Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Incidentally, that would be a gorgeous view to have. Not many houses in Canada will offer a view like that for under one million.

Imagine the view from the concrete tower on the left side

[TorontoDrew]

[QUOTE=Rico Rommheim;9650829

The depth and layers (as seen prominently in Montreal) seem to be more a niche preference here on SSP. As far as I know, the dominant discourse here is the more towers the better, and table tops are evil and must be punched through.[/QUOTE]

The problem with table top skylines is that you can actually lose the layered effect. Some of the most popular and interesting skylines have peaks and valleys. This is why I'm glad in Toronto for example we're getting a few standout towers that will punch above the table top 400ft-500ft range that is now the Entertainment district.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

While I agree with you, I don't think that SSP's consensus aligns with your point about depth and layers.

I've heard a lot of talk about it over the years but I agree that a person's perception of such things isn't scientific. It has as much to do with what draw's one's attention at the time stands out in one's memory later.

[WhipperSnapper]

I'll say it again. It's never about valleys. It's always about taller and taller peaks. It's a skyscraper forum afterall.


Personally, two to five tall towers of similar height in a skyline of hundreds of structures is a stretch as a table top. In my opinion, Toronto's Entertainment District is more conducive of my views of a table top however, it's a relatively compact area in a broader skyline and with an impressive skyscraper height. A couple towers punctuating that table top at twice the height will overpower than create a nicer aesthetic and block out much of the depth

[Rico Rommheim]

Yeah, it's all about personal taste. Like a movie or a song.

I'm not totally crazy about the TO skyline. I'm not saying it's not absolutely huge. It is. I'm not saying it's not impressive. It is. But in my eyes it's not aesthetically pleasing from most angles. It's amazing because to my eyes, the CN tower is absolutely hideous, but in the greater scope of the TO skyline, it's quite stunning. And also, I love the old school Toronto skylines, especially the early 70's iteration, but I also recognize that the adjoining land was an industrial / parking lot ridden wasteland.

But now to me it seems like a mess of haphazardly placed towers, each of them more soulless than the other. I guess I'm just bitter that Toronto had a one in a century chance to build a boomtown skyline, but it's individual pieces are incredibly boring. I also aknowledge that my opinion is fringe, so it's fine.

And yet, after all this ranting, I find the TO skyline incredibly photogenic, and I'm often drooling over beautiful TO pics on this forum, it's all confusing really.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by esquire

I would agree. It certainly made my eyes light up. The continuity is also awesome too, there are no gaps in that cluster, there is impressive depth.

That is getting close to the SSP Canada skyline ideal.

I've always thought of Edmonton's skyline as being pretty much the quintessential non-coastal North American skyline (at least from a distance). Stantec reinforced this. Most of the individual buildings are fairly plain / not flashy, but collectively they form a pleasant, "classic-looking" skyline which is visible from very far away.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Yeah, it's all about personal taste. Like a movie or a song.

I'm not totally crazy about the TO skyline. I'm not saying it's not absolutely huge. It is. I'm not saying it's not impressive. It is. But in my eyes it's not aesthetically pleasing from most angles. It's amazing because to my eyes, the CN tower is absolutely hideous, but in the greater scope of the TO skyline, it's quite stunning. And also, I love the old school Toronto skylines, especially the early 70's iteration, but I also recognize that the adjoining land was an industrial / parking lot ridden wasteland.

But now to me it seems like a mess of haphazardly placed towers, each of them more soulless than the other. I guess I'm just bitter that Toronto had a one in a century chance to build a boomtown skyline, but it's individual pieces are incredibly boring. I also aknowledge that my opinion is fringe, so it's fine.

And yet, after all this ranting, I find the TO skyline incredibly photogenic, and I'm often drooling over beautiful TO pics on this forum, it's all confusing really.

Yeah, I get all this, and I pretty much agree.

