Why not achieve high densities in the town center? The amenities that come with high density would be a benefit to people in Coquitlam and make it, and other town centers an attractive option to living in VanCity.
It's quite a different thing, if like most of downtown, they're building wall to wall towers in Coquitlam... but no, the 30-40 storey towers out there sit on very large low-density podiums and landscaping, resulting in FAR ratios equal to less than most mid-rise districts, except with the needless and far greater visual blight due to low-quality of materials/architecture.
Hmm... I thought Coquitlam town center was rather well put together, at least in a Metro Vancouver context - it isn't fragmented like Surrey or Metrotown.
And I think the word blight is a little harsh. I'm not sure if the mid rise neighborhood that is developing at OV/False Creek is much better visually or, I guess, psychologically if you're one that's afraid of large buildings, whether they be tall and skinny or shorter and more massive. What's the difference really? For me the tower/podium scheme works better than a hulking mid rise that over dominates.
It's quite a different thing, if like most of downtown, they're building wall to wall towers in Coquitlam... but no, the 30-40 storey towers out there sit on very large low-density podiums and landscaping...
Actually, many of the podiums being built in Coquitlam are far more urban than almost anything being built in downtown Vancouver. Unlike a lot of towers in downtown Vancouver (which have quiet townhomes and hedges fronting what should be an urban streetscape), Coquitlam is beginning to create continuous, urban, retail/commercial street walls out of their podiums. From an urban design perspective, I think Coquitlam is currently outdoing Vancouver, which is over-residentializing its downtown.
I posted a larger set of my little bike journey in the "Post some pictures of your city!" thread, but I thought I'd include a couple angles of the Regina skyline here as well ...
A hotel is being constructed in the foreground, beside where the future stadium will be:
A few pictures of the railyards (where the new stadium, design to be decided, will be constructed), with downtown in the background:
And downtown:
Between the short red/brown brick buildings, there are plans to build a 74 metre tower which would have about 400,000 sq ft. of office space.
And going down the street:
With the new tower under construction:
Saskpower buillding, I've always loved the curve:
O'Hanlon's is apparently the 3rd highest seller of Guiness in Canada now (owned by a very friendly Irishman):
Scarth Street pedestrian street:
The new square, that is still getting some finishing touches:
I dont see a problem with it. Its not like they are supertalls or anything. Better than a bunch of shitty stripmalls and kfc's
Coquitlam has direct access to the LRT. Why wouldn't it have better density?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung
(pukes)
Coquitlam, being out in the sticks on the side of a mountain, will not, does not need to, and shouldn't achieve downtown densities, hence point towers look so weird there. I wouldn't mind if an earthquake flattened all those towers and we hire BIG to replace them with mid-rises that won't blind us with 40 stories of spandrel. Same goes for most of the suburban skylines actually.
Hey Nathan, great Regina shots! I love the new Hill Tower.
I'm not sure how I feel about the pre-rusted structures on the new square, including those wavy trellis-type things. I'll have to take a look in person next time I'm in Regina.
And surprisingly numerous; considering a country of our relatively small population, it is quite encouraging to see so many large urban centres.
Though Canada does have severe sprawl problems, I'm confident in the many municipal and provincial debates occurring today emphasising how urgent it is that we strengthen our densifying progress of urbanisation.
Reality check: this is simply not true. Yes, urban beauty is subjective, but there are generally accepted standards that most people can agree on.
Does Canada have any "beautiful cities"? Well, not really, if by that you mean cities that are entirely or mostly beautiful. Though the term "beautiful cities" never actually means every last building on every last street, does it? Canada has two cities with very substantial sections that are beautiful. And puh-lease, people: you need to forfeit your urban enthusiast membership right now if anywhere other than Montreal and Quebec City came to mind when you read the first sentence in this paragraph.
Which is not to denigrate cities that aren't Montreal or Quebec City, or to suggest that people living in Saskatoon are the lesser for the accident of their birth (though it is tempting). But it is what it is.
I think Canadian cities are sort of dull on the whole (even compared to a lot of American cities, or at least the privileged sections where people have health insurance etc.), but I disagree about Montreal and Quebec City being the only attractive cities in Canada. Montreal is a very mixed, industrial city and Quebec City is not very big.
I think Victoria, Vancouver, and Halifax are just as attractive and they have a lot of features you don't find in Quebec. All three cities are much more maritime in feel than Quebec or Montreal, for example. The mixture of brightly coloured wooden and red brick houses and elegant sandstone institutional buildings in the Maritimes is my favourite urban aesthetic in Canada by far, but it's what I (partly) grew up with and I can understand that other people might have different tastes. That Montreal picture is a lot greyer than what you're likely to find on the two coasts.
Toronto, on the other hand, I just don't find attractive. It's a great, interesting city, but it's not beautiful.
Reality check: your 'generally accepted standards' are nothing but an opinion.
And dull? What? The cultural diversity, the mix of the new and old, the combined beauty of modern skyscrapers in naturally appealing settings...dull? I don't think so.
The grass isn't always greener on the othere side people.
Come on. Seriously? Vancouver and Victoria just as attractive as Montreal or Quebec? They're not in the same league.
Look, I'm talking strictly urban aesthetics here. I'm not making a value judgment on how nice it is to live in whatever city you live in. It would be nice if Canadians weren't so prickly and passive-aggressive. It's such an unattractive trait.
Think about it: say you've got two visitors from somewhere else, like Germany or the U.S. Take them on a walk along the most impressive streets in various Canadian cities. Then ask them which cities they thought were beautiful. Not "nice," not "kinda cool," not "friendly," not "multicultural" etc., all of which are terrific aspects of city living. Which ones were beautiful?
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred they're going to say Montreal and Quebec City.
It would be nice if Canadians weren't so prickly and passive-aggressive. It's such an unattractive trait.
Aren't you being passive-aggressive here?
I was also talking about urban aesthetics (I think Victoria is much less of a city than Quebec, and the same goes for Montreal and Vancouver, although the gap is shrinking). Vancouver has much better modern architecture than Montreal, it has nicer waterfront areas, it's got great outdoor parks, beaches, and mountains nearby. I don't know what Germans prefer but I could imagine some of them finding Vancouver more interesting than Montreal because its aesthetics contrast more with European cities. The older architecture in Montreal is nice but modest compared to what you find in European capitals -- Montreal can't compete with them on the basis of frilly Victorian architecture, for example.
I guess we just disagree. It happens a lot when talking about aesthetics.
I would think people from Germany would like the scenery (i.e., mountains, lakes etc..) more than the urban stuff - they already have plenty of that. You just need to take a drive into the Rockies to understand that... Visitors that I've observed like things that are different, things they don't normally see.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Someone on this. QC for sure is beautiful, and MTL is definitely one of my favourite cities due to its vibrance and charisma, but beautiful it aint. It definitely has beautiful areas, but only a few limited central areas like Downtown, Old MTL and the Plateau (and maybe Westmount) are what I'd call truly beautiful. And except for Old MTL, even they also have a huge amount of bland and ugly. Far from enough to deem the metro area - or even the city - as beautiful.
The problem is there is just so damn much of this. Brown, beige, and grey utilitarian structures. Each one in and of itself is not exactly ugly, but there's just so much repetition. Street after street it's practically the same thing. And many look dull and dingy from weathering, graffiti, and possible lack of maintenance.
Prev
...
Linear Mode
