Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

It's not every day that a novel vantage point opens up on a major Canadian city... I love it. Great photos.

90's/2000's Halifax was strange as far as having many potential destinations like this that were closed off. Another example I can think of is that the Public Gardens used to be closed from around Nov-April. If you questioned it circa 2005 people would list all kinds of reasons why a park should obviously be closed during that period. Now it is mostly open year-round.

The main square in town was also used as a parking lot until sometime in the early 2000's. Half of the legislature grounds (which are quite small and old, so it's very noticeable) still are, pending the construction of underground parking for the MLAs. Province House is 250 m away from a large parkade.

Halifax is also a city with lots of obvious missing infrastructure, roads that abruptly end and could connect up with obvious bridges that were contemplated in the 20th century but are now off the table. Or roads that were meant to be widened in the 1950's and so have big setbacks but never were. Bayers Rd was like this and is only now being widened. In some ways it feels like the city is "waking up" and regaining some amibition that disappeared after the crash of 1990 or so.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by lio45

Always fascinated by how you can find tiny detached SFHs within short walking distance of the Bow (the tallest building of the downtown, and one of the tallest buildings in the country).

That's both weird and also exotic. Absolutely does not exist in any of the big cities I'm most familiar with (Montreal, NYC).

Lol there are SFH in Westmount dumbass Also, The Bow hasn't been the tallest building in the city for years. It's Brookfield Place. Maybe try reading anything about Calgary before opening your mouth about it, biscuit.

There are cities all over the continent with SFH near their CBD, and Calgary is younger than all of them except Edmonton. Despite a severe 6-years-long economic downturn we are still replacing our inner city with medium and high density at an unprecedented rate, and far faster than cities of comparable size (or significantly larger). We're doing fine, thank you for your inquiry

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Most cities have SFH near the centre of the city, but it's often older stock (pre-WWII). What's jarring with Calgary is that the SFH stock seems relatively modern (post-WWII up to fairly recently). Very "idyllic", clean, stereotypical suburban looking.

I don't know your source, but it is wholly incorrect. Virtually all of the SFH within a 30 minute walk of the Downtown/Beltline core (let's call it centred at 9 Ave and 1 Street SW) is either 80 to 115 years old, or 0 - 10 years old (infills). The only major outlier I can think of is the townhouse complex at the bottom of the cliffs in Sunnyside probably built in the 90s, and possibly a handful post-war bungalow's that replaced dilapidated houses between the 40s and 60s.



Here's some beauty shots I took of Vancouver. These are just phone captures, still going through my camera work.



A Month on the Pacific Coast by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

A Month on the Pacific Coast by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

A Month on the Pacific Coast by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

A Month on the Pacific Coast by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

A Month on the Pacific Coast by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

[TorontoDrew]

Toronto Sunset by Franklin McKay, on Flickr

Toronto by Franklin McKay, on Flickr

Untitled by Franklin McKay, on Flickr

Toronto Sunset by Franklin McKay, on Flickr

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Lol there are SFH in Westmount dumbass

I think a better way to look at this is to consider land values. As cities get more built up the land values go up, so the incentive for density goes up (put in more usable space so the land cost per unit of usable space goes down). Sometimes you still see detached houses in high value areas because rich people like to have both space and a prime location. This is true of most of the Westmount houses but not for much of the older Calgary building stock, although Calgary's inner city houses are getting replaced by a mix of multi unit and higher-end houses.

There are also zoning restrictions that tended to come in post-WWII. In some cities detached housing neighbourhoods are kept in that configuration by the zoning.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by someone123

90's/2000's Halifax was strange as far as having many potential destinations like this that were closed off. Another example I can think of is that the Public Gardens used to be closed from around Nov-April. If you questioned it circa 2005 people would list all kinds of reasons why a park should obviously be closed during that period. Now it is mostly open year-round.

The main square in town was also used as a parking lot until sometime in the early 2000's. Half of the legislature grounds (which are quite small and old, so it's very noticeable) still are, pending the construction of underground parking for the MLAs. Province House is 250 m away from a large parkade.

Halifax is also a city with lots of obvious missing infrastructure, roads that abruptly end and could connect up with obvious bridges that were contemplated in the 20th century but are now off the table. Or roads that were meant to be widened in the 1950's and so have big setbacks but never were. Bayers Rd was like this and is only now being widened. In some ways it feels like the city is "waking up" and regaining some amibition that disappeared after the crash of 1990 or so.

