Canadian Skyline Thread III

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by misterg

I find the Vancouver stats always misleading because the city itself is so small but the transit node skylines that have so many skyscrapers and some of the tallest in the metro aren't included in the total.

Vancouver should just refer to the entire metro now. How long before more people live in Surrey than Vancouver? lol

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

Toronto used to have some oddly modest neighbourhoods quite close to the inner parts of the city. They have shrunk and gentrified, but some are still there. Partly they're a reflection of how quickly the city has grown, but it's also funny how long they have held on. I guess zoning and property ownership might have something to do with it. Maybe some are public housing.

The closest neighbourhood to downtown that still feels underwhelming and makes Toronto feel like a dowdy provincial city is the box on the eastern side formed by Jarvis-Queen-Parliament-Carlton.

This is not because this area is rich and has NIMBYs that have resisted gentrification, it's because this is Toronto's equivalent to the DTES and is unappealing to investors or gentrifiers. As a result, it has escaped the 25 year-long boom almost completely unscathed.

You want to time travel back to what downtown Toronto looked like in 1996? Go here.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

These are both about 13km from Gare Centrale, a similar distance as Yonge/Sheppard from Union. While it isn't like that consistently for Montreal at that distance, I can't think of anywhere that far from Union where this is the scale of lowrise residential density despite Toronto being a much larger metro areas. This is what having an abundance of missing middle housing looks like. Yet there are people who think a few blocks of that scale right in or near downtown dispels the idea that Toronto is lacking in that regard.

This is not me, a Torontonian, knocking on Montreal, but Montreal is sort of like a US city in that it relies on what it built 60+ years ago for its extant urban fabric, and hasn't built any net new transit and walking-friendly options since then. It hasn't really intensified within its existing urban fabric, other than in its immediate downtown core, either, so you have some of the most transit-friendly intersections like Jean-Talon and St. Hubert (the interchange for the Blue and Orange metro lines) having the exact same building stock they've had for decades whereas in Toronto this area would be a highrise TOD node.

Affordability-wise, Montreal has been able to get away with it up until very recently because the city was famously cheap and had suffered from slower economic and population growth for decades. However, those days have passed and Montreal could really stand to build denser forms of housing even in its coveted triplex neighbourhoods. Yes, Montreal's housing stock is frozen in amber at a "higher" density state than Toronto's, but it's frozen in amber nevertheless. If you have consistent growth over decades, then even a missing middle city can't absorb it all and starts to have serious affordability problems.

[zoomer]

Interesting Hamilton protest pics, what with the security cam pic featured in one pic and a protestor clear as day holding a sign reading "I'm going to blow up that data centre". I dunno, maybe I should be protesting as well as AI will misread this post and flag me as posting a credible threat, lol.

I wonder if the anti-AI protests are bringing together all the fringe elements together at last.. I see another sign "Restore Canada" which I assume has racist intent, likely in attendance are the chem trail folks, anti-vaxers, Trumpists, environmentalists, the extremes on either end of the spectrum. Of those the environmentalists would have some real concerns to be addressed and we may all one day soon, lol.

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Sometimes I wonder what it would have been like to be an Argentina where Toronto and Montreal were combined into one megacity. There are elements of both have that I miss when I'm in the other. While Toronto's urban nabes are nice, they're much more standard and less metropolitan than Montreal's duplex and triplex nabes. Whereas I miss downtown Toronto's grand scale, height and intensity as well as the highrise nodes to a lesser extent. Especially Union station which, as nice as Gare Centrale is, doesn't really compare for me.

In Montreal, you can go over 10km from downtown using the station as an anchor point and see built form like these. And there are fairly significant swathes of this; it isn't just a street or two.






These are both about 13km from Gare Centrale, a similar distance as Yonge/Sheppard from Union. While it isn't like that consistently for Montreal at that distance, I can't think of anywhere that far from Union where this is the scale of lowrise residential density despite Toronto being a much larger metro areas. This is what having an abundance of missing middle housing looks like. Yet there are people who think a few blocks of that scale right in or near downtown dispels the idea that Toronto is lacking in that regard.

That one link led to this fun pic of a guy in the back of dump truck giving two thumbs up to the Google Car while the worker standing on the road looks like he just competed in a mud wrestling competition.

