The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by flar

Hamilton's got the commie block skyline:

Hamilton has an amazing skyline...

Need to get some new stuff on the go to keep pace with the suburbs though. Thank God for the Greenbelt, that will be the savior for downtown Hamilton.

[someone123]

I didn't want to mention proposed buildings since it's not guaranteed that they will ever be built. The United Gulf towers in Halifax were proposed back in 2004 or so and, while the developers still maintain that they will build them, the site is still an ugly hole in the ground.

The King's Wharf tower is a bit more certain since they are already beginning construction on earlier phases of the project.

I would say that the Fenwick redevelopment also seems fairly likely since they are starting renovations that will be done in phases:


Source

Certainly that will look a lot nicer than the current concrete Fenwick cladding.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by someone123

I didn't want to mention proposed buildings since it's not guaranteed that they will ever be built. The United Gulf towers in Halifax were proposed back in 2004 or so and, while the developers still maintain that they will build them, the site is still an ugly hole in the ground.

Speaking of ugly holes in the ground in Halifax, what's the story with that huge fenced-off pit along Argyle St? Anything planned for that spot?

[Empire]

The 33 storey tower proposed as the anchor for King's Wharf will have ample detail and quality but it hasn't started yet. Just thought I would add the link for King's Wharf as the first phase has started.

King's Wharf
http://kingswharf.ca/

[someone123]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

Speaking of ugly holes in the ground in Halifax, what's the story with that huge fenced-off pit along Argyle St? Anything planned for that spot?

Convention centre and office/hotel towers.

[Calgarian]

Height is only one factor of a skyline, the others IMO are quality of buildings, number of buildings and relationship of the buildings to eachother. Niagara wins in the height category, but I give Halifax the others. That Casino tower screams cheese to me, especially the roof.

I agree with Caltrane, this hasn't really been an argument, more of a discussion, and one I have enjoyed reading. Lets keep it civil, and it should be fine.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by someone123

LA has the taller office tower and has more buildings over 200 metres. In my experience, however, it looks much smaller than Toronto in person.

.

last time i was down in LA, i was driving east on the 10 and thought the exact opposite. i'm not sure how it does it, because the actual main skyline is sparser and less extended than toronto's... but the los angeles skyline, when combined with the general clutter, traffic, expanse of lights etc., somehow signifies that this a city well beyond the likes of toronto.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how many Torontonians would consider Los Angeles to have a better skyline, excluding the CN Tower, which is not really that attractive to begin with.

LA has the taller office tower and has more buildings over 200 metres. In my experience, however, it looks much smaller than Toronto in person.

Put another way, I also wonder if people in Toronto would trade hundreds of 30 or 40 storey residential highrises and office towers for a single 300 metre hotel building. That is roughly equivalent to the relationship between the Niagara Falls and Halifax skylines.

A fair share of our fellow forumers would gladly depart with hundreds of 30 to 40 storey towers for a supertall hotel. Also, Los Angeles' skyline historically faired much than Toronto in the versus polls. Even now I suspect it would be faily even with so many of Toronto's future skyscrapers still holes in the ground.

[Nouvellecosse]

OMG! Hfx is blushing with all the attention.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

Speaking of ugly holes in the ground in Halifax, what's the story with that huge fenced-off pit along Argyle St? Anything planned for that spot?

Convention Centre (Nova Centre Hfx)
http://www.novacentre.ca/

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

last time i was down in LA, i was driving east on the 10 and thought the exact opposite. i'm not sure how it does it, because the actual main skyline is sparser and less extended than toronto's... but the los angeles skyline, when combined with the general clutter, traffic, expanse of lights etc., somehow signifies that this a city well beyond the likes of toronto.

I was only talking about the somewhat abstract skyline of downtown LA that you see in postcards, which is analogous to the view of Niagara Falls. Downtown LA feels smaller than downtown Toronto to me but serves a narrower purpose in an obviously larger city.

[koops65]

Downtown Toronto today, by me:
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[koops65]

Originally Posted by someone123

LA has the taller office tower and has more buildings over 200 metres.

Yes LA's tallest is 12 metres taller than TO's, but counting Built and U/C Toronto has 15 200+ metre towers and LA only has 11.

[defaultuser]

[davidivivid]

Well I guess this is the view where the Quebec skyline appears more dense.


http://www.francisvachon.com/blog/?s=skyline&x=0&y=0

All the new towers are being built in a newer district so in 5-10 years, Quebec will unfortunately have 2 seperate smaller "skylines" instead of a more vibrant one.