[Martin Mtl]

Photo: @ 27shutterclicks


Photo: @establish_media

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Yeah, it's all about personal taste. Like a movie or a song.

I'm not totally crazy about the TO skyline. I'm not saying it's not absolutely huge. It is. I'm not saying it's not impressive. It is. But in my eyes it's not aesthetically pleasing from most angles. It's amazing because to my eyes, the CN tower is absolutely hideous, but in the greater scope of the TO skyline, it's quite stunning. And also, I love the old school Toronto skylines, especially the early 70's iteration, but I also recognize that the adjoining land was an industrial / parking lot ridden wasteland.

But now to me it seems like a mess of haphazardly placed towers, each of them more soulless than the other. I guess I'm just bitter that Toronto had a one in a century chance to build a boomtown skyline, but it's individual pieces are incredibly boring. I also aknowledge that my opinion is fringe, so it's fine.

And yet, after all this ranting, I find the TO skyline incredibly photogenic, and I'm often drooling over beautiful TO pics on this forum, it's all confusing really.

Tastes change through time as well. We learn, evolve, and our appreciation changes.

Toronto is a big, bold, new city. Its skyline reflects that. When I was younger, the signature pieces in all their boldness and sheer enormity were the quintessential city markers. A marker as a big city was that, especially capped with the pieces de résistance, the CN Tower and Skydome. I liked loud, pounding music when I was younger. The songs are still good today (ahem, mostly) but the sheer pounding-ness doesn’t quite do what it did before.

The older I get, the more something like Commerce Court North catches my eye, or the Sun Life Building in Montreal. I learned that being well dressed wasn’t so much about the flashy brands one wore, but how the clothes fit well and worked as an ensemble. I can appreciate more artful, quiet moments in music now, how instruments work together in harmony, how the right choice of lyrics can play into or ruin a melody.

Skylines are like that too. Montreal has more complex and subtler flavour. Toronto is big and bold, but maybe a tinge too modern-rock generic with its newer and extensive glass facades. New York City does both big and layered to a near perfection, London is trying to layer post-modernity on top of history. Or maybe they’re just buildings and music is just music.

The tri-tones of the TTC subway still hold a special place in my heart that no ‘dou-dou-dou’, or ‘Mind the gap’ will ever displace. There is no other sound that reminds me that truly reminds me I am in the city. Toronto will have that one forever.

[GeneralLea]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I've always thought of Edmonton's skyline as being pretty much the quintessential non-coastal North American skyline (at least from a distance). Stantec reinforced this. Most of the individual buildings are fairly plain / not flashy, but collectively they form a pleasant, "classic-looking" skyline which is visible from very far away.

I fully agree with you. There's something remarkable about the breadth of the skyline, in terms of it's length and although it may not have much variety or depth, it's just spread out/built up enough to be very dynamic. The last 10 to 15 years have reallybeen kind to the skyline, and in the future I'm curious how far it'll go and be.

That being said, in terms of non-coastal skylines, and apart from Calgary or Montreal, Winnipeg is a big one to me. Based on the images I've seen of the city over the years, I can imagine it's one of the most diverse and varied skylinesin the country when it comes to cities that aren't the big 3 (or 5*)

[WhipperSnapper]

Toronto's CBD towers were big and bold. Most after the turn of the century is just big. I actually find the billionaire's boom in New York has utterly destroyed the skyline and I still recall the Twin Towers utter domination of downtown. The massive real estate investor boom a century ago still defines the majority of neighbourhoods was pretty damn near perfection.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

I fully agree with you. There's something remarkable about the breadth of the skyline, in terms of it's length and although it may not have much variety or depth, it's just spread out/built up enough to be very dynamic. The last 10 to 15 years have reallybeen kind to the skyline, and in the future I'm curious how far it'll go and be.

