Canadian Skyline Thread III - Page 72

Nouvellecosse · #**1421** Posted **Jun 15, 2024, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cranes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_zHz8cvAyI

Kitchener-Waterloo

Sheesh... those Kitchener snout houses are one of the things I find the most frustrating about discussions around housing and zoning. People often talk about the debate between either making housing efficient or making it enjoyable and attractive. But the overwhelming trend in NA is that contemporary single family housing is both less efficient and less attractive than legacy urban housing. Urban streets like the one below are both more efficient and more beautiful / interesting. They look lived in and weathered giving a real sense of place. Plus, they integrate well with the surrounding city with highrise and midrise multi-unit a short walk away with more planned. And that attractiveness isn't in spite of having city stuff nearby, it's in part because of it. Feeling like you're tucked into a quiet charming nook ior side street n the midst of a busy interesting setting feels amazing while being in an expanse of dullness feels like being nowhere. Similar to how being in a cool shady spot on a hot summer day feels amazing while being in a cool shady spot in the middle of winter just doesn't.

And while part of the older homes being more attractive may be their age, the majority is that the front yard isn't dominated by garage doors with the human entrance being tucked off to the side. Plus they aren't set back so far from the street with driveways occupying most of the landscape out front with the rest being boring turf. And the kind of place where those snout houses are located (or other suburban areas that I've experienced) just seem isolated due to their distance from things combined with the circuitous street layout that makes things harder than necessary to get to relative to their actual distance.

craner · #**1422** Posted **Jun 15, 2024, 6:26 PM**

^That is not my idea of beautiful.
Just my opinion though.

Nouvellecosse · #**1423** Posted **Jun 15, 2024, 7:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

^That is not my idea of beautiful.
Just my opinion though.

Well sure, I didn't want to use the most pretty, pristine urban neighbourhood as an example since they're often the most expensive and have older, more ornate housing that's hard to replicate. People would just say it's impossible to create those now. I would only consider it beautiful in the sense of being more interesting, human-scaled, textured, cozy, inviting, etc. Beauty implies a sort of superficiality which is the opposite of their appeal so perhaps charismatic or congenial would be better terms.

WhipperSnapper · #**1424** Posted **Jun 15, 2024, 8:18 PM**

It's rundown however you want to analyse it. This urban form is still pushed by many planning departments. There's no need to intentionally post a rundown image of a preferred urban form to compete with subu7rbia

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.67133...5410&entry=ttu

J.OT13 · #**1425** Posted **Jun 15, 2024, 8:52 PM**

From urbottawa on Skyrise.

https://ottawa.skyrisecities.com/for...e.10479/page-4

Nouvellecosse · #**1426** Posted **Jun 15, 2024, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's rundown however you want to analyse it. This urban form is still pushed by many planning departments. There's no need to intentionally post a rundown image of a preferred urban form to compete with subu7rbia

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.67133...5410&entry=ttu

Sorry but a hard disagree on that one. Something is absolutely not run down just because it looks lived in; that's a very suburban mindset imo. I could have posted lots of nabes that look rougher than that. I just happened to run across that specific street in an online tour recently and admired it so it was the first one I thought of in terms of real every day urban. And with all due respect it looks a lot more appealing from an urbanist perspective than the comparatively sterile one in your link which i honestly don't personally see the appeal of other than the trees. It just looks like a suburban nabe arranged in an urban format with little character or personality.

J.OT13 · #**1427** Posted **Jun 15, 2024, 9:16 PM**

If Ottawa had taller towers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Nouvellecosse · #**1428** Posted **Jun 15, 2024, 9:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Sorry but a hard disagree on that one. Something is absolutely not run down just because it looks lived in; that's a very suburban mindset imo. I could have posted lots of nabes that look rougher than that. I just happened to run across that specific street in an online tour recently and admired it so it was the first one I thought of in terms of real every day urban. And with all due respect it looks a lot more appealing from an urbanist perspective than the comparatively sterile one in your link which i honestly don't personally see the appeal of other than the trees. It just looks like a suburban nabe arranged in an urban format with little character or personality.

Actually I was too harsh. I wouldn't say there's no appeal since it could be a good starting point and the issues are probably from it being very new. It just doesn't look lived in yet, and looks like everything you see could have been bought today at a local Canadian Tire or Home Depot garden center. As if all the houses could be empty and simply staged by a realtor to give them an inviting curb appeal. So while it doesn't appeal to me, that probably is a good alternative for suburbanites who want a sterile and orderly aesthetic.

