Canadian Skyline Thread III

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Personally I think heavily treed mid-density can provide the same thing and offers it to more people. And unless a city is predominantly higher density lowrise with everything being 2-4 story multi-unit like in parts of Europe or the eastern half of Montreal, there really needs to be mid-rises mixed in all across the city. It's the only practical way to have efficient land use and to make the city more interesting. I think people forget that higher density areas can be incredibly lush and green if done well. There just needs to be a road verge that's wide enough for mature trees, along with other landscaping like vines and shrubbery. And let's face it, tower-in-the-park developments can actually offer more ground-level space than single detached house areas.

To me, areas like these seem very lush and green despite not being low density.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/38auFoKeLkEQku7B7

https://maps.app.goo.gl/2NadbeEVPbi7KJAs8


https://maps.app.goo.gl/38auFoKeLkEQku7B7

A lot of those trees look pretty spindly by Vancouver standards. Also struck by the impermeability of so much of the landscape.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Secondly, it's folly to boil everything down to the most efficient use of land. There are intangibles one can't put a price tag on. We'd be making an irreversible mistake if we destroy our low density neighbourhoods in the name of some land efficiency equation or to satisfy people's obsession for all things European. Canadians fetishize Europe but the homogeneity of European cities can become monotonous and insipid quickly. Living in European cities is very different than visiting them for 3 weeks. I'd take Toronto's built form over that of Paris 7 days/week and it's not a close call.

When it comes to low density neighbourhoods, I sense lots of Canadians have become resentful, angry, and vindictive. They just want to bulldoze all of it. For some, if they can't have it, no one can. Low density neighbourhoods are absolutely a less efficient use of land but destroying them would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. We can absolutely have the best of both worlds: medium/high density TOD but also (unlike many European cities) a bucolic break from it every 2-3 km.

The juxtaposition of high density with low density is a wonderful thing, a breath of fresh air, and a blessing. Hopefully, Canadians wake up to that before they destroy what they have. I'm not hopeful though. Canadians are famously self-deprecating and often blind to what they have.

It's funny that you repeatedly fetishize about record-breaking population growth for Canada, and yet you turn all NIMBY by blaming Canadians for being "resentful, angry and vindictive", then hyperbole about Canadians wanting to bulldoze all low density neighbourhoods. In reality, the yellow belt still makes up the overwhelming majority of land use in the City of Toronto area code alone, and most of the 416 is unquestionably low density. Even with the recent bylaw changes, the extreme low density (by global standards ex USA) of the City of Toronto will remain unchanged for generations to come. Most young Canadians and newcomers will be forced onto isolated islands of density and supertall skyscrapers to protect the integrity of these swaths of low density suburbs.

Originally Posted by koops65

This is just your personal opinion... I would expect millions of Canadians to disagree, including myself.

Then what is the Canadian consensus for the most aesthetically pleasing and vibrant urban neighbourhood in this country?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by whatnext

A lot of those trees look pretty spindly by Vancouver standards. Also struck by the impermeability of so much of the landscape.

Yes that's true. But if you look at areas of Greater MTL that are dominated by detached housing the trees don't look any bigger. So it might partly just be down to the difference in climate. It's easier for trees to grow faster and larger in damp temperate areas with shorter winters. With permeability, the areas where people live tend to be less permeable but that is more than offset by the lower total amount of land people occupy. When you occupy less land, there can be more undeveloped land on the edges of town or in parks that are much more permeable. Plus, it tends to be easier to have green roofs on multi-family buildings than on detached houses. And areas that encourage greater rates of walking and transit can get by with narrower streets making for a lower pavement to people ratio. Not suggesting Vancouver isn't strong in these areas, just comparing individual neighbourhood types.

The book "Green Metropolis" by David Owen (particularly the chapter "More like Manhattan) really breaks down how the way an area looks can be very deceptive in terms of its overall environmental impact. Low density nabes with lots of open space and greenery tend to be much worse for the environment than dense areas with little nature. But of course, nabes with both greenery and density will always be the best in that regard.

[megadude]

From a CBRE report.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Then what is the Canadian consensus for the most aesthetically pleasing and vibrant urban neighbourhood in this country?

You will NEVER get a consensus about that... there are too many differing opinions.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Then what is the Canadian consensus for the most aesthetically pleasing and vibrant urban neighbourhood in this country?

I know a lot of people will disagree because there’s just a lot of east coasters who disagree anytime Vancouver is brought up but I would say the West End. It’s the densest neighbourhood in Canada. Probably the most aesthetically pleasing, with a wide array of architecture styles (Sylvia Hotel >> the Butterfly), home to the countries largest urban park, Stanley Park, and one of the best urban beaches in the Country, English Bay.

However, this topic is probably best for another thread

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I know a lot of people will disagree because there’s just a lot of east coasters who disagree anytime Vancouver is brought up but I would say the West End. It’s the densest neighbourhood in Canada. Probably the most aesthetically pleasing, with a wide array of architecture styles (Sylvia Hotel >> the Butterfly), home to the countries largest urban park, Stanley Park, and one of the best urban beaches in the Country, English Bay.