That being said, in terms of non-coastal skylines, and apart from Calgary or Montreal, Winnipeg is a big one to me. Based on the images I've seen of the city over the years, I can imagine it's one of the most diverse and varied skylinesin the country when it comes to cities that aren't the big 3 (or 5*)

Yeah Winnipeg has an amazing foundation to intensify. I'm very concerned about the quality of development.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Yeah, it's all about personal taste. Like a movie or a song.

I'm not totally crazy about the TO skyline. I'm not saying it's not absolutely huge. It is. I'm not saying it's not impressive. It is. But in my eyes it's not aesthetically pleasing from most angles. It's amazing because to my eyes, the CN tower is absolutely hideous, but in the greater scope of the TO skyline, it's quite stunning. And also, I love the old school Toronto skylines, especially the early 70's iteration, but I also recognize that the adjoining land was an industrial / parking lot ridden wasteland.

But now to me it seems like a mess of haphazardly placed towers, each of them more soulless than the other. I guess I'm just bitter that Toronto had a one in a century chance to build a boomtown skyline, but it's individual pieces are incredibly boring. I also aknowledge that my opinion is fringe, so it's fine.

And yet, after all this ranting, I find the TO skyline incredibly photogenic, and I'm often drooling over beautiful TO pics on this forum, it's all confusing really.

Yes part of it is personal taste but I do think there's an element of collective subjectivity in that there are certain ways of thinking that people tend to have in common based on human psychology. Like the whole "soulless" thing. Soul is a hard think to define but if we were to describe it as a combination of character, cache, and collected identity, it makes sense that a lot of the newer buildings in Toronto wouldn't have it. I don't think that's a fringe view. Either a building would have soul because it's old and connects with a storied and romantic past, or because it's very unique such as a current/former tallest, the only (or one of a few) buildings in a particular style or from a particular era, or some other notability such as cutting edge design. It's difficult if not impossible for the large number of buildings added during a major boom to have soul from either source. This seems to be the case for any city that adds vast numbers in the short time.

In other words, I don't think it's a lost opportunity to build a boomtown skyline where the individual buildings are all individually interesting because I'm not sure that's even possible with that sheer volume. It's valid to prefer different design language and most of us aren't crazy about the blue/glass spandrel tend, but even a place like Dubai whose architecture is both taller and higher budget frequently gets accused of being soulless and tacky. Some of it's also just part of being a really large skyline since with great size it takes more for any one building to stand out. But when so many are built at once it's unavoidable.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I'll say it again. It's never about valleys. It's always about taller and taller peaks. It's a skyscraper forum afterall.


Personally, two to five tall towers of similar height in a skyline of hundreds of structures is a stretch as a table top. In my opinion, Toronto's Entertainment District is more conducive of my views of a table top however, it's a relatively compact area in a broader skyline and with an impressive skyscraper height. A couple towers punctuating that table top at twice the height will overpower than create a nicer aesthetic and block out much of the depth

You need valleys to have peaks though.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Yeah, it's all about personal taste. Like a movie or a song.

I'm not totally crazy about the TO skyline. I'm not saying it's not absolutely huge. It is. I'm not saying it's not impressive. It is. But in my eyes it's not aesthetically pleasing from most angles. It's amazing because to my eyes, the CN tower is absolutely hideous, but in the greater scope of the TO skyline, it's quite stunning. And also, I love the old school Toronto skylines, especially the early 70's iteration, but I also recognize that the adjoining land was an industrial / parking lot ridden wasteland.

But now to me it seems like a mess of haphazardly placed towers, each of them more soulless than the other. I guess I'm just bitter that Toronto had a one in a century chance to build a boomtown skyline, but it's individual pieces are incredibly boring. I also aknowledge that my opinion is fringe, so it's fine.

And yet, after all this ranting, I find the TO skyline incredibly photogenic, and I'm often drooling over beautiful TO pics on this forum, it's all confusing really.

What would 2016 you say now, is what we want to know, Rico.

