: L.A. Just like D.C, it's a bit of a mystery city to me..What you see is NOT what you get. Both are cities of neighborhoods, and not skyscrapers. Two more cities, that neeed to be experienced on the ground.

re;:Out performing skylines..I used to think that Calgary had the most impressive skyline given it's size, but for myself and basing it on pure density, Vancouver actually has the best skyline relative to it's population IMO. After seeing more pics of Edmonton, it's actually pretty impressive in that department as well.



Years ago we spent back to back summer weekends in both Toronto and Montreal..Based on just those two nice weekends, the experience was similar...Sure, getting into Toronto was more frantic with the traffic, but the street activity, and just the general ramped up energy felt similar. There was lots going on in both cities.

The Vancouver skyline sucks honestly. Sure, it's dense, and that's cool I guess but until very recently, most of the distinct buildings were shrouded by endless curtain walls. I sincerely don't get the appeal of Vancouver's skyline - it's all a bunch of poorly aged 1990s/2000s condos with the same colour and often weird designs. From the street, Vancouver is great, though, and the urban design of these newer developments is often quite good.

[davee930]

Don't all the old brick and stone buildings contribute to the feeling of the size of the city?

The west is seriously lacking that.

I think Montreal feels like a bigger better city for that reason alone.

[davee930]

Originally Posted by ue

^ Bigness isn't just about how many people are crammed into an artificially defined neighbourhood of a metropolitan area. Seattle's downtown is busier than Los Angeles', but there's no way Seattle feels bigger than Los Angeles. Montreal does feel bigger -- the aged architecture showing off the city's relatively longstanding importance in that grandeur, the older residential architecture being dominated by triplexes rather than Vancouver's SFHs, the grand public spaces, the more developed cultural amenities, etc make Montreal feel bigger. Plus, it literally is bigger, so there's just more stuff due to needing to cater to a bigger population. Calgary looks big from the downtown, but its amenities are not on par with larger cities like Denver, Houston, or Boston, which have arguably comparable or less impressive skylines.



The Vancouver skyline sucks honestly. Sure, it's dense, and that's cool I guess but until very recently, most of the distinct buildings were shrouded by endless curtain walls. I sincerely don't get the appeal of Vancouver's skyline - it's all a bunch of poorly aged 1990s/2000s condos with the same colour and often weird designs. From the street, Vancouver is great, though, and the urban design of these newer developments is often quite good.

Yeah it feels like a city that's still sprouting and hasn't built any landmarks yet.

[logan5]

Green towers everywhere on their own don't look great, but combined with the mountains, water, bridges, it gives skyline shots a lot more visual interest.

[davee930]

Originally Posted by logan5

Green towers everywhere on their own don't look great, but combined with the mountains, water, bridges, it gives skyline shots a lot more visual interest.

That's cheating though.

I'll give you bridges.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by ue

The Vancouver skyline sucks honestly. Sure, it's dense, and that's cool I guess but until very recently, most of the distinct buildings were shrouded by endless curtain walls. I sincerely don't get the appeal of Vancouver's skyline - it's all a bunch of poorly aged 1990s/2000s condos with the same colour and often weird designs. From the street, Vancouver is great, though, and the urban design of these newer developments is often quite good.

I was just looking at it from the skyline relative to population theme that was running here. Through pictures, Van certainly looks larger than what it is..The quality of towers is another subject.

[ue]

Originally Posted by davee930

That's cheating though.

I'll give you bridges.

I agree - skylines as we're discussing them are centred around skyscrapers and built environments. Vancouver has a stunning natural geography but it rests too much on that to bill itself as an attractive city while not actually making the city interesting. Seattle and Portland are far more interesting cities IMO even if their geography, while also beautiful, isn't as dramatic as Vancouver's.

A lot of the best skylines in the world lack mountains to cheat your way ahead - New York, Shanghai, London, Chicago, Frankfurt, Melbourne, Dubai, etc.

[davee930]

As a Structuralite, I don't give a damn about your natural environment. That was free and given to you.

You need to show off your city. Keep building it. Get some landmarks.

[The Great Scaper]

I took this photo of Victoria from Mt. Tolmie earlier this summer. I'm looking forward to seeing some new additions to this view, this coming year.
Victoria B.C. Canada skyline by thegreatscaper, on Flickr

[Nite]

Montreal

• Video Link

[Martin Mtl]

:camera: @jfsavaria


:camera: @steveglwalsh

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

if only the 1929 market crash had instead happened in 1935 or 1940. A NYC business man came to Toronto and built a half dozen or so high rises from 1925 to 1930 however they pale in comparison to what was being planned by him and other Americans. Construction on the 30 storey Victory Tower was halted for many years. Eventually, a new owner finished it at the halted height.

It's interesting that Toronto was basically held in stasis from 1929 to 1964.

The city grew, but it grew outwards, not upwards.

From 1965 to 1990 was a whole different thing. It was a city that didn't even resemble itself from 25 years prior.

Which brings up the question. Is a city defined by its skyscrapers, or by its street ambience? Skylines can be impressive and they can be defining, but are they the heart? I think of Dubai's impressive skyline, but I don't get a sense of soul. It's too new, too clean, too sterile. Any city that bloomed post-Modernism seemingly falls into this category.

London has more soul in its mishmash of streets, nooks and crannies than The Shard or the towers of Canary Wharf will ever give it. Same with Paris and other Euro cities that attempted to layer modernity on top of deeply entrenched history. New York's the great outlier: a city that is both defined by its towers and by its streets.

The Art Deco part of LA is fascinating. A time capsule preserved by the forces of modernity, instead of destroyed by it.

Alas, the closet Canada comes is Montreal to bridging the gap between sky and street.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by The Great Scaper

I took this photo of Victoria from Mt. Tolmie earlier this summer. I'm looking forward to seeing some new additions to this view, this coming year.
Victoria B.C. Canada skyline by thegreatscaper, on Flickr

Victoria is a gem