Furthest your city's skyline can be seen from?

[MolsonExport]

Niagara Falls, Ontario, from Buffalo City hall observatory:

skyrisecities

[davidivivid]

This one is from Côte-de-Beaupré, about 40km from Quebec City. Obviously not the farthest the city can be seen from but the only pic I could find in the last 15min...


https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaupr%C3%...dia/Fichier:Qu%C3%A9bec_city_0001_18.jpg

[megadude]

Rather shitty pics through the windshield while driving on Keele at Teston in Maple. Got Vaughan city centre and I believe Mississauga city centre way off in the distance. Canada’s Wonderland skyline of roller coasters on the right.

[someone123]

It is not done yet but something I notice is the Richmond Yards tower in Halifax is on a hill at 62 m elevation (does not really seem as high up as it is around there). The building will be 103 m so the elevation of the top of the building will be 165 m. It's a wide tower too, it will likely be possible to see Richmond Yards from quite far away in a boat when it is complete (depends on if we're talking about the naked eye or lenses).

The "Hailfax Tower Hotel" people didn't like that was supposed to be 28 storeys or something but ended up being more like 15 is at 101 m (the tallest point around there is 150 m or so but it's not at the top of that hill). Fenwick, while being next to a small hill, is at only 23 m (tallest point of that hill is only 31 m). If that hotel had been 100 m or so it would have had a roof elevation of 200 m or so and would have been very prominent.

7177 Quinpool Rd is going to be 32 or 33 floors but is near sea level. Same for the taller King's Wharf towers and others around downtown Dartmouth which only ranges from 0-30 m or so elevation.

[Labtec]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Niagara Falls, Ontario, from Buffalo City hall observatory:

skyrisecities

nice

[phone]

Saskatoon's skyline has two strikes against it with respect to the question this thread poses:

1. Our downtown is located at the city's lowest point.
2. There are no particularly tall buildings.

Contrast this to Regina, which has a somewhat taller, though generally comparable, downtown skyline. Regina's can be seen from much farther away coming into the city, as it sits at a pretty average (flat) elevation. Saskatoon's on the other hand, can only be seen from within city limits (save for certain suburban buildings), and even then only from a few certain angles, such as heading east on 22nd or 20th, heading south down Warman Rd or Idylwyld. From the east side, it's basically only visible from the east bank of the river.

Not to say Saskatoon is particularly not-flat, but rather how much a difference of a few metres can have on how far the skyline can be seen from.

[Airboy]

Edmonton is built in a low basin, so it makes it hard to see from way off, but I have seen Stantec Tower from 20-30 min out depending on the route in.

[Architype]

Mt. Baker is easily visible from Vancouver, so Vancouver must also be visible from Mt. Baker, and that's 80 miles (128 km.) away from where the picture was taken.
(That's how I can see America from my window.)


source

[urbandreamer]

You can see Vancouver from Neck Point Park, Nanaimo: about 60km distance? I took a few photos maybe I'll post them sometime.

I was surprised how quickly Winnipeg fades from view. You can see several downtown towers from Dugald, about 24km distance.

This past Saturday, on my way to Toronto I drove through Limehouse and Glen Williams, noticing you can see Mississauga City Centre from the Limehouse Presbyterian Church parking lot:
https://imgur.com/a/MqgVPjl
You'll have to zoom in between the tree and leftside of the church.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

You can see Vancouver from Neck Point Park, Nanaimo: about 60km distance? I took a few photos maybe I'll post them sometime.

I was surprised how quickly Winnipeg fades from view. You can see several downtown towers from Dugald, about 24km distance.

This past Saturday, on my way to Toronto I drove through Limehouse and Glen Williams, noticing you can see Mississauga City Centre from the Limehouse Presbyterian Church parking lot:
https://imgur.com/a/MqgVPjl
You'll have to zoom in between the tree and leftside of the church.

I just realized that Mississauga has about 8 miles (13 km) of coastline (or is it lakeline?), so why isn't that area the main built up focus of the city??
Do people just want to live near the airport?

[Luisito]

On a clear day Winnipeg is visible from Regina.

[Blitz]

When travelling west on Hwy 401 the first point you can see the Detroit skyline is around the 42 km marker.

[GeneralLea]

Originally Posted by Architype

I just realized that Mississauga has about 8 miles (13 km) of coastline (or is it lakeline?), so why isn't that area the main built up focus of the city??
Do people just want to live near the airport?