WhipperSnapper · #**1429** Posted **Jun 16, 2024, 2:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Sorry but a hard disagree on that one. Something is absolutely not run down just because it looks lived in; that's a very suburban mindset imo. I could have posted lots of nabes that look rougher than that. I just happened to run across that specific street in an online tour recently and admired it so it was the first one I thought of in terms of real every day urban. And with all due respect it looks a lot more appealing from an urbanist perspective than the comparatively sterile one in your link which i honestly don't personally see the appeal of other than the trees. It just looks like a suburban nabe arranged in an urban format with little character or personality.

Shingles that should have been retired a decade ago; trim where the paint is completely gone. This urban form is the Toronto I know. Snout noses is what I have seen on the interweb until this year. There's no romanticism for me. It's just falling apart.

As for the new neighbourhood, the point is that it's a new turn of the century development with similar urban form and the character is in the form of actual architectural frosting than deterioration. This block you're romanticizing about is as functional in design as they come under all that degradation. Planning may be fast and loose in Toronto. They are tough as nails when it comes to new subdivision character and it shows

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.66908...5410&entry=ttu

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.66653...5410&entry=ttu

Which neighbourhood has more character? The turn of the 20th century with one style and two different roof designs replicated 400 times or the turn of the 21st century Pleasantville?

Nouvellecosse · #**1430** Posted **Jun 16, 2024, 5:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Shingles that should have been retired a decade ago; trim where the paint is completely gone. This urban form is the Toronto I know. Snout noses is what I have seen on the interweb until this year. There's no romanticism for me. It's just falling apart.

As for the new neighbourhood, the point is that it's a new turn of the century development with similar urban form and the character is in the form of actual architectural frosting than deterioration. This block you're romanticizing about is as functional in design as they come under all that degradation. Planning may be fast and loose in Toronto. They are tough as nails when it comes to new subdivision character and it shows

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.66908...5410&entry=ttu

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.66653...5410&entry=ttu

Which neighbourhood has more character? The turn of the 20th century with one style and two different roof designs replicated 400 times or the turn of the 21st century Pleasantville?

I'd say they're about equal in terms of character since with the first one the houses seem more weathered and lived in and the bricks have a patina of age, but the landscaping is bland with that overly wide grass road verge. But it also has a timeless element to it. The second one has more interesting architectural styles and landscaping but it's very pristine and there's a little less space between the houses on opposing sides making it feel cozier. But neither have the character of a street like in my example.

Keep in mind that in the image I posted, the one house that's in rougher shape isn't representative of all the houses on the street. Some look like they're been well maintained and others less so, but that's just the natural state of a real living urban nabe. Some people will have less money or time for maintenance, some houses will be recently renovated and ready for HGTV, and everything in between. As someone who grew up partially in a small town in the Maritimes, seeing the odd house with a few maintenance issues is just normal and it didn't occur to me that anyone would be repulsed by it.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/9J7t5LdpCRVAgdh1A

WhipperSnapper · #**1431** Posted **Jun 16, 2024, 11:06 AM**

Of course, patina adds character. I don't think its fair to include patina in a comparison between old and new neighbourhood architectural design standards. It reminiscent of Chicago or New York's collection of skyscrapers which has been mostly garbage compared to the rest of the world yet in the past 30 years and continues to be ranked on eras that the rest of the world needs time machines to participate in.

I think every house I have owned has had laneway parking. For the first time in my life, I'm renting a house with an attached garage in autocentrica and it's a thousand times more convenient. I understand the appeal of a garage with a house attached in the back. The house I'm renting and building is 3 times wider than its depth. The garage is innocuous with the front porch taking up as much or more frontage as the garage. The interiors are light, airy and, spacious. A garage taking up the majority of the front of a house, unidriveways are a symptom of narrow deep lots which are more efficient in built density but, built densities should never be confused with urbanity or a healthier lifestyle.

Nouvellecosse · #**1432** Posted **Jun 16, 2024, 3:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Of course, patina adds character. I don't think its fair to include patina in a comparison between old and new neighbourhood architectural design standards. It reminiscent of Chicago or New York's collection of skyscrapers which has been mostly garbage compared to the rest of the world yet in the past 30 years and continues to be ranked on eras that the rest of the world needs time machines to participate in.

