Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BVr6kqOjV_A/?tagged=montreal

[TorontoDrew]

[IMG]When we reach above clouds...! by Ravi Pardesi, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]DSC01133 by sesquiotic, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Farmland and Old Longueuil (tiny back then) not far. It's the bridge that started Longueuil's boom.


Source

It wasn't uncommon to build bridges to (what could be considered) nowhere back in those days.

Not necessarily for reasons of political corruption (government contracts for friends) or for commuting within a metropolitan areas, but because there simply weren't many crossings at all across bodies of water.

Prior to the Jacques-Cartier there was only one road bridge, the Victoria (there was also a rail bridge) connecting the island of Montreal to a huge area of Quebec.

So Longueuil and the south shore didn't have to be that built up in order to make a bridge a necessity.

[Martin Mtl]

The bridge was not to connect Montreal to Longueuil per se, but to connect Montreal to the exterior world, period.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

The bridge was not to connect Montreal to Longueuil per se, but to connect Montreal to the exterior world, period.

Exactement

[Monolith]

Tank farm, Brentwood, and Metrotown.

Morning run by forester401, on Flickr

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

The bridge was not to connect Montreal to Longueuil per se, but to connect Montreal to the exterior world, period.

How did one get to the south side of the river before that bridge was built? From those photos it looks like Montreal was already well established so surely there were multiple crossings a century before this happened?

[Rico Rommheim]

The first bridge to connect the island to the south shore was the Victoria bridge. built in 1859 as a railroad bridge. Before that people crossed with ferries.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Tank farm, Brentwood, and Metrotown.

Morning run by forester401, on Flickr

Becoming pretty amazing for a suburb in a city under 3 million.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by isaidso

How did one get to the south side of the river before that bridge was built? From those photos it looks like Montreal was already well established so surely there were multiple crossings a century before this happened?

Montreal had a population of more than 800 000 when the bridge opened in 1930.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Becoming pretty amazing for a suburb in a city under 3 million.

C'mon, you must have meant metropolitan area under 3 million as all of British Columbia's city's populations just barely exceed 3 million people.

[Martin Mtl]

Short but beautiful drone footage filmed this week. AMAZING shot of the skyline.


• Video Link

[Coldrsx]

https://twitter.com/kmoorephotos

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by speedog

C'mon, you must have meant metropolitan area under 3 million as all of British Columbia's city's populations just barely exceed 3 million people.

Can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.

Yes, in English the word city and metropolitan area often used interchangeably.

For example, many people on this forum when saying "Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver" are actually talking about their metropolitan areas rather than the cities proper. Its a thing, not hard to figure out.

So yes, the Vancouver is both a city and a metropolitan area of under 3 million.

If I say LA is a big city, I am actually more referring to the entire metro area rather than just the city proper.

[Marshal]

Metro-One: you have my sympathies.

One of the things on this forum that I just can't get over is how often and how many times this issue of urban reference needs to be explained and/or argued.

It is not just forum members, urbanists, planners, architects, developers, etc. that use these words in a fluid manner. Most people use city names in multiple ways depending on the context and desired communication.

1. A big city name (Vancouver) is used by everyone to refer to the metropolitan whole of 2.6 million people.

2. When outside the metro context (physically away, or conceptually beyond), people in general specify the city of Vancouver, as the "City of Vancouver," to avoid confusion.

3. When inside the region (the metro context), people will refer to the city of Vancouver simply as "Vancouver." Confusion is avoided by the implicit context. Similarly, if inside the region, and someone wants to specify the region, they will not say "Vancouver," because the listener's first thought will be the City of Vancouver. So, one says something more specific: they refer to it as "metro,"the region," or something similar.

4. When outside the region, but within the province, people will say and locate their homes as the actual municipality - "I'm from Richmond." There is an expectation that the audience knows the lay of the land, so a more specific reference is reasonable.

5. When far outside the region, people will specify their home as the name of the metro - when in Ottawa, someone from Richmond, will say they are from Vancouver. Here, further specification (Richmond) is both unnecessary and potentially confusing.

6. I could go on endlessly.

Something like what I have laid out (with small variation) is nothing special; it is simply how people (all people) talk about place. The fact that members of this forum can endlessly bicker and lecture each other about it is absolutely juvenile and ridiculous. I have seen many worthy discussions derailed by this nonsense. It's crazy!

[speedog]

Oh you guys.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Marshal

5. When far outside the region, people will specify their home as the name of the metro - when in Ottawa, someone from Richmond, will say they are from Vancouver. Here, further specification (Richmond) is both unnecessary and potentially confusing.

That would be very confusing in Ottawa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_Ontario

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Image capture from the Champlain bridge construction webcam.

Sweet! Perhaps the best and most comprehensive view of the skyline.

An observation: the griffintown towers have really added depth to the overall skyline. I remember before the skyline looked awkward and isolated (seen from the south), now it looks quite nice.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Sweet! Perhaps the best and most comprehensive view of the skyline.

An observation: the griffintown towers have really added depth to the overall skyline. I remember before the skyline looked awkward and isolated (seen from the south), now it looks quite nice.

YUL and the Holiday Inn also expand it to the west, it's great.

This is pretty much the best view with the aerial one and the one from Jacques-Cartier.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Metro-One: you have my sympathies.

One of the things on this forum that I just can't get over is how often and how many times this issue of urban reference needs to be explained and/or argued.

It is not just forum members, urbanists, planners, architects, developers, etc. that use these words in a fluid manner. Most people use city names in multiple ways depending on the context and desired communication.

1. A big city name (Vancouver) is used by everyone to refer to the metropolitan whole of 2.6 million people.

2. When outside the metro context (physically away, or conceptually beyond), people in general specify the city of Vancouver, as the "City of Vancouver," to avoid confusion.

3. When inside the region (the metro context), people will refer to the city of Vancouver simply as "Vancouver." Confusion is avoided by the implicit context. Similarly, if inside the region, and someone wants to specify the region, they will not say "Vancouver," because the listener's first thought will be the City of Vancouver. So, one says something more specific: they refer to it as "metro,"the region," or something similar.

4. When outside the region, but within the province, people will say and locate their homes as the actual municipality - "I'm from Richmond." There is an expectation that the audience knows the lay of the land, so a more specific reference is reasonable.

5. When far outside the region, people will specify their home as the name of the metro - when in Ottawa, someone from Richmond, will say they are from Vancouver. Here, further specification (Richmond) is both unnecessary and potentially confusing.

6. I could go on endlessly.

Something like what I have laid out (with small variation) is nothing special; it is simply how people (all people) talk about place. The fact that members of this forum can endlessly bicker and lecture each other about it is absolutely juvenile and ridiculous. I have seen many worthy discussions derailed by this nonsense. It's crazy!

You need a certain amount of people for one large development and even more for several large developments. After that, the form it takes is all about choice. (Burnaby vs Richmond) See my point? This could have all been easily avoided through post editing.