However, this topic is probably best for another thread

Agreed the West End is probably the best neighbourhood in Vancouver, at least until Broadway can catch-up. The natural setting is unbeatable, and generally it's a showcase neighbourhood to bring tourists.

For me the biggest let down is the retail vibrancy of the area, and the lack of street vibrancy and foot traffic once you step away from English Bay and the seawall. Maybe because it's not particularly close to a Skytrain station, but the few retail strips along Denman and Davie are a bit run down. Robson is somewhat decent but it's still really quiet especially after sundown. After nearing getting assaulted by drug addicts last year near Davie and Bute, we've been sticking to Pacific/Beach when walking around town.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In my experience, unless the architecture is particularly interesting or historic, SFH areas do not feel interesting or welcoming. There's often nothing there for the outsider since they tend to be zoned strictly for residential uses and the buildings are often too far apart and/or set back too far from the street to make them very interesting to a pedestrian. So the only ones who can really enjoy them are the immediate residents. In contrast, if you inject some higher density developments such as midrises into such areas, not only does it make the areas more varied (with variety being a goal I agree with) but it allows more people to enjoy the bucolic atmosphere. Currently, multi-unit dwellers are often all forced into busy areas they may not want. Plus the ground floor of higher density developments make a natural place for other amenities and services allowing the area to be more walkable for everyone.

Agreed. Most of midtown Toronto is littered with SFH neighbourhoods, and frankly they're really underwhelming to spend time in. These streetcar suburbs are still a significant step up from the suburban hellscape of the 905 and outer 416, but the only real vibrancy of these Midtown SFH neighbourhoods is the road congestion they're clogged with.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by isaidso

When it comes to low density neighbourhoods, I sense lots of Canadians have become resentful, angry, and vindictive. They just want to bulldoze all of it. For some, if they can't have it, no one can. Low density neighbourhoods are absolutely a less efficient use of land but destroying them would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. We can absolutely have the best of both worlds: medium/high density TOD but also (unlike many European cities) a bucolic break from it every 2-3 km.

The juxtaposition of high density with low density is a wonderful thing, a breath of fresh air, and a blessing. Hopefully, Canadians wake up to that before they destroy what they have. I'm not hopeful though. Canadians are famously self-deprecating and often blind to what they have.

In theory, I agree - a great city should have a variety of urban typologies and housing types to cater to all types of people and lifestyles. As much as I enjoy a dense city centre or vibrant high street, I also love the respite of being able to turn onto a quiet, leafy residential street. As I've gotten older, that's also become a much more appealing lifestyle.

The problem we have though is that those quiet, leafy residential streets have become exclusive and unattainable to all but a privileged few. The "yellow belt" in Toronto or Vancouver house a shrinking & increasingly wealthy minority of their citizens while occupying the vast majority of land area. Meanwhile, the growing majority (and vast majority of younger or newer residents) are crammed into increasingly small apartments in denser and more crowded clusters.

It's no longer a case of "choice" so much as it has become economic segregation in built form and a visible symbol of our growing inequality.

Anyway, you're right that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and demolish attractive lower-density neighbourhoods for more anodyne condo towers; but we absolutely do need to permit more gentle intensification (low/mid-rise apartments, laneway houses & garden suites) within in them to make them attainable for more than just the "landed gentry".

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I know a lot of people will disagree because there’s just a lot of east coasters who disagree anytime Vancouver is brought up but I would say the West End. It’s the densest neighbourhood in Canada. Probably the most aesthetically pleasing, with a wide array of architecture styles (Sylvia Hotel >> the Butterfly), home to the countries largest urban park, Stanley Park, and one of the best urban beaches in the Country, English Bay.

"Neighbourhood" is a pretty nebulous concept and certainly open for debate - eg. Yaletown is likely even denser than the West End, but it's not an officially defined neighbourhood by the City.

The City of Toronto meanwhile has much smaller defined neighbourhoods, so unsurprisingly several of them exceed the West End's density of 23,000/sqkm, like North St. James Town at 44,321/sqkm, Church-Wellesley at 32,684/sqkm, North Toronto at 27,778/sqkm. The most densely populated "official" neighbourhood in Canada might just be in North York though: the Yonge-Doris neighbourhood has a density of 45,824/sqkm. It only has about half the population of the West End though.

[kool maudit]

Before the rest, I like urban Canada and don't think it needs to be drastically different than what it is. It does not need to mimic anywhere else.

That said, European cities aren't just walls of stone without respite. This is a weird characterization. The 6-7 floor block-and-courtyard areas being described here are roughly analogous to the skyscraper cores and adjacent inner rowhouse neighbourhoods of the older North American cities, with Paris being Manhattan -- an extreme outlier.

These areas peter out into areas of smaller buildings and single-family homes in the same way that NA cores do. Europeans do not consider their cities to be oppressive concrete jungles because they're not. Ironically, they might picture North American cities to be this way based on half-recalled experiences at convention centres and rental car drop-offs, which they would then contrast to their comfy neighborhood lives at home.

If you don't like this:



You are probably not very far from this:





Paris is a very, very large city, and isn't all that representative.