[Coldrsx]

https://twitter.com/ABPioneers/status/1537219952540717056

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes part of it is personal taste but I do think there's an element of collective subjectivity in that there are certain ways of thinking that people tend to have in common based on human psychology. Like the whole "soulless" thing. Soul is a hard think to define but if we were to describe it as a combination of character, cache, and collected identity, it makes sense that a lot of the newer buildings in Toronto wouldn't have it. I don't think that's a fringe view. Either a building would have soul because it's old and connects with a storied and romantic past, or because it's very unique such as a current/former tallest, the only (or one of a few) buildings in a particular style or from a particular era, or some other notability such as cutting edge design. It's difficult if not impossible for the large number of buildings added during a major boom to have soul from either source. This seems to be the case for any city that adds vast numbers in the short time.

In other words, I don't think it's a lost opportunity to build a boomtown skyline where the individual buildings are all individually interesting because I'm not sure that's even possible with that sheer volume. It's valid to prefer different design language and most of us aren't crazy about the blue/glass spandrel tend, but even a place like Dubai whose architecture is both taller and higher budget frequently gets accused of being soulless and tacky. Some of it's also just part of being a really large skyline since with great size it takes more for any one building to stand out. But when so many are built at once it's unavoidable.

Dubai is crushingly autocentric and that was already before the fun and whimsy was edited out of the fanciful masterplans post 2008 bust. The average development is closer to 15 storeys and is certainly not a higher architectural standards than in Canada.

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.0966541,...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Dubai is crushingly autocentric and that was already before the fun and whimsy was edited out of the fanciful masterplans post 2008 bust. The average development is closer to 15 storeys and is certainly not a higher architectural standards than in Canada.

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.0966541,...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

It has 34 buildings built or u/c that are 300m or taller, 28 of which were completed since 2010. And 102 buildings between 200m and 300m, 79 completed since 2010. It's taller. I know people can get pretty fancy with statistics, but come on.

And whether or not it has lower architectural standards or poor walkability, it had, at least for awhile, extremely high budgets. But neither high architectural standards nor high budgets can give a sea of sparkling new towers soul.

But I think most people realize that. The main issue that people like Rico have when making these critiques isn't that all the buildings need to have soul or be architecturally remarkable, but rather that a few landmarks should be just due to the odds with the sheer numbers. That prominent buildings like Aura and St. Regis/Trump should have done better. And I can't exactly disagree with that. The boom has done great things in terms of adding greater density of homes and offices, made the skyline more impressive, increased downtown vibrancy, and spurred economic activity. But there's more it could have done and it's ok to wish it had.

[WhipperSnapper]

Point was that most single out the supertalls but, not the thousands of modest, tightly packed 8 to 15 storey highrises in half built masterplans that were, at one time, high budget supertalls and roller coasters that now define the city from billions lost in cancelled projects after the bust in 2008. The era of little value engineering from fanciful master plans was short and fleeting.

The tall towers going up right now in Dubai look more Canadian than Australian (not saying that's a bad thing either)

Canada has more window wall residential high rises than the rest of the world combined! (LOL yeah right) It's not reasonable to put curtain wall on a pedestal internationally as we do here in Canada.

[hipster duck]

It's hard for Canadians to imagine right now while we have 400,000 immigrants a year, but one day growth will taper off here too, and the skylines of Canadian cities will be frozen in amber. The early 21st century boom will then form an instantly recognizable typology synonymous with "Canada", and architectural features that we lament, like window wall and spandrel, will have a bit of a cult following.

All of our skylines are kind of converging into one another, but none of them are converging with skylines of cities in other countries. For a country that doesn't have a lot of national unity, it's kind of fascinating to see Halifax, Toronto, Kitchener, Montreal, Saskatoon and Kelowna all build nuanced variations of the same thing, while there's nothing of the sort happening in Portland, Maine or Bismarck, ND or Spokane.

It's kind of like how all Brazilian cities look like they were built in 1964, or all Japanese cities have that "look".