Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[davidivivid]

Pic taken by Pierre-Antoine Durand - Alt Hotel Griffintown.

[Metro-One]

This Vancouver / Montreal (with Calgary thrown into the mix) debate has been pretty funny as usual.

Some good points made, but lots of hyperbolic garbage as well.

Does Montreal have a more big city feel than Vancouver or Calgary? Yes. If anything it goes like this: (Montreal > > Vancouver > > > Calgary) for on the ground urban feel (in regards to size). That said all three do feel larger than their metro populations suggest.

As for skyline a real debate can be said for which one feels the largest between the three, and that comes down to personal preference.

Extra factors that add to perceived urban size further help Montreal and Vancouver. One that both Vancouver and Montreal share are the ports. For me having large ports adds an extra vibe and texture to the urban experience and skyline.

Montreal then has the vast stretches of mid rises that really adds to its character.

Vancouver on the other hand has it’s insane amount of suburban skyline nodes (largely along transit lines) that really adds to its perceived size.

Calgary’s biggest card to play is its 3 or 4 tallest towers that (IMO) do have more presence than the tallest towers in Vancouver and Montreal from a skyline aesthetic point of view.

The funniest comments though were from those who seem to act as if the Vancouver skyline is still the same as it was in 2002 and it’s only angle is the dead pan shot looking at Yaletown. The Vancouver skyline overall these days is no more generic than Toronto or even Montreal to a degree. The last 10 to 15 years have actually been great for adding variety in design and even height in downtown Vancouver. Yeah, the Yaletown skyline is still bland, but viewed from Granville Island, Kits, West Van, North Van, the eastern hills, essentially every other angle, Vancouver looks pretty damn good these days.

And for fun, here is a great pic posted in the Vancouver section of the Brentwood Skyline with the Vancouver skyline in the back ground. A lot more peaks and valleys these days.

[IMG]RemoteMediaFile_6619192_0_2021_09_05_19_53_28 by davee930, on Flickr[/IMG]

[davee930]

Toronto has the skyline density, Calgary has the offices, Vancouver has the condos, Montreal has the grit, Winnipeg has good old bones, and Edmonton has a non-stump finally.

And NYC sits there laughing at all of us

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by davee930

And NYC sits there laughing at all of us

I'm continually shocked how some Canadians have so little appreciation for their own country. Self mockery/loathing isn't witty, it's sad. This is hardly the only thread where you enthusiastically trash this country. If you idolize those places perhaps you should just emigrate to the US. There are 1 million+ people waiting in line who would gladly take your place.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by davee930

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

Montreal has a 200 year head start on building everything over Vancouver.

[Denscity]

According to Emporis

Number of existing buildings:

Vancouver 1398
Montreal 1260

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I'm continually shocked how some Canadians have so little appreciation for their own country. Self mockery/loathing isn't witty, it's sad. This is hardly the only thread where you enthusiastically trash this country. If you idolize places perhaps you should just emigrate to the US. There are 1 million+ people waiting in line who would gladly take your place.

I find it odd too. There really aren’t that many places in the world that are New York…

Seriosuly, what are you expecting from cities that have 1/4, 1/8 and 1/20 of the population? With that figure in mind I would argue that our cities are actually doing fairly well for themselves.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Denscity

According to Emporis

Number of existing buildings:

Vancouver 1398
Montreal 1260

Don’t ever use emporis as “fact.”

A lot of these sites depend on how strong their resident civic boosters are.

The article about buildings U/C in North America is a good example, ranking cities while not even including Montreal or Vancouver simply because the site they used for data only includes Toronto and Calgary for Canadian cities.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I doubt we'll ever see Canada get the 2nd tallest building in the world, and if we did, probably wouldn't be in Montreal.

Lol, my 750m was meant to be 750ft. 750m would look ridiculous in any Canadian City.

[J.OT13]

From That Walking Guy on Twitter.

Ottawa and Gatineau skylines.


https://twitter.com/mchkzn/status/1457451803654639617

Ottawa from UQO.


https://twitter.com/mchkzn/status/1457418308714643461


https://twitter.com/mchkzn/status/1457415842698776579

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Denscity

According to Emporis

Number of existing buildings:

Vancouver 1398
Montreal 1260

Talk about undercount. Each city will have hundreds of thousands of structures

Suburban high rises don't really factor into the typical postcard shot of the downtown skyline.

