The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Looking forward to this! Montreal has a great skyline, it just looks stuck in the 1990's. Montreal has better bones than any other city by far, it just needs to add some muscle to go along with it.

Exactly.

St. James Church, Montreal by hm.pix, on Flickr

[ssiguy]

One thing I really like about Calgary's skyline that Toronto and Vancouver lack it that many of the newer buildings have quite unique designs and equally important, colour.

In Toronto and Vancouver everything built in the last 20 years has had one thing in common.....they are all blue glass. The blue glass of this age have become the new concrete bunkers of the 60s. Toronto's Southcore looks more like a solid wall than it does a bunch of individual buildings.........blue glass and nothing but. Vancouver at least has either blue or green glass. Not much of an improvement but still better than Toronto's monotony. Conversely, Vancouver buildings are all the same height and same size footprint making the colours the only thing distinguishing one from the other.

Calgary has new skyline but has not fallen in this trap. It has many varieties of styles and lots of different colours even in it's new buildings. This is a good chunk of the reason why Calgary's skyline is so dramatic..........not only does it have height but also variety. You can actually see the different buildings as opposed to Vancouver and Toronto where everything built in the last 20 years is more like a big blob of glass.

Montreal's skyline is similar in this way to Calgary's. Much older of course but you don't have this numbing blue glass wall that makes the skyline look unappealing and sterile.

Variety is the spice of life and that saying is equally true of skylines.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I just ran some random stats through my skyline rater. Of the following cities, picked scientifically by my own choice, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Ottawa, Hamilton, the worst skyline goes to:

Hamilton

It's not even close. Lack of height, lack of variance in heights, lack of anything architecturally interesting. Even with Ottawa's lack of height variance, having Place Export Canada, the Lithwick Building, and Parliament Centre Block save it from Hamilton's fate.

Does the Pigott Building not count for anything? Plus Hamilton has more height than Ottawa with Landmark place, standing on par with Quebec City or Winnipeg for tallest. (Plus should Place Export Canada count against Ottawa not for it?)

There are things to critique Hamilton on and I don't mind some folks not liking it, but those are three points where Hamilton trumps or at least ties Ottawa. Numbers, street wall, age, those can all work, but not height and variance go to Hamilton.

[Monolith]

Nightscape by Clayton Perry, on Flickr Taken on May 2, 2015


The Lights Of Lotusland by Clayton Perry, on Flickr Taken on May 2, 2015

[Harrij]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^5 buildings in their top-twenty-five height wise are currently under construction and a couple more proposed in Montreal. While nothing in the tallest, L'Avenue and Tour Avenue des Canadiens are both 170m+. Should be fun to see a bit of filling in over the next while.

It's going to be fun seeing Edmonton get brawnier and have a crazy height pinnacle with Stantec, Delta, and the COE building all pushing the skyline to the North.

Edmonton's weird in that it kind of stands alone in terms of its height and density combination below the big four, and above the rest (Ottawa, Winnipeg, Hamilton). While it won't close the gap much on the more grand skylines, it should be able to solidify it's spot as number five for a long time with the new additions.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Does the Pigott Building not count for anything? Plus Hamilton has more height than Ottawa with Landmark place, standing on par with Quebec City or Winnipeg for tallest. (Plus should Place Export Canada count against Ottawa not for it?)

There are things to critique Hamilton on and I don't mind some folks not liking it, but those are three points where Hamilton trumps or at least ties Ottawa. Numbers, street wall, age, those can all work, but not height and variance go to Hamilton.

I don't think you understand the joke part of my post. Despite the laughing smiley.

As almost anyone on this board knows, I respect the bones of every city and Hamilton has an awful lot of good in it. As well as a pretty respectable skyline from a height and variance standpoint.

My ha ha study gave points with respect to height of tallest building. Hamilton scored 4.26/10 and Ottawa scored 3.66/10. Variance in heights (giving some definition and not a table-top skyline) over the top 25 buildings in height on the diagram page, Hamilton annihilated Ottawa 4.34 to 2.13. As well, I picked out how many interesting and not ugly buildings there were in the same top 25 buildings for another out of ten score. There was the rub for Hamilton as I gave Hamilton a 0 and Ottawa scored a 4.29 there. Place Export made my list of interesting for its comic-book aesthetic. It's completely subjective and flawed, but arguing about aesthetics is wrong in the first place. Which is why quantifying it makes me laugh and I had to do it.

This study only counted completed buildings, not under construction ones.

[Chadillaccc]

The desolation of Chinook Season...


Calgary Friday by John Andersen (JPAndersen images), on Flickr

[Mrs Sauga]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

Okay this is just hilarious. CIBC tower is okay but would just be another office tower among the many in Toronto's CBD. PVM is ugly as sin.

CIBC is not "OK".. its stunning!

But Scotia Plaza, Royal Bank Plaza, and TD Centre are all better or at least on par.

[G.S MTL]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Exactly.

St. James Church, Montreal by hm.pix, on Flickr

Gorgeous ! Nothing like it ! Love it!

[Mrs Sauga]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

One thing I really like about Calgary's skyline that Toronto and Vancouver lack it that many of the newer buildings have quite unique designs and equally important, colour.

In Toronto and Vancouver everything built in the last 20 years has had one thing in common.....they are all blue glass. The blue glass of this age have become the new concrete bunkers of the 60s. Toronto's Southcore looks more like a solid wall than it does a bunch of individual buildings.........blue glass and nothing but. Vancouver at least has either blue or green glass. Not much of an improvement but still better than Toronto's monotony. Conversely, Vancouver buildings are all the same height and same size footprint making the colours the only thing distinguishing one from the other.

