Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by lio45

You're the one who's the moron.

Lol now we've moved on to the "I know you are but what am I?" portion of your infantile pedantry There really is no end to it with you, is there? You conduct yourself on here like a fucking moron, so I called you a fucking moron. Then I deleted it, because I'm trying to be above your trollery, but since you called it out, there it is for you loud and clear, biscuit.


Keeping with my theme of trying to keep this thread somewhat on track, another skyline pic.


City Hall Balcony View by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Lol now we've moved on to the "I know you are but what am I?"...

And I only called you that because the comments that I got to read (and that you then removed) were truly epically moronic. (I am not very liberal with the use of insults, but when they're needed, they're needed.)

How come others (and even O-Tac now) can discuss demolitions, the weight of sheer age when judging heritage value, wooden shacks, and so on, while keeping things mostly civil, but you can't? Seems to me you're nearly always the common denominator whenever there's drama on this forum.

[Chadillaccc]

Haven't you made enough noise yet?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have to admit I thought of the word. There are actually "skyscrapers" (well, 25-storey office towers) just a few blocks away.

100+ year old buildings are a dime a dozen in the Vieux-Hull:

I think it would be pretty shocking to Europeans and Americans (and also to most Asians, come to think of it) that some of Vieux-Hull's shackiest wooden shacks are about ~1 km as the crow flies from Parliament Hill, the seat of government for a first world country of nearly ~40 million.

I mean, I'd be curious to see what's the shackiest building one can find within that radius of Élysée Palace in Paris or Westminster in London... I'd be extremely surprised if it were in the same league.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Haven't you made enough noise yet?

I'm not going to make any noise if you aren't. If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. It's pretty simple.

[esquire]

The problem with tearing down otherwise unremarkable old buildings is that they can have an outsized effect on the historical character of an area.

We've been through this in Winnipeg with the Exchange District... you lose a few old warehouses here and there, and very quickly you chip away at the entire area's character. Fortunately the City understands this and makes demolitions very difficult in that area.

Of course, I realize that the Exchange is relatively small and that in places like Quebec or NS there can be vast swaths of the city made up predominantly with older construction...

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by lio45

I mean, I'd be curious to see what's the shackiest building one can find within that radius of Élysée Palace in Paris or Westminster in London... I'd be extremely surprised if it were in the same league.

It doesn't really matter since capital is an arbitrary classifier when talking about a city's built form. Ottawa is capital city of ~150 years that was chosen to be intentionally withdrawn from the countries larger population areas for strategic/political purposes. The size of the country it represents is meaningless in talking about the proximity of low-density SFH to the seat of government.

This thing is literally across the street from the Australian legislature, because Canberra was a planned city that didn't have hundreds of years of existing bones that shove residential to the periphery.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

It doesn't really matter since capital is an arbitrary classifier when talking about a city's built form.

Sure, of course, it's just amusing and goes counter to what most people would expect, that's all (i.e. that normally, the seat of government of a rich and decently populated country would be surrounded by fairly major stuff).

I never said there wasn't a logical reason why it was like this, I just said it would likely be surprising to fellow First World inhabitants.

Would you be surprised if I told you that this was a stone's throw from the seat of government of France?

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.1129037,...vwlqji6u2xg1URQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

It was true for several years. And there are valid reasons for why it was - but that isn't the point.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I think it would be pretty shocking to Europeans and Americans (and also to most Asians, come to think of it) that some of Vieux-Hull's shackiest wooden shacks are about ~1 km as the crow flies from Parliament Hill, the seat of government for a first world country of nearly ~40 million.

I mean, I'd be curious to see what's the shackiest building one can find within that radius of Élysée Palace in Paris or Westminster in London... I'd be extremely surprised if it were in the same league.

Washington has some pretty shacky places not too far from the Capitol and the White House. Or at least did not that long ago. Maybe still does.

But sure, I get your point.

Also note that for much of their history Ottawa and Hull had a very San Diego vs. Tijuana dichotomy going on. That river there made a big difference.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

The problem with tearing down otherwise unremarkable old buildings is that they can have an outsized effect on the historical character of an area.

This is true although with lower quality old buildings it's easier for new construction to be superior. If we had better standards the baseline of what is acceptable to redevelop would move up. Admittedly it's a bit hard to find examples like this. I think a lot of it just comes down to having a nice pedestrian scale and detail, not so much the age (although like I said we would want to save a lot of historic buildings because of events or unique styles/construction).

Halifax is afflicted with gap-toothed blocks that used to have a mix of nicer larger houses and tiny wooden houses that got torn down for parking. I am not even sure if the zoning would allow the small houses to be rebuilt, although there's been the odd infilling of those little lots.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by esquire

Of course, I realize that the Exchange is relatively small and that in places like Quebec or NS there can be vast swaths of the city made up predominantly with older construction...