I certainly agree. In many ways Halifax is one of the most interesting cities to watch in Canada right now as it hits high gear and levels up in terms of the overall built environment. The transformation of the skyline over the last decade has been really impressive to watch. There is so much going on that I'm a little surprised it hasn't leaked out of places like this and into the popular consciousness the way that the Calgary boom did 15 years ago.

I was really looking forward to being there to see it first-hand this summer... maybe next year. Or the year after.

[Maldive]

Nice pics Drew.



Awakening Mural by dtstuff9, on Flickr (originally posted by christos-greece at SSC)

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think a better way to look at this is to consider land values. As cities get more built up the land values go up, so the incentive for density goes up (put in more usable space so the land cost per unit of usable space goes down). Sometimes you still see detached houses in high value areas because rich people like to have both space and a prime location. This is true of most of the Westmount houses but not for much of the older Calgary building stock, although Calgary's inner city houses are getting replaced by a mix of multi unit and higher-end houses.

There are also zoning restrictions that tended to come in post-WWII. In some cities detached housing neighbourhoods are kept in that configuration by the zoning.

Which if Calgary's inner city SFH areas are not "high value areas"? I can't really think of any. They're all dominated by estate like homes (Mount Royal, Elbow Park) or upscale infills (Hillhurst, Sunnyside, Inglewood, Bankview, South Calgary [although these last few neighborhoods are increasingly dominated by multifamily).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Which if Calgary's inner city SFH areas are not "high value areas"? I can't really think of any. They're all dominated but estate like homes (Mount Royal, Elbow Park) or upscale infills (Hillhurst, Sunnyside, Inglewood).

The original building stock in Calgary, just outside of the modern downtown, is not comparable to Westmount even if both had a lot of detached houses.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Lol there are SFH in Westmount dumbass Also, The Bow hasn't been the tallest building in the city for years. It's Brookfield Place. Maybe try reading anything about Calgary before opening your mouth about it, biscuit.

There are cities all over the continent with SFH near their CBD, and Calgary is younger than all of them except Edmonton. Despite a severe 6-years-long economic downturn we are still replacing our inner city with medium and high density at an unprecedented rate, and far faster than cities of comparable size (or significantly larger). We're doing fine, thank you for your inquiry

Jesus. Is this really necessary? The guy just pointed something out. He was very wrong, of course, but it wasn't like he was getting personal or anything.

Tone down the insults, man.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by someone123

The original building stock in Calgary, just outside of the modern downtown, is not comparable to Westmount even if both had a lot of detached houses.

Of course I agree with this (although Mount Royal and Elbow Park are smaller, less grand versions of Westmount). I just don't see how this phenomenon is unusual or "exotic" unless one has never travelled to the younger cities of western North America. Maybe you and Lio haven't (so fair enough).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Of course I agree with this (although Mount Royal and Elbow Park are smaller, less grand versions of Westmount). I just don't see how this phenomenon is unusual or "exotic" unless one has never travelled to the younger cities of western North America. Maybe you and Lio haven't (so fair enough).

I didn't say it was unusual or exotic (part of my point is it's a direct consequence of how the two cities developed, hence unsurprising). I was just comparing the building stock in the two cities. I have visited both many times.

I think lio's correct however in pointing out that the contrast between the old building stock and the new is uncommon in North America or Canada (Calgary being the most extreme Canadian example). I don't think he was trying to insult Calgary but that's a lio question I guess.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Maldive

Nice pics Drew.



Awakening Mural by dtstuff9, on Flickr (originally posted by christos-greece at SSC)

Thanks I copied and pasted them myself.

[Martin Mtl]

This is literally 5 minutes walk from the 1000 De La Gauchetière, Montreal's tallest. Just sayin.


https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4929151,-...Ff6T0E8Q43QDI6l-fdi8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by someone123

I didn't say it was unusual or exotic (part of my point is it's a direct consequence of how the two cities developed, hence unsurprising). I was just comparing the building stock in the two cities. I have visited both many times.

I think lio's correct however in pointing out that the contrast between the old building stock and the new is uncommon in North America or Canada (Calgary being the most extreme Canadian example). I don't think he was trying to insult Calgary but that's a lio question I guess.

Canada is tough because there are so few cities, but this is common in all of the prairie cities, and was even common on the downtown Vancouver peninsula until just a few decades ago.