Having older buildings in a skyline gives the skyline character since it helps tell that story of how the city and skyline developed over time. But for an individual building, character isn't just being an older style like those skyscrapers. It's the weathering, modifications from things breaking and being repaired, renovations and additions, artwork... basically anything that tells you a story about the building or place after it was built. It doesn't require a huge amount of time as the residents of a brand new house and add a little by using art, paint choices and landscape elements that don't look like they were off-the-shelf. And you can also hide the signs of age if you're desperate enough to keep an area looking sterile. But character is a combination of being allowed to age and personalize over time along with some time for it to actually happen. Allowing the bare stone to age and weather over time does get a few points as I've seen plenty of old houses that look like they could have been built yesterday if it wasn't for the style no longer being common. I've even seen some covered in stucco, painted, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I think every house I have owned has had laneway parking. For the first time in my life, I'm renting a house with an attached garage in autocentrica and it's a thousand times more convenient. I understand the appeal of a garage with a house attached in the back. The house I'm renting and building is 3 times wider than its depth. The garage is innocuous with the front porch taking up as much or more frontage as the garage. The interiors are light, airy and, spacious. A garage taking up the majority of the front of a house, unidriveways are a symptom of narrow deep lots which are more efficient in built density but, built densities should never be confused with urbanity or a healthier lifestyle.

Who knew that designing for car convenience makes car usage more convenient?

Yes that's 100% true that a place can be both dense and suburban. But it's a lot harder to make a place that's both low density and urban. In other words, density allows a place to be urban rather than guaranteeing it. Well, not high density necessarily but density over a certain baseline. Greater density is still better since you're still getting some of the advantages like lower infrastructure cost and land usage but you're definitely losing out on others by insisting on a suburban format.

But in this case it isn't just the narrow lots to blame. It's the choice to design a subdivision such that people's lives evolve around cars which then pushed people to place car convenience at a higher priority than the overall design of the homes including aesthetic presentation and street interface. Having the most convenient car setup isn't necessary if a car isn't a frequently used life essential which it isn't in a better designed setting. So it's a combination of narrow lots and suburban car dependency.

MonctonRad · #**1433** Posted **Jun 16, 2024, 5:18 PM**

The downtown Moncton skyline, fronted by the Three Sisters development site in the foreground.

The third of the Three Sisters is currently under construction and will be topped off (15 storeys) by the end of the year.

Plans are to immediately begin construction of a "sister" project just beyond the right of the edge of this image next year. This will be on the other side of Assumption Blvd and will consist of two 18 storey towers. The developer is the same (Lafford) and, he will simply move his crew across the street to carry on working.

Lafford has also bought a lot in the nearby neighbourhood on Albert Street, which will presumably be similarly developed (midrise tower) within the next five years as well. There is not much information on this potential development at present.

Ritchie's plans to build an 18 storey tower called St. Bernard Place on Botsford Street, with construction to commence this fall or next spring. In the image above, it would be located just to the left of the NBTel Tower (the tall communications tower in the background).

ICON is going to build a 30 storey apartment building on Main Street, with construction beginning next year. It would also be located in the background, just to the left of the red roofed building in the back centre of the image.

And, the BIG project will be the Ashford/Downing Street project, behind Assumption Place (the 20 storey concrete office building prominently in the background). This is a transformative project, with government funding involved, and, a reconfigured street grid, as well as new and expanded subsurface infrastructure. Multiple buildings are to be constructed, of varying height, including at least one "signature" tower. It is well known that Ashford wants this to be the tallest building in town, so, with ICON building a 30 storey building, it is not unreasonable to think Ashford may go 35-40 storeys. There are rumours of even greater height than this, but, no substantiation. In any even, this building will be as tall as anything currently under construction in Halifax.

A picture taken from this perspective in 10 years time will look a whole lot different.........

J.OT13 · #**1434** Posted **Jun 18, 2024, 1:24 PM**

urbottawa on Skyrise. The first is LeBreton Flats looking towards Downtown. The second is the west skyline.

https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thre...e.10479/page-4

hoggytime on Skyrise. First is the dense Escarpment District, the extension of the CBD. Second is the Westboro skyline from Gatineau.

https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thre...i.37261/page-7

https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thre...e.10479/page-5