The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[Brizzy82]

some older Winnipeg aerials that I had not seen before


0117 Winnipeg Skyline by SBA John Wiley, on Flickr


0107 Winnipeg Riverside by SBA John Wiley, on Flickr


Winnipeg From The Sky by bryanscott, on Flickr


Winnipeg skyline by bdog_winnipeg, on Flickr


One Great City! by Guacamole Goalie, on Flickr

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I don't know about everyone else, but what I love about the pre-war Lower Manhattan skyline was just how audacious and unabashedly ostentatious it was. Those days are gone, but you can see the same mentality at work in Shanghai's Pudong skyline today.

I know, I know. Somebody's going to chime in now and tell me that the two are incomparable, because Shanghai's skyline looks like some gaudy Buck Rogers fantasy world, complete with balls on sticks and buildings with holes in them. But I also think that Old Europeans of the time probably thought that the idea of putting the Mausoleum of Helicarnassus on top of a skyscraper or using a 500 ft. facsimile of the Giralda or the St. Mark's Campanile to sell life insurance was ceaselessly tacky and affected.

Anyway, to bring this back to Canada, I find it a tad disappointing that we don't approach skyscraper building with the same madness as New Yorkers did 100 years ago and the Chinese do today. That's not to say that I want us to slavishly demolish our historic neighbourhoods and throw up the latest whiz-bang skyscraper, or that I obsess over the height of new buildings, but it's a bit deflating to realize that, despite the addition of millions of square feet of residential and office space in the last 12 years, Toronto's tallest building is still a white box from 1975; that Calgary's unprecedented office boom leads office developers to one-up each other by several feet, rather than by several hundred feet; that we fawn over PoMo skyscrapers like Scotia Plaza, because it was unabashedly opulent right down to the details on its staircase handrails, and every office tower built since the mid-1990s in Toronto has been some variation of a rather fat glass box with a rather pedestrian lobby.

Now, that's not to say that we haven't made impressive additions to our skylines. We have built the Bow and the L tower and there are some things to look forward to down the road like Telus Sky and the Vancouver House. But given the volume of construction in Canadian cities, bold statements like these come once in a blue moon. It doesn't have to be like this. Philadelphia might have built just 20 highrises in the past 10 years, but 2 of them were outstanding; New York city seems to have gotten a second [third?] wind, and is back to work throwing up 1,400 foot pencils into the sky. Even San Francisco, with a skyline that once seemed to have been planned by concerned mothers, is putting up bold new skyscrapers these days. What gives, Canada?

(slow clap)

I also, despite loving the big construction boom in Toronto right now, wish developers would be less conservative when it comes to their height/design ambition. L Tower is great for us but its quality (aside from the north face) could be better. Other than that our big office tower developments are BAC and the Southcore buildings. Blue boxes. Come on, Toronto grow some balls.

[MolsonExport]

Nice lookin' density there, Peg.

[softee]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

(slow clap)

I also, despite loving the big construction boom in Toronto right now, wish developers would be less conservative when it comes to their height/design ambition. L Tower is great for us but its quality (aside from the north face) could be better. Other than that our big office tower developments are BAC and the Southcore buildings. Blue boxes. Come on, Toronto grow some balls.

Toronto council did approve Mirvish+Gehry, which if built will add some much needed pizazz to the skyline as well as a new tallest. That's kinda ballsy, don't you think?

[niwell]

I get the sentiment, but it always kind of irks me when people refer to a city/province/state/country etc. as a sentient decision maker. "Toronto" isn't making these decisions. It's a combination of what gets proposed due to market forces and then what is approved through the planning process. As the Mirvish-Gehry process has shown, the city isn't inflexible, but developers don't have free reign to do as they please. The end result was a compromise which (IMO, I know others feel strongly the other way) is far from conservative.

Market conditions don't seem to favour unconventional office designs at this time and there's not much that can be done about that. The city would have no opposition to a BAC with a groundbreaking design, but that just wasn't in the cards. That being said, 45 Bay seems very promising. I'm a fan of the Union Centre and 160 front proposals as well.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by Brizzy82

Winnipeg From The Sky by bryanscott, on Flickr

Nice. It's very "Montreal-esque" with the exchange district and downtown rubbing shoulders like this.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by niwell

I get the sentiment, but it always kind of irks me when people refer to a city/province/state/country etc. as a sentient decision maker. "Toronto" isn't making these decisions. It's a combination of what gets proposed due to market forces and then what is approved through the planning process. As the Mirvish-Gehry process has shown, the city isn't inflexible, but developers don't have free reign to do as they please. The end result was a compromise which (IMO, I know others feel strongly the other way) is far from conservative.

