Vancouver Photography - Page 37

vanman · #**721** Posted **Jun 19, 2008, 3:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by northwest2k

Ughh our skylines sucks

Compared to what exactly.

eduardo88 · #**722** Posted **Jun 19, 2008, 6:17 PM**

Sinclair Centre (actually taken about 5 years ago)

northwest2k · #**723** Posted **Jun 19, 2008, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by canucks23

^ Are you serious? Sure it might not be Chicago or NewYork, but its something!

Not enough height on our buildings. And way to many bland looking condos. I'm not a fan.

sono65 · #**724** Posted **Jun 19, 2008, 9:12 PM**

Dude, don't be such a downer. Our skyline is up and coming.

agrant · #**725** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 12:05 AM**

"And way to many bland looking condos" <<< Not really a fair comment. 99% of condos in the world are as bland as the ones in Vancouver.

northwest2k · #**726** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 1:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by agrant

"And way to many bland looking condos" <<< Not really a fair comment. 99% of condos in the world are as bland as the ones in Vancouver.

Yes but we have way to many of them

AlexYVR · #**727** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 1:31 AM**

Better than not having enough!

northwest2k · #**728** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

Better than not having enough!

How so? Prime real estate in our downtown core has been given to cheap, short, bland looking condos. Our skyline has been over run with them. IMO not having enough would be better. Not having any would be the best.

AlexYVR · #**729** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 1:54 AM**

Because all those 'short, bland' condos are what give Vancouver its unique appeal - a population that both lives and works (to some extent) downtown. Certainly more so than most other cities in the world. Say what you want about the architecture - which, you're right, is for the most part bland - but there is no faulting the logic. Not to mention that the city's allowance of all those short, bland CP condos resulted in a city with the 2nd or 3rd most percentage of green space in North America. . .the list goes on

northwest2k · #**730** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

Because all those 'short, bland' condos are what give Vancouver its unique appeal - a population that both lives and works (to some extent) downtown. Certainly more so than most other cities in the world. Say what you want about the architecture - which, you're right, is for the most part bland - but there is no faulting the logic. Not to mention that the city's allowance of all those short, bland CP condos resulted in a city with the 2nd or 3rd most percentage of green space in North America. . .the list goes on

I'm just talking about the skyline though. That was my original comment. IMO it's not visually appealing. I much rather prefer our neighbour's skylines (Calgary and Seattle).

AlexYVR · #**731** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 2:08 AM**

For purely aesthetic reasons, yes - but then that's not really the point of a skyline, is it? I'd rather have something functional and ugly, especially since the endless sea of medium-green does do such a good job of highlighting our stunners (One Wall, RC when it arrives). As tired as it is, I also like to let the mountains do the talking.

Hong Kongese · #**732** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 2:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by northwest2k

Not enough height on our buildings.

I agreed with you on this one!

northwest2k · #**733** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 3:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

For purely aesthetic reasons, yes - but then that's not really the point of a skyline, is it? I'd rather have something functional and ugly, especially since the endless sea of medium-green does do such a good job of highlighting our stunners (One Wall, RC when it arrives). As tired as it is, I also like to let the mountains do the talking.

All I'm saying is our skyline sucks