I think there are multiple density options that can work for a city, it won't look or feel the same, but as long as it supports affordability, ease of travel, and quality of life, although there are many factors that impact those. Personally I would not want to lose the single family homes or duplexes within range of downtown Toronto or Vancouver. Yes, along arterial roads high density and missing middle, but that has or is already happening. It would be quite boring to have a sea of endless similar look and feel low to mid-rise density, or any form of density, including suburban sprawl. I prefer a mix of fairly high density nodes, with increased missing middle but still relevant pockets of traditional SFH/duplex neighbourhoods which in big cities or high cost cities like Victoria have more density than others because of in-law suites, being used for student housing etc.

[Docere]

Veering pretty far from skylines...

[Docere]

Originally Posted by misterg

I find the Vancouver stats always misleading because the city itself is so small but the transit node skylines that have so many skyscrapers and some of the tallest in the metro aren't included in the total.

The Vancouver metro area has 176 (100m+) and 30 (150m+) which would put it more at #4 and #7 respectively. The transit node high-rise development is largely specific to Canadian cities, mostly Vancouver, Toronto and recently Ottawa, so I doubt expanding the count like this for others on the list would have much of a change to the numbers other than maybe Toronto if you include Mississauga etc.

If you're adding Burnaby to Vancouver, you should probably also add Miami Beach to Miami.

150m might be the better threshold nowadays, given how many "non-descript/non-downtown" buildings are beginning to make the cut in certain places. Then again 150m "penalizes" a city like Van due to height restrictions, but who wants to ruin what makes it special?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by misterg

I find the Vancouver stats always misleading because the city itself is so small but the transit node skylines that have so many skyscrapers and some of the tallest in the metro aren't included in the total.

The Vancouver metro area has 176 (100m+) and 30 (150m+) which would put it more at #4 and #7 respectively. The transit node high-rise development is largely specific to Canadian cities, mostly Vancouver, Toronto and recently Ottawa, so I doubt expanding the count like this for others on the list would have much of a change to the numbers other than maybe Toronto if you include Mississauga etc.

Yes, just looking at City Proper can lead to flawed conclusions. It doesn't capture the total count in cities that build tall all over their metropolitan area. I used 'Official Height'. From the SSP database:


Top 25 North American Metropolitan Areas
100m+ Buildings Completed, (U/C), TOTAL



1. New York: 951 (+51) 1002
2. Toronto: 474 (+97) 571
3. Chicago: 358 (+2) 360
4. Miami: 206 (+12) 218
5. Panama City: 204 (+1) 205

6. Mexico City: 194 (+20) 214
7. Vancouver: 172 (+32) 204
8. Houston: 116 (+0) 116
9. San Francisco: 107 (+0) 107
10. Los Angeles: 97 (+2) 99

11. Atlanta: 92 (+3) 95
12. Seattle: 85 (+5) 90
13. Calgary: 83 (+4) 87
14. Montreal: 70 (+3) 73
15. Boston: 69 (+3) 72

16. Philadelphia: 66 (+1) 67
17. Dallas: 63 (+0) 63
18. Austin: 54 (+1) 55
19. Denver: 40 (+1) 41
20. Minneapolis: 38 (+0) 38

21. San Diego: 37 (+1) 38
22. Charlotte: 27 (+1) 28
23. Nashville: 26 (+5) 31
24. Pittsburgh: 26 (+0) 26
25. Edmonton: 25 (+0) 25


New York: New York, Fort Lee, Guttenberg, Jersey City, New Rochelle, Newark, North Bergen, West New York, Franklin Township, White Plains
Toronto: Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Markham, Pickering
Chicago: Chicago, Itasca, Oakbrook Terrace
Miami: Miami, Sunny Isles, Ft. Lauderdale, Hallandale Beach, Hollywood, Miami Beach, Riviera Beach, Aventura, Bal Harbour, Sunrise, West Palm Beach
Panama City: Panama City
Vancouver: Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam, New Westminster, Delta
Houston: Houston, Galveston, The Woodlands, Pasadena
San Francisco: San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose
Los Angeles: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Glendale, Burbank, El Segundo
Atlanta: Atlanta, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Vinings
Seattle: Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma
Calgary: Calgary
Montreal: Montreal, Longueuil, Westmount
Boston: Boston, Everett, Cambridge
Philadelphia: Philadelphia, Camden, Wilmington
Dallas: Dallas, Fort Worth, Irving

[Wigs]

Docere,
Since many people have no conception of height above a certain level, how about we do a Canadian comprise at 125m/410' ?