Market conditions don't seem to favour unconventional office designs at this time and there's not much that can be done about that. The city would have no opposition to a BAC with a groundbreaking design, but that just wasn't in the cards. That being said, 45 Bay seems very promising. I'm a fan of the Union Centre and 160 front proposals as well.

I don't think anyone was under the impression that governments, or even city planning departments, have any say in the design of skyscraper developments. Those are generally accepted to be proposed by developers working with architectural firms, and the furthest a city planning department can do is provide non-binding advice on how a building interacts with certain civic objectives through a design panel.

I'd even hesitate to say that market forces are behind design conservatism. Yes, the market may ask for "conservative" styling, in that that's what residential investors and commercial clients may desire. But that does not mean that the economic fundamentals are too risky to try something daring. For starters, the market for downtown real estate is about as safe in Canada as it is anywhere else in the world, so it's not like building a 1,000 foot building in Toronto is any riskier than building a 1,000 foot tower in San Francisco or Philadelphia. Secondly, the incremental cost of doing something daring is probably not as high as it seems. Once you've sunk over $1 billion into an office tower, how much more would it cost to add camphered corners or a spire?

Finally, the "market" for properties on the magnitude of office and condo towers doesn't operate like the market for furniture or the demand for good restaurants. Individual condo purchasers and the companies who lease office space aren't in a position to dictate design, in the way that a purchaser of furniture will hunt around for a coffee table until she finds one that suits her taste. Maybe there is a latent market for daring office and condo towers that isn't being met because nobody, apart from conservative property developers, is in a position to influence the design of these towers.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

For starters, the market for downtown real estate is about as safe in Canada as it is anywhere else in the world, so it's not like building a 1,000 foot building in Toronto is any riskier than building a 1,000 foot tower in San Francisco or Philadelphia. Secondly, the incremental cost of doing something daring is probably not as high as it seems. Once you've sunk over $1 billion into an office tower, how much more would it cost to add camphered corners or a spire?

When it comes to office construction, it absolutely is more risky to build a 1,000 foot tower in Canada than it is in a major American market. The number one reason being the size of major corporations in the USA compared to here. If you can get a major tenant to anchor that much space it is much easier to get something of that size built. Short of one of the big 5 banks deciding to consolidate all their space into a new showcase tower I don't see it happening here anytime soon. I'd be very surprised if the first tower over 1,000 feet in Canada is not residential.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Finally, the "market" for properties on the magnitude of office and condo towers doesn't operate like the market for furniture or the demand for good restaurants. Individual condo purchasers and the companies who lease office space aren't in a position to dictate design, in the way that a purchaser of furniture will hunt around for a coffee table until she finds one that suits her taste. Maybe there is a latent market for daring office and condo towers that isn't being met because nobody, apart from conservative property developers, is in a position to influence the design of these towers.

When they are prepared to occupy a majority of the space, large companies certainly are in a position to dictate design. See the Bow. And the massive floor plates of new office towers in Toronto.

Maybe there is a latent market for daring design - we are certainly seeing a push in that direction for residential projects.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

LOVE the Winnipeg skyline shots. Very impressive.

I do wonder about the placement of the Manitoba Legislature, however. Pardon my ignorance but its location does appear almost random. That is to say that it isn't in a prominent spot, like, say, Queen's Park in Toronto. Dunno...

[SkahHigh]

Seen from Percival-Molson Stadium:

Centre Ville vue du stade Percival Molson by Voici Montréal-This is Montreal, on Flickr

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by niwell

When it comes to office construction, it absolutely is more risky to build a 1,000 foot tower in Canada than it is in a major American market. The number one reason being the size of major corporations in the USA compared to here. If you can get a major tenant to anchor that much space it is much easier to get something of that size built. Short of one of the big 5 banks deciding to consolidate all their space into a new showcase tower I don't see it happening here anytime soon. I'd be very surprised if the first tower over 1,000 feet in Canada is not residential.

