The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[Acajack]

Montreal's skyline has its fans but let's face it, it is not a city renowned for its skyline. The city's charm lies elsewhere. I don't think I would trade away the city's other attributes for a better skyline.

[Metro-One]

I find Montreal's skyline the most difficult to pin down in Canada. In some photos (angles) it look massive and amazing, then in other photos (angles) it looks quite dreary and smaller than one would expect for the population. I feel its largest draw back is it seems to have a lot of grey tones.

[Martin Mtl]

Montreal is famous for its grey stones. Almost every historic buildings, old Montreal, victorian houses (they are call "greystones" here) are made with local grey stones. It is true that the city strongly encourages contemporary architects to use grey stones or newer material that imitates grey stones (see the under construction Roccabella). If one doesn't like grey stones, then Montreal is indeed a lost cause for them.

I find that the skyline of Montreal is more impressive in person than on pictures. But maybe that´s true of any skyline. The fact that it is very spread out make it difficult to register much on one single pic, like Calgary for sure. Oh well, what can you do ? Our tallest are all from the international (PVM, CIBC, Tour de la Bourse) or pomo period (1000), so of course our skyline looks dated. But this is about to change though. That being said, I'm not so sure a dozen blue/green glass cuttie cutter towers a la Vancouver would make Montreal looks better. It would (or will ?) make it look more generic I think.

To me, this looks like it could be Canada's second city.


Picture by by Antoine Coallier on Flickr

A few others by the same photographer:


Picture by Antoine Coallier on Flickr


Picture by Antoine Coallier on Flickr


Picture by Paul Ei on Flickr

[Metro-One]

They might, again, just too grey for my taste. Many of Montreal's buildings alone are fantastic, but together they seem to take away from one and other.

Also all these table top, cookie cutter comments about Vancouver seem to reflect a Vancouver via the year 2000.

Over the last 10 years Vancouver's skyline has become far more interesting, punctuated, and taller.

But that is thing about stigmas, they take forever to shake.

[Acajack]

Montreal's skyline looks very gap-toothed from most angles. This is a liability these days and the other big skylines in Canada are much tighter.

But as I said it probably has, for my taste, the best collection of good-looking buildings in the country.

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by TownGuy

Which is the 2nd largest city in Canada? No outsider would guess the picture at the bottom.


Warm AM Light by Rodrick Dale, on Flickr


http://www.avision.ca/sizeA-massive-...vision.ca.html


http://www.avision.ca/sizeA-massive-...vision.ca.html



I know you can find different angles, etc. Toronto's pic isn't 100% flattering in its own right.

I would argue the Calgary and Vancouver shots are them at their very best. The angle is perfect, the editing, the setting, etc. The Toronto and Montreal shots are not at their best whatsoever. To compare fairly, put in the Montreal panorama pic from the top of Mount Royal with the buildings lit up in the evening. The Toronto one should be taken from the money spot on the island where Cityplace merges with Southcore which merges with the financial district to create an epic long skyline or from etibicoke lakeshore where you can see Aura down to the finance district. I'm just saying you are taking two money shots and comparing them to mediocre angles with less talented editing techniques. The Toronto one is simply not a flattering angle.

[caltrane74]

That angle of the Toronto, skyline will get better. Lots of big massive towers going up, gaps will be filled, new peaks created.

[Delirium]

Photo by David Malsen https://www.flickr.com/photos/634286...70378/sizes/h/

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Montreal's skyline looks very gap-toothed from most angles. This is a liability these days and the other big skylines in Canada are much tighter.

Those gaps are part of why I like it. You can see so many buildings from so many angles. They all get a degree of presence. Now Quebec City is sparse enough it starts to be an issue, but you don't want to end up like Ottawa where most of the buildings are totally hidden at all times.

[lio45]

If we take this sample of what we have on this very page (hopefully those shots are relatively apples-to-apples) ...

I wonder if people in other sections of the forum could mostly get 2nd city / 3rd city right, or reversed, if we blind-polled them?

Not that I care that much, and I won't be doing this exercise myself (I find it a bit pointless).

(But I have to say I kinda have to react to people saying it has nothing going for it except "old architecture", as if the quality and style of a city's skyscrapers were completely irrelevant factors when considering how nice (or not) the bunch of that city's skyscrapers together seen from afar looks like.)

