Canadian Skyline Thread III

[Maldive]

You two get a room... and look at some skylines when you order room service.


Shot from Kipling Avenue (with new Etobicoke Civic Centre being excavated in the centre).


Tim MacDonald

[dleung]

Stumbled onto some gorgeous photography by Ian Kobylanski of the Vancouver region and suburban skylines here: (https://www.koby.photography/blog/20...lower-mainland)


https://www.koby.photography/blog/20...lower-mainland

https://www.koby.photography/blog/20...lower-mainland

https://www.koby.photography/blog/20...lower-mainland

https://www.koby.photography/blog/20...lower-mainland




A couple of downtown:






https://www.koby.photography/blog/20...lower-mainland

[MonctonRad]

Stunning!!!

[Coldrsx]

Some of the best shots I've seen of the GVRD.

[Harley613]

The lesser photographed end of Ottawa's 'Great Clump' tabletop skyline, the Byward Market. Height controls are applied in this area.

[IMG][/IMG]

[davidivivid]

Gorgeous Vancouver pics.

[905er]

I get so angry when I see new developments in the NATION'S CAPITAL for fucks sake, that are so low quality, uninspiring and stumpy af. That whole picture is Waterlooesque... it's unacceptable. Ottawa should be a showpiece of a city, and there's nothing in that picture that deserves to even exist ...ugh it's frustrating.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by 905er

I get so angry when I see new developments in the NATION'S CAPITAL for fucks sake, that are so low quality, uninspiring and stumpy af. That whole picture is Waterlooesque... it's unacceptable. Ottawa should be a showpiece of a city, and there's nothing in that picture that deserves to even exist ...ugh it's frustrating.

Somehow I feel we here in our little forum are complicit in this. For decades, we have eagerly awaited the passing of various population thresholds and the acquisition of things like "500-footers".

"This place has 11 million people and five supertalls".

The total reign of quantity. The faith that quantity alone would produce certain qualities.

A billion monkeys on a billion construction sites with the hope that they will build prewar Manhattan.

[ssiguy]

Those are fantastic shots of Vancouver from angles you don't often get. Thanks!

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by 905er

I get so angry when I see new developments in the NATION'S CAPITAL for fucks sake, that are so low quality, uninspiring and stumpy af. That whole picture is Waterlooesque... it's unacceptable. Ottawa should be a showpiece of a city, and there's nothing in that picture that deserves to even exist ...ugh it's frustrating.

People in Ottawa don't demand excellence..in fact, they don't demand anything at all. It's a NIMBY/BANANA city with no sense of style. Lowest bidder wins the race.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by 905er

I get so angry when I see new developments in the NATION'S CAPITAL for fucks sake, that are so low quality, uninspiring and stumpy af. That whole picture is Waterlooesque... it's unacceptable. Ottawa should be a showpiece of a city, and there's nothing in that picture that deserves to even exist ...ugh it's frustrating.

It's shocking how Ottawa can go from stunningly beautiful to total dreck in just 1 km. I doubt you're the only person frustrated and it's not due to Ottawa being too poor to afford attractive buildings. There are countless cities around the world far poorer where architectural standards are much higher. This comes down to the pragmatic bare bones culture that dominates most of Canada.

If Canadian consumers demanded nicer buildings, developers would have no choice but to try harder/design more attractive buildings. Ottawa (and other Canadian cities) get an endless stream of cheap depressing crap because a good chunk of of Canadians think they look fine and buy them.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Somehow I feel we here in our little forum are complicit in this. For decades, we have eagerly awaited the passing of various population thresholds and the acquisition of things like "500-footers".

"This place has 11 million people and five supertalls".

The total reign of quantity. The faith that quantity alone would produce certain qualities.

A billion monkeys on a billion construction sites with the hope that they will build prewar Manhattan.