I don't think that explanation really pertains. For example, Salesforce.com is leasing 714,000 ft2 of San Francisco's landmark Salesforce tower, compared to much larger Cenovus leasing 1M ft2 of Calgary's Brookfield Place.

Incidentally, the Salesforce Tower and Brookfield Place have the same square footage (1.4M; I think Brookfield Place may have more), but the Salesforce tower is a 1,070 ft high landmark spire designed by Cesar Pelli and Brookfield Place is an 810 ft box designed by nobody.

Maybe there is a latent market for daring design - we are certainly seeing a push in that direction for residential projects.

I wouldn't say we're seeing a "push". I'd say we're seeing a handful of projects, among hundreds. And it's only recently; ten years into a continuous boom.

[ajiuO]

It would be cool if a bunch of users would leave a short comment supporting this idea...

Please leave comments in this thread
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=6827550&posted=1#post6827550

Thanks

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I don't think that explanation really pertains. For example, Salesforce.com is leasing 714,000 ft2 of San Francisco's landmark Salesforce tower, compared to much larger Cenovus leasing 1M ft2 of Calgary's Brookfield Place.

Incidentally, the Salesforce Tower and Brookfield Place have the same square footage (1.4M; I think Brookfield Place may have more), but the Salesforce tower is a 1,070 ft high landmark spire designed by Cesar Pelli and Brookfield Place is an 810 ft box designed by nobody.



I wouldn't say we're seeing a "push". I'd say we're seeing a handful of projects, among hundreds. And it's only recently; ten years into a continuous boom.

We can't built towers fast enough for a market that has little interest beyond a return of their investment. Our largest tenants are in the financial sector or service the financial sector which is still licking its wounds from 2008 and/or heavy indebted from expansion south of the border. It's a little different from a tech company drowning in its own cash flow.

Saleforce Tower has been in development for a decade or more and was always meant to make an architectural statement. Neither Toronto staff or developers have time or reason to pursue such a development. Also, competition among commercial developers is much more fierce in the US. It may lead to flashier towers to attract tenants but, it also leaves an overbuilt environment with the possibility of entire neighbourhoods of virtually empty towers.

You see all the towers Toronto has built and how few stand out compared to a market that has seen very few built but to a much higher quality but fail to make the connection that the boom itself can be the main contributor. You will see developers respond once the funds and trusts move on and the lineups disappear and competition for limited number of buyers takes over.

Content removed

[Delirium]

Photo by gcD600 https://www.flickr.com/photos/gchow7/15305040704/sizes/h/

[TorontoDrew]

Posted on newinhomes. Com

[MolsonExport]

Another superb Vancouver shot. I regret leaving the city...but I just could not break into the housing market making a lousy $40K (back in the 90s).

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by softee

Toronto council did approve Mirvish+Gehry, which if built will add some much needed pizazz to the skyline as well as a new tallest. That's kinda ballsy, don't you think?

Good point, very true.

Now let's see once it (eventually) starts going up if it gets cheapened somehow.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by softee

Toronto council did approve Mirvish+Gehry, which if built will add some much needed pizazz to the skyline as well as a new tallest. That's kinda ballsy, don't you think?

You seem to have missed the point. Mirvish-Gehry represents 2 buildings in a boom that's seen 100+ towers go up so far. Not every building can be a show stopper or be innovative, but Canada definitely displays a lack of creativity and brazen ambition compared to New York 1900-1930 and Shanghai today.

That Toronto approved 2 buildings that break with our national mindset is a good start, but hammers home how disinterested we are at pushing the envelope. Being fiercely pragmatic and risk averse is great if you're a bank, but not characteristics one wants when it comes to architecture/art.

Originally Posted by niwell

I get the sentiment, but it always kind of irks me when people refer to a city/province/state/country etc. as a sentient decision maker. "Toronto" isn't making these decisions. It's a combination of what gets proposed due to market forces and then what is approved through the planning process.

It's true that singularly finger pointing a city or panel is off the mark, but it does speak to the conservative culture in this country. We have a penchant for the plain when it comes to everything. It's not just our buildings where we do this.

A culture is very hard to change. I doubt we'll ever have an interest in the opulent or grandiose due our modesty as a people, but we would benefit if we moved a little further in that direction.

[caltrane74]

Toronto is a very conservative and puritanical city.

This place is not known for taking risk or being innovative. Its just a safe place to put your money, kinda like a North American verison of Switzerland or Liechtenstein.