Asking people to guess the height of tall buildings is like asking the average person what the population of a place (including their own city!) is.
To non skyscraper nerds almost any building over 400-ish feet looks tall.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

This is not me, a Torontonian, knocking on Montreal, but Montreal is sort of like a US city in that it relies on what it built 60+ years ago for its extant urban fabric, and hasn't built any net new transit and walking-friendly options since then. It hasn't really intensified within its existing urban fabric, other than in its immediate downtown core, either, so you have some of the most transit-friendly intersections like Jean-Talon and St. Hubert (the interchange for the Blue and Orange metro lines) having the exact same building stock they've had for decades whereas in Toronto this area would be a highrise TOD node.

Affordability-wise, Montreal has been able to get away with it up until very recently because the city was famously cheap and had suffered from slower economic and population growth for decades. However, those days have passed and Montreal could really stand to build denser forms of housing even in its coveted triplex neighbourhoods. Yes, Montreal's housing stock is frozen in amber at a "higher" density state than Toronto's, but it's frozen in amber nevertheless. If you have consistent growth over decades, then even a missing middle city can't absorb it all and starts to have serious affordability problems.

I don't think that's entirely fair. Montreal has only been a low-growth city from the perspective of the crazy high growth of Toronto or Vancouver or Calgary. I'm not as familiar with all of the construction that's been happening there, but if nothing else the development of Griffintown is significant and has added a new layer of urbanity to a formerly derelict area. Seems to be lots of other infill throughout the downtown area as well. Less so in the peripheral neighbourhoods (which to be fair, kind of mirrors the areas of growth in Toronto, but at a smaller scale).

And then there have been the streetscape/public realm improvements throughout the city; which while not adding any new housing or retail have nonetheless elevated the urban experience. And of course the very ambitious REM project, which has added a new dimension to the transit system.

Originally Posted by zoomer

Interesting Hamilton protest pics, what with the security cam pic featured in one pic and a protestor clear as day holding a sign reading "I'm going to blow up that data centre". I dunno, maybe I should be protesting as well as AI will misread this post and flag me as posting a credible threat, lol.

I wonder if the anti-AI protests are bringing together all the fringe elements together at last.. I see another sign "Restore Canada" which I assume has racist intent, likely in attendance are the chem trail folks, anti-vaxers, Trumpists, environmentalists, the extremes on either end of the spectrum. Of those the environmentalists would have some real concerns to be addressed and we may all one day soon, lol.

I wouldn't call the anti-AI folks "fringe", when over 80% of Canadians have at least some concerns related to AI (with a smaller - though still plurality - 36% having decidely negative views). The AI skeptics definitely do reach across traditional ideological lines though!

[O-tacular]

Yeah, this ai data centre bonanza without environmental regulation is out of control. Kevin O'Leary's "Wonder Valley" 9GW natural gas powered monstrosity that's being proposed in Grande Prairie is going to suck the rivers dry and skyrocket emissions. The Utah version will consume as much power as the state and increase local temperatures by several degrees while sucking the salt lake dry.

[Docere]

Miami and West Palm Beach are 72 miles apart.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by zoomer

I think there are multiple density options that can work for a city, it won't look or feel the same, but as long as it supports affordability, ease of travel, and quality of life, although there are many factors that impact those. Personally I would not want to lose the single family homes or duplexes within range of downtown Toronto or Vancouver. Yes, along arterial roads high density and missing middle, but that has or is already happening. It would be quite boring to have a sea of endless similar look and feel low to mid-rise density, or any form of density, including suburban sprawl. I prefer a mix of fairly high density nodes, with increased missing middle but still relevant pockets of traditional SFH/duplex neighbourhoods which in big cities or high cost cities like Victoria have more density than others because of in-law suites, being used for student housing etc.

True that affordability can be achieved by providing enough housing regardless of the format. But for me, this isn't just about affordability or supply. I consider the type of lowrise density that Montreal does to be of fundamentally higher quality in terms of urbanism than detached houses and highrise nodes because of the neighbourhood and street level feel. I also think lowrise is a better living experience for many residents because as a city grows, if it has a lot of detaches houses you can't add to the supply without greenfield sprawl just because of how much land they require. So you end up with a smaller and smaller percentage of people living in the houses and an ever increasing percentage in the highrises. Yet if you used the same amount of land for mostly missing middle housing, you can accommodate a much larger percentage of residents near ground level without them having to be in highrises with not everyone likes.