[niwell]

The "bulldoze everything in central Toronto (or Vancouver)" crowd goes way too far but there's certainly a ton of room for gentle intensification in these areas as noted above. I can't speak for Van but the older central Toronto neighbourhoods already include a healthy mix of small SFHs/semis, "houses" containing multiple apartments, small walkup apartment buildings and some larger projects generally built either in 70s or recent years. You could add more without really changing the feel or character of things, as evidenced by the small projects the do get approved and fly completely under the radar. IIRC South Parkdale has a density of over 15,000 people per square km if you cut out the big swath of lakeshore / beach west to Humber that's included in official statistics. These types of urban neighbourhoods are my ideal but the more we force all growth into new tower nodes they get increasingly expensive and existing multifamily houses are at risk of conversion into SFHs only available to the extremely wealthy.

Interestingly while this has happened to a degree you can generally still find rentals in old houses cheaper than in new condos. And there's a surprising amount of multiplex conversions and laneway houses being done right now. But they're almost impossible to buy in if you want that stability.

There's plenty of neighbourhoods in the 416 that could see *significant* intensification without towers to bring them more inline with what I've described above. As it stands you're much more likely to see an old bungalow demolished for a 3,000 sq ft setback maximizing block than a 4-unit building.

Massive speculatively driven towers in small designated areas is probably one of worst ways to accommodate both growth and affordability if we were really serious about it. A 60 storey small footprint building is less efficient from this perspective than many other forms of housing. Of course in addition to our other problems we would need to decouple housing/land from the investment vehicle it's become.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by niwell

The "bulldoze everything in central Toronto (or Vancouver)" crowd goes way too far but there's certainly a ton of room for gentle intensification in these areas as noted above. I can't speak for Van but the older central Toronto neighbourhoods already include a healthy mix of small SFHs/semis, "houses" containing multiple apartments, small walkup apartment buildings and some larger projects generally built either in 70s or recent years. You could add more without really changing the feel or character of things, as evidenced by the small projects the do get approved and fly completely under the radar. IIRC South Parkdale has a density of over 15,000 people per square km if you cut out the big swath of lakeshore / beach west to Humber that's included in official statistics. These types of urban neighbourhoods are my ideal but the more we force all growth into new tower nodes they get increasingly expensive and existing multifamily houses are at risk of conversion into SFHs only available to the extremely wealthy.

Interestingly while this has happened to a degree you can generally still find rentals in old houses cheaper than in new condos. And there's a surprising amount of multiplex conversions and laneway houses being done right now. But they're almost impossible to buy in if you want that stability.

There's plenty of neighbourhoods in the 416 that could see *significant* intensification without towers to bring them more inline with what I've described above. As it stands you're much more likely to see an old bungalow demolished for a 3,000 sq ft setback maximizing block than a 4-unit building.

Massive speculatively driven towers in small designated areas is probably one of worst ways to accommodate both growth and affordability if we were really serious about it. A 60 storey small footprint building is less efficient from this perspective than many other forms of housing. Of course in addition to our other problems we would need to decouple housing/land from the investment vehicle it's become.

For sure all great points. What's frustrating is that on one hand, you'll see people who oppose change in "established" neighbourhoods fighting basically any change including tiny stuff that to a reasonable person is barely noticeable. Say, allowing basement units or duplexes in a SFH detached area. This shows that many of them view basically any change as bad and falling under the category of "destroying the character." But then when someone more sensible comes along and says, "Hey, change is ok and we need to balance different priorities. Just because the current feel of the area is good doesn't mean slightly altered feel can't be good too." Well then people characterize that as wanting to destroy and replace the entire area when clearly that's not what the statement was in response to. It's a type of motte-and-bailey fallacy. The true argument they're making is the unreasonable, "Don't let anyone change anything" but then when that's challenged, they retreat to the reasonable, much easier to defend argument of "Let's not bulldoze everything".

Then once they successfully frame the choice as being between no change and complete transformation, then the actual important question of how much change there should be never really happens. How can it when the only options are "nothing and everything"?

[Coldrsx]

Pro.N on SRC
https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/f...4#post-2088779

[koops65]

Finally... an actual skyline.

[Calgarian]

So is Ice District fully built out now?

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

So is Ice District fully built out now?

Nope.

There is still a planned tower (was resi, then CWB HQ, now going back to rest on the west side above the podium.

The corner you see in the bottom right in the photo is to have a 'signature' tower in the future, but that's market driven so 10 yrs out.

Then phase 2 has a few thousand units and is still in flux, but will see housing, retail, potential centre of sports excellence etc.

I suspect that is 10-25yrs out.

[J.OT13]

For some reason, I always thought ICE District was a few blocks disconnected from Downtown. That pic (post 1233) shows how it really is well integrated, a continuation of Downtown.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

For some reason, I always thought ICE District was a few blocks disconnected from Downtown. That pic (post 1233) shows how it really is well integrated, a continuation of Downtown.

Yup, it is directly connected and a continuation from the CBD.

[Calgarian]

Oh wow, lots left to do in Ice District!

[Coldrsx]

Indeed, but the key pieces are all there and it feels pretty cool in the plaza now.