In the United States, there are many examples. Just the cities that I have visited: Denver, Portland, Las Vegas, etc.

[TorontoDrew]

I wonder what street that most resembles that is distance wise from FCP in Toronto. Once the One goes up It will be easy to walk to aside street like that kind of.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Canada is tough because there are so few cities, but this is common in all of the prairie cities, and was even common on the downtown Vancouver peninsula until just a few decades ago.

In the United States, there are many examples. Just the cities that I have visited: Denver, Portland, Las Vegas, etc.

There is a big difference between Vancouver and Calgary in this area. It's true that Vancouver was more like this back in the 80's but back then Vancouver didn't have what would be considered major office towers. Nothing like The Bow. I am not sure Vancouver has any similar towers today.

Portland is really nothing like Calgary. Less impressive office buildings, much nicer old residential building stock.

I dunno about Denver but I'd expect less nice office buildings and nicer old residential building stock (or a big empty highway/warehouse belt around downtown as many American cities have).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I wonder what street that most resembles that is distance wise from FCP in Toronto. Once the One goes up It will be easy to walk to aside street like that kind of.

Toronto is kind of close to the Calgary situation although Toronto tends to have brick rowhouses where Calgary is wooden detached. And the biggest Calgary office tower is almost as big as the biggest Toronto office tower, isn't it?

The cause is similar. Rapid postwar development of the city such that the office core grew to be as big as or bigger than the footprint of the pre-war commercial core.

[Nouvellecosse]

Halifax has some of this as well. Even though most of the houses in and around the core are sub-divided and/or urban format (such as partially-attached or meeting the street), there are some suburban-style SFHs within around 400m from the Fenwick tower such as on McLean and Brussels st. This is slightly different than what's been discussed in that despite being the tallest Fenwick isn't in the CBD. But I still find it disconcerting that there are so many suburban-style houses in the south end. It's actually something I find rather annoying about Halifax. Such a central part of town where there could be vibrant and interesting and character-filled urban nabes, the areas are mostly dead zones with buildings no different than in a typical "nice" suburb. They really don't add anything to the city imo.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Halifax has some of this as well. Even though most of the houses in and around the core are sub-divided and/or urban format (such as partially-attached or meeting the street), there are some suburban-style SFHs within around 400m from the Fenwick tower such as on McLean and Brussels st. This is slightly different than what's been discussed in that despite being the tallest Fenwick isn't in the CBD. But I still find it disconcerting that there are so many suburban-style houses in the south end. It's actually something I find rather annoying about Halifax. Such a central part of town where there could be vibrant and interesting and character-filled urban nabes, the areas are mostly dead zones with buildings no different than in a typical "nice" suburb. They really don't add anything to the city imo.

One factor behind this in the South End of Halifax is the partition of larger estates. Sometimes the land wasn't subdivided until the 1940's or later. If you look at maps from the 1800's you'll see some South End streets were missing or there were some larger blocks. Also Barrington (Pleasant Street along that stretch) used to connect to a street sort of along the Point Pleasant Drive alignment and a bunch of stuff around that route was demolished or filled in. I agree it kind of detracts from the city. I think if these sites had come up for development in recent years they would have turned out better. It is odd how in the South End you can go farther from downtown one way and hit brick apartments or the odd triple decker vs. another way where you hit those houses that are identical to suburbia.

The city also shifted south over time whereas these days to me at least the whole Scotia Square and Cogswell area kind of feels like a dead zone. SGR is certainly more prominent than Gottingen but the reverse was true in 1950.

As far as Calgary I'd say the scale of this stuff is different (not that anybody is necessarily making that comparison). The ugly McLean houses are around 1.5-2 km from Halifax City Hall, and Halifax's office towers are nowhere near as impressive as Calgary's. This is about 800 m from The Bow or Calgary City Hall:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0543926,...PP1hXE2he_XMmiQN7JN2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I wonder what street that most resembles that is distance wise from FCP in Toronto. Once the One goes up It will be easy to walk to aside street like that kind of.

In the case of that part of Little Burgandy near downtown, it was a train yard that was abandonned in the 70’s. During the eighties, the city was desperate to fight the flight to subburbia and when the time came to developped this large lot, they decided to mimic subburbia. It’s an anomaly. Mid-rises should have been build there instead. I mean, this is right next to Griffintown where most new buildings are 15 to 20 storeys.