Let's add some actualy stats to not be taking too seriously

source: SSP database

(in metres)

150+ Montreal 11, Vancouver 5
120+ Montreal 39, Vancouver 27
100+ Montreal 63, Vancouver 59
80+ Vancouver 191, Montreal 113
60+ Vancouver 354, Montreal 228

[JHikka]

In another thread people are saying that Vancouver is the most dense city in Canada despite being a fraction of the geographic size of others, and now here people are including all buildings in the CMA as an example of being larger than others. Very fun. Like, Vancouver's great, but Montreal's a bigger city in almost every way one can cut it.

[JHikka]

via Rascacielo
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/to...pinnacle-hariri-pontarini.17920/page-320

Focus is on the topped out first phase of Pinnacle One Yonge. Below is the final rendering of all three phases, moving from 65s to 80s and finally to 95s. Ranging from between 217m and 312.5m.

[WhipperSnapper]

Skyline depth will be effectively lost on the eastern front should all these towers be built. High potential their height neatly lined up in a row will be taking away instead of adding to the view.

[TorontoDrew]

The second CIBC tower will block out all but the Scotia Tower from that first picture. I have to say though that most of these new build (not including Sugar Warf) are solid designs and make for a very futuristic skyline. It's a shame we lost the view of most of the bank towers with their different cladding materials though. The city should have treated the prewar core like a mountain and created view cones. still, it's only blocking it from certain views form the island and Tommy Thompson Park.

[JHikka]

There's still this view from the north:


via Rascacielo

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

The second CIBC tower will block out all but the Scotia Tower from that first picture. I have to say though that most of these new build (not including Sugar Warf) are solid designs and make for a very futuristic skyline. It's a shame we lost the view of most of the bank towers with their different cladding materials though. The city should have treated the prewar core like a mountain and created view cones. still, it's only blocking it from certain views form the island and Tommy Thompson Park.

Viewcones are already somewhat hard to justify when you have a natural feature like a mountain.

When you are trying to preserve views of other highrises on architectural merits and the land you restrict is some of the most valuable commercial real estate in the country, it's a much harder sell.

I think height and viewcone restrictions in skylines defined by traditional landmarks and midrises - like Washington DC or Paris - have a place, but once a city decides that its skyline will be defined by highrises, all bets are off.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Viewcones are already somewhat hard to justify when you have a natural feature like a mountain.

When you are trying to preserve views of other highrises on architectural merits and the land you restrict is some of the most valuable commercial real estate in the country, it's a much harder sell.

I think height and viewcone restrictions in skylines defined by traditional landmarks and midrises - like Washington DC or Paris - have a place, but once a city decides that its skyline will be defined by highrises, all bets are off.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek, I realize it would be a bit strange to create view cones for structures, especially bank towers. If we were to say have a building like the Empire States Building I could see cause for such a policy put in place. I could see in the future that being done for the CN Tower the taller buildings go.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by JHikka

In another thread people are saying that Vancouver is the most dense city in Canada despite being a fraction of the geographic size of others, and now here people are including all buildings in the CMA as an example of being larger than others. Very fun. Like, Vancouver's great, but Montreal's a bigger city in almost every way one can cut it.

Except the downtown peninsula is a lot bigger looking than downtown Montreal. That’s at least one (important) aspect that would give Vancouver a bigger city feel.

The gap in downtown areas will Probly widen even further as the Broadway Corridor will quickly densify.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by logan5

Except the downtown peninsula is a lot bigger looking than downtown Montreal. That’s at least one (important) aspect that would give Vancouver a bigger city feel.

Right, but the crux of the argument is that skylines and tall buildings = bigger city or more urban city, when that really isn't the case. So much of it comes down to built form and density on the ground rather than having more tall buildings. Would be akin to saying Vancouver feels like a bigger city compared to Barcelona because it has taller buildings, or that Mississauga has good urban environment because it has taller buildings. Neither are really true no matter how many tall buildings they have.