Originally Posted by Delirium

Photo by David Malsen https://www.flickr.com/photos/634286...70378/sizes/h/

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Picture by by Antoine Coallier on Flickr

[Boris2k7]

Would be nice if Montreal could get another big guy to the north/east of Tour de la Bourse. Stick it on the corner of Rue de Bleury and Avenue Viger (kitty corner to Palais des Congrès).

[Martin Mtl]

Yes, a tower just north of Tour de la Bourse would have an incredible impact.

As for the impression of "bigness" of the city, I would argue that the fact that Montreal's core is surrounded by tightly packed mid rises and then miles and miles of triplexes gives an impression of "big city" much more than a core that stops abruptly and is then surrounded by single family home. We see that a lot in the US in cities that are actually bigger or as big as Montreal. Just look at the Denver photo thread in the "my city photo" section. The city looks minuscule.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Yes, a tower just north of Tour de la Bourse would have an incredible impact.

As for the impression of "bigness" of the city, I would argue that the fact that Montreal's core is surrounded by tightly packed mid rises and then miles and miles of triplexes gives an impression of "big city" much more than a core that stops abruptly and is then surrounded by single family home. We see that a lot in the US in cities that are actually bigger or as big as Montreal. Just look at the Denver photo thread in the "my city photo" section. The city looks minuscule.

Denver metro pop is 2.5M, 600k for the city, like Vancouver.

[FrAnKs]

Looking at the Denver thread, and I start to think that Canadian cities punch over their sizes in matter of Skyline compared to US.
Do you think it's true, or it varies ?

.. just think about Los Angeles.

[1overcosc]

Los Angeles punches way under its weight given how big it is, in pretty much everything urban.

But the same thing is true about places like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc. So yes, I have to agree.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

Looking at the Denver thread, and I start to think that Canadian cities punch over their sizes in matter of Skyline compared to US.
Do you think it's true, or it varies ?

.. just think about Los Angeles.

Totally true. Just look at St. Louis, Detroit and Cleveland.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Montreal's skyline has its fans but let's face it, it is not a city renowned for its skyline. The city's charm lies elsewhere. I don't think I would trade away the city's other attributes for a better skyline.

These aren't mutually exclusive. Having more (and taller) skyscrapers wouldn't take away from Montreal's charm. It would still have all that, plus a more filled-in downtown and a more impressive skyline.

[Trans Canada]

Looking only at the downtown core I could picture Vancouver 2nd, Calgary 3rd, Montreal 4th, just based on towers. But if you get any perspective you see that Calgary's towers are surrounded by nothing, and Montreal has miles and miles of density. If you see what is surrounding the central area, Calgary looks like a city in a field whereas Montreal looks like a huge urban area reminiscent of New York.

I find this photo impressive not for the towers but for everything in front of them


Vue sur Montréal by Antoine Coallier, on Flickr

(the towers are cool though, I think PVM, CIBC, Bourse, and 1000 are all among the best in Canada)

[Razor]

Here I just quickly did up some interesting You Tube fly -overs for every-one. (did I break any rules for posting you tube??)

Some are just quick fly -overs, and I never searched for the "best of", because I'm sure every city below has better examples.

Not in order just check out each link I guess

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWTyx2IvuJA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ExREl4fAyM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDNmO7-1WgI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNC4laMq15A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl7UJ2-LlAc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ShhkqqZ24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ_h7fUzpaY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-n18tgwDrE

I still hold to my opinion that (basing it strongly on back drop scenery), Vancouver has the best skyline..IMO I got it right when I placed Toronto second, followed by Montreal, and then Calgary..Giving some growth time, Calgary will have an amazing over-all skyline..It just doesn't have the depth that those money shots allude it to having..
Edmonton's and Winnipeg's will be great too given some time..Ottawa will always be Ottawa.

[Boris2k7]

Compare Calgary to Oklahoma City. The two have metro populations (that's metro, not CSA) of close to equal size. World of difference. Same deal with Edmonton and OKC, but the difference there is more minor (though Edmonton will vault ahead of current proposals get built).

Which is bigger?


OKLAHOMA CITY by .Kayne., on Flickr


Reflective by WherezJeff, on Flickr