Part of the reason is that the majority of it is older subdivisions that are now primal "yellowbelt", meaning they're incredibly hard to redevelop because they
re seen as a stable "neighbourhood". Port Credit used to be an old village and is thereby more intensively developed, although it lost almost all of it's older stock due to suburban expansion and "urban renewal" (Even then, Port Credit was rather small by the time the post war period came and suburbs began crpping up closer and closer to the old town)
Also, the road network toward the lake is haphazard and prone to traffic issues as a result of there not being enough road capacity in the area.
I lived in Mississauga for 7 years and I think I only went down to the lake about 8 times at most. It's very difficult to get there from the west end, by anything except a car at the very least.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

Part of the reason is that the majority of it is older subdivisions that are now primal "yellowbelt", meaning they're incredibly hard to redevelop because they
re seen as a stable "neighbourhood". Port Credit used to be an old village and is thereby more intensively developed, although it lost almost all of it's older stock due to suburban expansion and "urban renewal" (Even then, Port Credit was rather small by the time the post war period came and suburbs began crpping up closer and closer to the old town)
Also, the road network toward the lake is haphazard and prone to traffic issues as a result of there not being enough road capacity in the area.
I lived in Mississauga for 7 years and I think I only went down to the lake about 8 times at most. It's very difficult to get there from the west end, by anything except a car at the very least.

Mississauga is almost a twin of Burnaby, a suburb where the main population centers are far away from the potentially nicest area along the shoreline. The waterfront areas are all low density or even undeveloped except for SFU which is on top of the mountain. Burnaby has 6 miles (9.7 km) of waterfront which few ever see or enjoy. Imagine instead, a dense urban area there which would rival downtown Vancouver. With all of that waterfront area, and with hilly topography, it could be almost like San Francisco.

The red circles are the denser town centres:

[Harley613]

The view of Ottawa from King Mountain in Gatineau park is tied with the view of Ottawa from the hill on the 417 coming in from Kanata at around 15-16kms from the core.

[megadude]

As to be expected, like in urbandreamer's post, in the more elevated parts of the rural GTA, you can see Mississauga or Toronto.

When you drive this area of Caledon, there are several spots along the road where you can view either city while driving. This house was listed for $5m based on the fact that you can see both skylines, way off in the distance, from the backyard. No idea if it ended up selling anywhere near that. I woud hope not. And I'm guessing the listing didn't mention it's located next to a giant quarry.

For $5m, you would think it would be for the land and someone would build a palatial estate on it. But this house looks fully reno'd. But, there are some people who wouldn't think twice about knocking it down and re-building. I read once that Caledon has the most millionaires per capita so who knows.

And keep in mind, when you see professional pics like these, or from amateurs, using a telephoto lens, shooting skylines or mountains, etc., it is not that impressive in real life as the lens is making the background closer and larger. Just like fall pics with the colours or wedding pics in nature or in a rustic barn, etc, a lot of filters or tools being used, which is part of the artistic aspect of photography.







From: https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-toronto/2021/12/17537-hurontario-street-caledon/

[urbandreamer]

I had wondered if that was Winnipeg I was seeing when I was higher up on the hills west of Regina. Then somewhere in Alberta I thought I saw Regina, perhaps around Vauxhall or Northeast of Red Deer.

From the hill above Creemore you can see the GTA skyline.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by phone

Saskatoon's skyline has two strikes against it with respect to the question this thread poses:

1. Our downtown is located at the city's lowest point.
2. There are no particularly tall buildings.

Contrast this to Regina, which has a somewhat taller, though generally comparable, downtown skyline. Regina's can be seen from much farther away coming into the city, as it sits at a pretty average (flat) elevation. Saskatoon's on the other hand, can only be seen from within city limits (save for certain suburban buildings), and even then only from a few certain angles, such as heading east on 22nd or 20th, heading south down Warman Rd or Idylwyld. From the east side, it's basically only visible from the east bank of the river.

Not to say Saskatoon is particularly not-flat, but rather how much a difference of a few metres can have on how far the skyline can be seen from.

There is the crest of the hill coming in on Highway 5 from the east which gives you a pretty full view of the city, but even then it's barely outside city limits: https://www.google.ca/maps/@52.1438148,-...A4bhj_yVpQOdYuEKqR-Dg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It also demonstrates the stunting effect on the skyline from downtown being at the riverbank.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by phone

Saskatoon's skyline has two strikes against it with respect to the question this thread poses:

1. Our downtown is located at the city's lowest point.
2. There are no particularly tall buildings.

Contrast this to Regina, which has a somewhat taller, though generally comparable, downtown skyline. Regina's can be seen from much farther away coming into the city, as it sits at a pretty average (flat) elevation. Saskatoon's on the other hand, can only be seen from within city limits (save for certain suburban buildings), and even then only from a few certain angles, such as heading east on 22nd or 20th, heading south down Warman Rd or Idylwyld. From the east side, it's basically only visible from the east bank of the river.

Not to say Saskatoon is particularly not-flat, but rather how much a difference of a few metres can have on how far the skyline can be seen from.

Calgary's DT is built in a floodplain next to the river with 2/3rds of the city looking down into it like a fishbowl. When approaching from the north the Bow looks especially squat as it gets cut off at the knees by geography. If our buildings were only Saskatoon's height you likely wouldn't even see the skyline from outside the city.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Architype

Mt. Baker is easily visible from Vancouver, so Vancouver must also be visible from Mt. Baker, and that's 80 miles (128 km.) away from where the picture was taken.
(That's how I can see America from my window.)


source

I like how some days MB looks farther away.