I'm not against highrises but only certain personality types like living in them. And I find the combination of highrises and detached houses less interesting personally since the highrise designs get repetitive quickly when there are a lot, and you don't have any street level personalization like you do with the Montreal model. With the Montreal format, you can have people putting out plants and other decorations on the exterior steps, while with the house+highrise model, most of the units are too high up in highrises to get a glimpse of anyone's personality and the houses are often set back too far behind lawns, shrubs, and fences. The houses in more central parts of Toronto are often closer to the sidewalk and are interesting, but I'm comparing with the stuff a similar distance from downtown as the Montreal pictures. The combination of those suburban houses and highrises in places like North York isn't interesting at all imo other than the highrise height perhaps.

The good thing is that adding highrise nodes is still posible in a city like Montreal but it's much harder to address the land wasted with detached housing after the fact.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Protest against data centres at Hamilton's City Hall this morning



Source: Joey Coleman@ https://bsky.app/profile/joeycoleman.ca

In Hamilton, the protest is about a giant data centre being proposed for the former Stelco land. This will be a HUGE centre if approved. And yes, I see those typical MAHA folks protesting as well (Make America Healthly Again)

Hell nah!

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2026/06/04/news/hamilton-stelco-site-data-centre-proposal

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yeah, this ai data centre bonanza without environmental regulation is out of control. Kevin O'Leary's "Wonder Valley" 9GW natural gas powered monstrosity that's being proposed in Grande Prairie is going to suck the rivers dry and skyrocket emissions. The Utah version will consume as much power as the state and increase local temperatures by several degrees while sucking the salt lake dry.

Going way off topic, but I highly recommend people giving this a view when they have time.

So dystopian, and getting built under regulatory loopholes and a current admin in USA that is anti environment

May 28, 2026
We investigated one of the world’s largest AI data centers, using thermal drone footage to reveal the hidden pollution powering the AI boom. As companies race to build the future of artificial intelligence, residents and experts warn that fossil fuels, secrecy, and weak regulation may be putting communities at risk.

21 minutes
• Video Link

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Going way off topic, but I highly recommend people giving this a view when they have time.

So dystopian, and getting built under regulatory loopholes and a current admin in USA that is anti environment

People would be wise to not to assume what's true of the USA is true outside the USA. The vast majority of electricity production in Canada is GREEN, regulatory controls are stricter (need to improve though), and Canada has the built in natural advantage of a colder climate. Data centres give off a lot of heat so we don't need to cool them down for much of the year.

Data centres are far more problematic in countries like the USA.

[Docere]

Detached houses are quite rare on Montreal Island, even in the 1960s era suburbs. For example:

Saint Leonard-Saint Michel federal riding:

Detached house 5.2%
Semi-detached 2%
Row house 0.5%
Duplex 16.1%
Apartment fewer than 5 storeys 70.2%
Apartment 5+ storeys 5.7%

Saint Laurent federal riding:

Detached house 10.6%
Semi-detached 5.7%
Row house 8.9%
Duplex 7.5%
Apartment fewer than 5 storeys 37.2%
Apartment 5+ storeys 29.8%

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Docere

Miami and West Palm Beach are 72 miles apart.

True but the Miami metropolitan area is a continuously built up area running parallel to the ocean and there are lots of high-rises between these 2. It's not a 115 km gap. The GTA is equally expansive.

Miami - West Palm Beach: 115 km
Oshawa - Burlington: 120 km

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by isaidso

People would be wise to not to assume what's true of the USA is true outside the USA. The vast majority of electricity production in Canada is GREEN, regulatory controls are stricter (need to improve though), and Canada has the built in natural advantage of a colder climate. Data centres give off a lot of heat so we don't need to cool them down for much of the year.

Data centres are far more problematic in countries like the USA.

Alberta is leading the data centre charge in Canada and has declared data centres like Wonder Valley EXEMPT from environmental assessments. They are proposing that these run on fossil fuels and are allowing them to draw obscene amounts of water in drought prone areas that have declared states of disaster for farmers and people downstream. Danielle Smith and the UCP are no better than MAGA. In fact they are one and the same and just because there is hydro power and plentiful water in Eastern Canada, does not mean that those resources won't be impacted by dirty water being released back into the environment and enormous consumption of fresh water.

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I wouldn't call the anti-AI folks "fringe", when over 80% of Canadians have at least some concerns related to AI (with a smaller - though still plurality - 36% having decidely negative views). The AI skeptics definitely do reach across traditional ideological lines though!

I agree - I don't mean anti-AI is fringe but it feels as if the anti-AI protests are bringing together all/most the fringe elements regardless of original agenda in addition to 'mainstream' protesters. For example, it looks like we have white nationalist anti-government types protesting alongside left-wing environmentalists.