Calgary has new skyline but has not fallen in this trap. It has many varieties of styles and lots of different colours even in it's new buildings. This is a good chunk of the reason why Calgary's skyline is so dramatic..........not only does it have height but also variety. You can actually see the different buildings as opposed to Vancouver and Toronto where everything built in the last 20 years is more like a big blob of glass.

Montreal's skyline is similar in this way to Calgary's. Much older of course but you don't have this numbing blue glass wall that makes the skyline look unappealing and sterile.

Variety is the spice of life and that saying is equally true of skylines.

I don't think Toronto should be grouped with Vancouver. Vancouver is basically ALL blue/green condos. Toronto still has a ton of office towers and commie blocks to help balance out the glass. Its really just the waterfront and cityplace that are dominated by that glass but everywhere else is basically Montreal-like variety.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

CIBC is not "OK".. its stunning!

But Scotia Plaza, Royal Bank Plaza, and TD Centre are all better or at least on par.

I remember going to TO a couple years ago (2011 I reckon) and being stunned by Royal Bank Plaza.

TD Centre is just a Mies van der Rohe beauty like Westmount Square and 330 North Wabash in Chicago.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

I don't think Toronto should be grouped with Vancouver. Vancouver is basically ALL blue/green condos. Toronto still has a ton of office towers and commie blocks to help balance out the glass. Its really just the waterfront and cityplace that are dominated by that glass but everywhere else is basically Montreal-like variety.

Don't you think that the North shore mountains balance things out for Vancouver? Other features that balance things out are the ocean that surrounds dt Vancouver, and a bridge that leads in to downtown. Stanley Park adds some diversity as well. There's actually way more variety to Vancouver's skyline than most cities.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by logan5

there's actually way more variety to vancouver's setting than most cities.

ftfy

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I don't think you understand the joke part of my post. Despite the laughing smiley.

As almost anyone on this board knows, I respect the bones of every city and Hamilton has an awful lot of good in it. As well as a pretty respectable skyline from a height and variance standpoint.

My ha ha study gave points with respect to height of tallest building. Hamilton scored 4.26/10 and Ottawa scored 3.66/10. Variance in heights (giving some definition and not a table-top skyline) over the top 25 buildings in height on the diagram page, Hamilton annihilated Ottawa 4.34 to 2.13. As well, I picked out how many interesting and not ugly buildings there were in the same top 25 buildings for another out of ten score. There was the rub for Hamilton as I gave Hamilton a 0 and Ottawa scored a 4.29 there. Place Export made my list of interesting for its comic-book aesthetic. It's completely subjective and flawed, but arguing about aesthetics is wrong in the first place. Which is why quantifying it makes me laugh and I had to do it.

This study only counted completed buildings, not under construction ones.

I could tell it was meant in good spirits, and I don't mind Hamilton getting teased as long as it's relevant/accurate. I just guess I misread something in how you were poking fun.

[Mrs Sauga]

Originally Posted by logan5

Don't you think that the North shore mountains balance things out for Vancouver? Other features that balance things out are the ocean that surrounds dt Vancouver, and a bridge that leads in to downtown. Stanley Park adds some diversity as well. There's actually way more variety to Vancouver's skyline than most cities.

I don't consider mountains or parks as part of the skyline. The setting helps make Vancouver skyline shots much more photogenic and pretty for sure, but I still find its actual skyline to be quite ugly to be honest. Still one of the top 4 in Canada though.

[logan5]

Parks and water I can see not being considered part of the skyline, but how can mountains not be considered part of the skyline? Every list that ranks skylines - Seattle or Rio or wherever, mentions mountains that add to their skyline. Mountains fit the very definition of a skyline. When matched with a dense cityscape, it's a combination that's hard to beat.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by craner

Trump Van looks to have topped out - is that the case? I like how it's "turning" out (pardon the pun).

Yep, topped out. It looks fantastic in real life. From some angles it pairs with Shangri-La to become Vancouver's twin towers.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

I don't think Toronto should be grouped with Vancouver. Vancouver is basically ALL blue/green condos. Toronto still has a ton of office towers and commie blocks to help balance out the glass. Its really just the waterfront and cityplace that are dominated by that glass but everywhere else is basically Montreal-like variety.

Bull...shit....

Vancouver is only blue / green glass when viewed directly from the south.

Vancouver also still has "a ton of office towers" in is core, probably similar in relative size to its downtown as Toronto's.

Then there is the West End of downtown, all 60's / 70's style concrete residential towers which make the city look like it is in South America when viewed from the west.

Then there are the old bones of Gastown / China Town. Van has been mistaken by some here for a moment as being Montreal when viewed from the Northeast.

You can discount natural setting from the skyline but port facilities (cranes) and bridges do count as skyline aspects and they add very interesting textures, both aspects that Toronto and Calgary lack but Van, Montreal, and Halifax have (adding a lot of character IMO).

The skyline thread sure turned into a Canada wide city vs. city thread, but after reading this comment I thought, I may as well join in too.

[Beedok]

Thunder Bay has the most skylines per capita, so there! /Thread

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Mrs Sauga

I don't think Toronto should be grouped with Vancouver. Vancouver is basically ALL blue/green condos. Toronto still has a ton of office towers and commie blocks to help balance out the glass. Its really just the waterfront and cityplace that are dominated by that glass but everywhere else is basically Montreal-like variety.

I don't think you have ever been to Vancouver. If this is not variety, then what is?