[Phil McAvity]

^Holy shit! Nice shot of QC! It actually has a good skyline from that angle because most pics i've seen of QC show it having a pretty weak skyline.

Originally Posted by kw5150

Once again, this turns into a ridiculous (shit throwing) debate. Calm down people.

Wow, paranoid much? I haven't seen one poster that even seemed slightly annoyed to me.

As for the discussion of height vs. other qualities that comprise a skyline, I believe that height is by far the biggest factor in determining the quality of a skyline which is why I think Niagara Falls is better than Halifax. There are other factors though, like groupings of buildings and quality of buildings. Those things are much more subjective though, thus they are much harder to measure. Height is the only factor of a skyline that can really be measured. I can understand why some people here think NF has a "tacky" skyline-because it is the closest thing to Las Vegas that Canada has, which means big hotels with little regard to aesthetics. When it comes to groupings of buildings, I think NF beats Halifax again because Halifax is too spread out. Groupings of buildings is also where Toronto falls down because the CBD is too concentrated. Los Angeles' skyline is spread out enough to look far more impressive to me, where Toronto seems to have jam packed all their tallest buildings into about 8 square blocks. There are city's that have the opposite problem of Toronto though, like Atlanta and Houston whose skylines are so spread out that they would look far better had they compacted them more.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

^Holy shit! Nice shot of QC! It actually has a good skyline from that angle because most pics i've seen of QC show it having a pretty weak skyline.



Wow, paranoid much? I haven't seen one poster that even seemed slightly annoyed to me.

As for the discussion of height vs. other qualities that comprise a skyline, I believe that height is by far the biggest factor in determining the quality of a skyline which is why I think Niagara Falls is better than Halifax. There are other factors though, like groupings of buildings and quality of buildings. Those things are much more subjective though, thus they are much harder to measure. Height is the only factor of a skyline that can really be measured. I can understand why some people here think NF has a "tacky" skyline-because it is the closest thing to Las Vegas that Canada has, which means big hotels with little regard to aesthetics. When it comes to groupings of buildings, I think NF beats Halifax again because Halifax is too spread out. Groupings of buildings is also where Toronto falls down because the CBD is too concentrated. Los Angeles' skyline is spread out enough to look far more impressive to me, where Toronto seems to have jam packed all their tallest buildings into about 8 square blocks. There are city's that have the opposite problem of Toronto though, like Atlanta and Houston whose skylines are so spread out that they would look far better had they compacted them more.

What about quantity of buildings?

[habfanman]

Originally Posted by defaultuser

Ah yes.. great 'clumpage', nothing going on past 6 pm!

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

^Holy shit! Nice shot of QC! It actually has a good skyline from that angle because most pics i've seen of QC show it having a pretty weak skyline.



Wow, paranoid much? I haven't seen one poster that even seemed slightly annoyed to me.

As for the discussion of height vs. other qualities that comprise a skyline, I believe that height is by far the biggest factor in determining the quality of a skyline which is why I think Niagara Falls is better than Halifax. There are other factors though, like groupings of buildings and quality of buildings. Those things are much more subjective though, thus they are much harder to measure. Height is the only factor of a skyline that can really be measured. I can understand why some people here think NF has a "tacky" skyline-because it is the closest thing to Las Vegas that Canada has, which means big hotels with little regard to aesthetics. When it comes to groupings of buildings, I think NF beats Halifax again because Halifax is too spread out. Groupings of buildings is also where Toronto falls down because the CBD is too concentrated. Los Angeles' skyline is spread out enough to look far more impressive to me, where Toronto seems to have jam packed all their tallest buildings into about 8 square blocks. There are city's that have the opposite problem of Toronto though, like Atlanta and Houston whose skylines are so spread out that they would look far better had they compacted them more.

If height is the determining factor in a skyline does NF beat Ottawa, Hamilton, Windsor, Quebec, Edmonton & Winnipeg? One of the issues with the NF skyline is that it is comprised mostly of hotels and you have to go to New York to see it.

[defaultuser]

Originally Posted by habfanman

Ah yes.. great 'clumpage', nothing going on past 6 pm!

Most normal people call that density. One could also call it jealousy on your part, but I digress.

How you can tell there's nothing going on downtown in this telephoto shot of strictly buildings is beyond me. Calgary's downtown vibrancy is improving all the time and if you haven't been in the core lately you'd be surprised how active it is, especially on a hot summer's night.

Anyway back to Calgary bashing....