Suburban Skylines

[jlousa]

Umm you guys do realize our code is up to first world standards right? There are no highrises being built up in Canada with a single elevator nor with only one stairwell.

[Tuckerman]

I wouldn't question the code in Vancouver - those are well built highrises and are no doubt of better quality than the sea of high rises in some South American cities. The narrow -one apt per floor high-rise residences are pretty common in Brazil. However structural issues remain a problem in many places - in the US a lot of the new mid-rise buildings are just stick and brick, usually with a base parking structure of concrete with wood framing rising 5 floors above it - giving the allusion of a solid mid-rise once all the cladding or brick are on the outside.

For me the real issue is the infrastructure below ground. On a recent visit to Beijing I was very impressed, if not overwhelmed, by the huge number of high rises going up and/or recently built there - truly remarkable. However, I couldn't help but think of what is at the base of all these foundations and what king of electrical, water, sewage, etc infrastructure exists or is being built to supply this rapid growth. (Not to mention that there was not potable water in my very modern high-rise hotel). Infrastructure is not a problem unique to the developing world, I have the same thoughts when in NYC with its old underground structure- often with a 70 story building going top of it.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I think its more to do with the lack of highways forcing people to live close to a skytrain station as its the only way to get around the city in a reasonable time frame.

That too, but I was referring the fact that the built form, given the same density, favors tall and skinny over squat-midrises more so in Vancouver than elsewhere, due to the premium people pay for the view. On the other hand, Vancouver is the only city where commute times are actually decreasing.

[dleung]

An update on some of Richmond's new developments (It's a post-war suburb of Vancouver). This is downtown in 1977.


http://www.richmond.ca/cityhall/arch...0001-00105.gif

Richmond today, population 190,000

http://graham.ca/Projects/Commercial/Aberdeen.aspx


photo by SVLT

Greenfield development is virtually unheard of in metro Vancouver now. Almost all new construction requires demolition.

[dleung]

Burnaby, a Vancouver suburb, population: 220,000

Here are 2 of Burnaby's 4 skylines:
Brentwood - construction of a mall expansion with twin 600' towers in the foreground

Metrotown

[vanman]

Metro Vancouver from the Cypress Bowl lookout in West Vancouver taken by me today.

[photoLith]

I'm surprised nobodies posted about the woodlands, a far flung suburb from Houston with a pretty large skyline, which is growing every year.

[the urban politician]

Chicago's suburbs, with a few notable exceptions, lack noteworthy skylines.

Not to say there isn't a lot of TOD or there aren't a lot of cool downtowns, but they are all human scaled.

I kind of like them, to be honest. Those pics of Vancouver's burbs just don't appeal to me st all.

[memph]

Originally Posted by dleung

Greenfield development is virtually unheard of in metro Vancouver now. Almost all new construction requires demolition.

Seems like there's still a fair bit of development on the fringe. Although maybe technically much of the townhouses and SFH being built there is replacing large lot suburban/exurban type development.

[Marshal]

Yes and no. All the agricultural land is protected, but there is still residential development (townhomes and SFH) happening on woodlands in the valley and up the mountainsides as well (also forest). Regardless, compared to Seattle, for example, the amount of land developed/year is relatively small.

[Kngkyle]

The only noteworthy one for Chicago is Evanston. Not much of a skyline but a very nice downtown with easy rail transit to Chicago. Also, trees!

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I think its more to do with the lack of highways forcing people to live close to a skytrain station as its the only way to get around the city in a reasonable time frame. If SF was smart they would leverage BART a lot more, it is a similar kind of system even if it is on a larger scale.

How do you suggest we leverage BART? SF does not control BART, it is a multi-county authority. Where there are BART stations in the city, there is already very dense commercial development (financial district), rapidly developing transit development (Civic Center), or vociferous opposition to density by the neigborhoods (Mission, Glen Park).

[mhays]

Chicago and New York are pretty remarkable for their lack of suburban skylines relative to other cities of their sizes. (Jersey City is basically core NYC, and Newark is like a secondary core city.)

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by mhays

Chicago and New York are pretty remarkable for their lack of suburban skylines relative to other cities of their sizes. (Jersey City is basically core NYC, and Newark is like a secondary core city.)

Its quite a transition of density. You can be in Bergen County, less than 2 miles West from the Hudson, and it feels like a far flung burb. Yet a mile can mean the difference between two story structures and generous yard sizes, to extreme density.

Example being the areas around Paterson. Driving through them, you wouldn't think you're right by NYC. Or even Fort Lee/ Teaneck.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

How do you suggest we leverage BART? SF does not control BART, it is a multi-county authority. Where there are BART stations in the city, there is already very dense commercial development (financial district), rapidly developing transit development (Civic Center), or vociferous opposition to density by the neigborhoods (Mission, Glen Park).

I meant more so the SF metro, from what I remember. I admit I made that post a while ago now. The Vancouver skytrain services many municipalities, similar to BART, yet has managed to achieve the multi nodal style you see in this thread.When I say SF, I mean the metro, just as when I say Vancouver for that metro, instead of Burnaby, Richmond, etc.

[mhays]

The biggest difference between the NY/Chi model's lack of suburban skylines and the Vancouver/Toronto model is that NY/Chi don't control outward growth, while Vancouver's and Toronto's are controlled by both policy and topography. Vancouver can't have low-density office sprawl or housing sprawl, and second-generation development is hard, so when it does develop it does so densely, allowed by policy.

Plus, both NY and Chi have central business districts with huge percentages of their local office space. So they have that going for them.

[NorthernDancer]

White Plains has a pretty good skyline. And there's a city kind of SE of White Plains (can't remember the name off-hand) that has a decent skyline. So there are some suburban skylines near NYC. But I don't believe suburban Long Island for example has any skylines, even with millions and millions of people.

[softee]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

there's a city kind of SE of White Plains (can't remember the name off-hand) that has a decent skyline.

New Rochelle

[dc_denizen]

in NYC you have

stanford
new rochelle
yonkers
white plains
newark
Jersey city
Fort Lee
New haven
new brunswick
elizabeth
rahway (couple highrises)
metro park

[Austinlee]

The greatest suburban skylines, a testament to humans ingenuity and respect towards pedestrians and wise stewardship of our finite planet include: Schaumburg, IL, Bloomington, MN & Southfield, MI. These are but a few of the many monuments to man's long term strategy of sustainable land use inclusive to all races and modes of mobility.