I agree full stop. Too many times I find myself saying 'this is great for the area, adding more density and people to liven up this area!', but it's important that we are critical of new projects so they're addressing the area properly with good landscaping/street activation and are actually decent quality builds. Of course, its a bit subjective to say 'x,y and x is good quality because of this!', but there a certain precedent and understanding that should be at minimum made, like avoiding the EIFS/spandrel heavy blocks we see a lot of in some areas of our cities.

[Martin Mtl]

Image: https://www.instagram.com/sky.semijon.aerial/

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Somehow I feel we here in our little forum are complicit in this. For decades, we have eagerly awaited the passing of various population thresholds and the acquisition of things like "500-footers".

"This place has 11 million people and five supertalls".

The total reign of quantity. The faith that quantity alone would produce certain qualities.

A billion monkeys on a billion construction sites with the hope that they will build prewar Manhattan.

I find there's a lot of talk about building aesthetics here and people complaining about ones they find ugly. Some people more than others of course. lol

But I suspect it largely comes down to incentives. The main ways you can cause an area's architecture of be attractive overall are:

a) master plans like Haussmann's Paris which only works if the person or people doing the plan have taste that you like and enough power/control over the process to enforce it.
b) Heavily prescriptive planning such as requiring certain material, styles, colours, and other elements. And any requirements need to be compatible with the market in a capitalist society. If your requirements add too much cost then no one will build.
c) Independent entities who want to invest in aesthetics either for their reputation or some sense of civic good or duty.

Pre-war Manhattan would be a combination of the last two which a heavy emphasis on the 3rd. Corporations wanted the prestige of grand offices and were willing to fork over money to achieve it. And there were planning prescriptions like the set backs rule to allow sunlight. Today large corporations do sometimes spend extra to make a building beautiful but often there's a greater emphasis on cost and efficiency. Plus Ottawa doesn't have that many large corporations and the prevailing styles of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were generally more ornate. So it would be mostly down to the government to build stuff itself or to set prescriptions for architecture. For most democratic governments, building stuff themselves is now

[Gresto]

Ravishing colour saturation and contrast in that Montreal pic.

[J.OT13]

And it's not like rents or condo prices in Ottawa are cheaper to reflect the bare bones designs and materials. We are likely the third most expensive metro area in Canada.

[harls]

Come on Kool.. we want a 500 footer, you know you'd like it.

[rdaner]

I wonder what is going to happen to Ottawa’s height controls now that Bill 185 will be law next week?!

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But I suspect it largely comes down to incentives. The main ways you can cause an area's architecture of be attractive overall are:

a) master plans like Haussmann's Paris which only works if the person or people doing the plan have taste that you like and enough power/control over the process to enforce it.
b) Heavily prescriptive planning such as requiring certain material, styles, colours, and other elements. And any requirements need to be compatible with the market in a capitalist society. If your requirements add too much cost then no one will build.
c) Independent entities who want to invest in aesthetics either for their reputation or some sense of civic good or duty.

There's truth to this of course, but design isn't just an incentivized quality - it's a culturally ingrained one as well. And in the same way that aesthetics and style are just more deeply ingrained in some cultures than others, so too do some of them have a more advanced design culture.

This affects the entire development & architecture ecosystem, as at all levels - from developer to architect to end buyer - there's a higher taste level, and demand for good design. This subsequently affects market choices, as design is used to sell the product. Poor design becomes a liability to maximizing profit (less demand, so lower prices), so builders avoid building ugly buildings.

We can see how this plays out even just within Canada - the rules, incentives, and economics don't differ drastically from city to city; yet the median level of design quality certainly does.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by 905er

I get so angry when I see new developments in the NATION'S CAPITAL for fucks sake, that are so low quality, uninspiring and stumpy af. That whole picture is Waterlooesque... it's unacceptable. Ottawa should be a showpiece of a city, and there's nothing in that picture that deserves to even exist ...ugh it's frustrating.

The entire country has some of the worst modern architecture in the world, outside of Eastern Europe.