Which is exactly why these things should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and in context. (I think we're in agreement, judging by your post.)

The Exchange's historical character is more worthy of being preserved than, say, the historical character of some pockets of Hull (of which some, I'm pretty sure, could be described as "a poor/working class neighborhood that's always sucked and where constructions have always been low-quality").

(Just to be sure, I'm not even saying I'd accept the densification/redevelopment of those Wooden Shacky Hull neighborhoods as a net positive, just that I would not be absolutely outraged if someone pointed it out as something that could be considered.)

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Vieux-Hull district of my city is filled with 100+ year old buildings that aren't much to look at.

I believe this one (from the late 1800s) has a heritage designation of some kind, due simply to being one of the oldest houses in the city.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/57+Rue...0a8c45b03!8m2!3d45.4210074!4d-75.7449189

But the streets in the vicinity are filled with hundreds of houses of a similar age and architectural "quality".

When it comes to architectural heritage we often look at the individual as opposed to the collective. Not every building is a Chrysler Building or a Taj Mahal, or a Grain Exchange Building in Winnipeg, but what Winnipeg got right for the most part was that the district is more important than individual structures and some less than ideal candidates have been saved and that makes the Exchange District. Sure it might be an indistinct building of 100 years with not much architectural merit, but it still says something about culture and the time period. Those are what we lose.

Individual pieces are nice, but a sense of place comes from the collective.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

When it comes to architectural heritage we often look at the individual as opposed to the collective. Not every building is a Chrysler Building or a Taj Mahal, or a Grain Exchange Building in Winnipeg, but what Winnipeg got right for the most part was that the district is more important than individual structures and some less than ideal candidates have been saved and that makes the Exchange District. Sure it might be an indistinct building of 100 years with not much architectural merit, but it still says something about culture and the time period. Those are what we lose.

Individual pieces are nice, but a sense of place comes from the collective.

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

When it comes to architectural heritage we often look at the individual as opposed to the collective. Not every building is a Chrysler Building or a Taj Mahal, or a Grain Exchange Building in Winnipeg, but what Winnipeg got right for the most part was that the district is more important than individual structures and some less than ideal candidates have been saved and that makes the Exchange District. Sure it might be an indistinct building of 100 years with not much architectural merit, but it still says something about culture and the time period. Those are what we lose.

Individual pieces are nice, but a sense of place comes from the collective.

Agreed. Though in Winnipeg's case the Exchange District structures are still much more imposing than the tiny matchbox houses of the Vieux-Hull.

In the latter case, there are calls for preserving the character of the area as well, as representative of working class family housing from the late 1800s and early 1900s.

While gentrification and demolition/replacement are happening in the area, it will be quite some time before all traces of its past will be in danger of being lost.

Ideally, part of it would be preserved but in a renovated, non-decrepit non-poor state. With a kind of "noble working class" flavour. If that makes sense.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

When it comes to architectural heritage we often look at the individual as opposed to the collective. Not every building is a Chrysler Building or a Taj Mahal, or a Grain Exchange Building in Winnipeg, but what Winnipeg got right for the most part was that the district is more important than individual structures and some less than ideal candidates have been saved and that makes the Exchange District. Sure it might be an indistinct building of 100 years with not much architectural merit, but it still says something about culture and the time period. Those are what we lose.

Individual pieces are nice, but a sense of place comes from the collective.

Agreed. And that's what scares me about the state of some of Ottawa's older downtown neighbourhoods like Centretown, Sandy Hill, the Glebe and others. Especially the main streets. The old brick houses and apartments are being replaced with cheap looking condo infills. Human-scaled commercial storefronts are replaced with 8-12 storey condo buildings with large, bland podiums. There are plenty of empty parking lots and cheap late 20th Century buildings to replace without destroying the character of the areas.

In the case of Hull, the City has done some work in preserving the "Cartier du Musée" after rejecting a grossly out of scale proposal of 35 and 55 floors.

There could be an argument to preserve a few blocks, the best preserved group of blocks, of the "wooden shacks" that speak to the working class eras of the pulp and paper mills and Allumettières, but I don't think it's realistic or desirable to maintain all of them.

None of these areas compare to the Exchange District in Winnipeg, or le Vieux Montreal, Vieux Quebec, but that's what we have. It's our history.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Agreed. And that's what scares me about the state of some of Ottawa's older downtown neighbourhoods like Centretown, Sandy Hill, the Glebe and others. Especially the main streets. The old brick houses and apartments are being replaced with cheap looking condo infills. Human-scaled commercial storefronts are replaced with 8-12 storey condo buildings with large, bland podiums. There are plenty of empty parking lots and cheap late 20th Century buildings to replace without destroying the character of the areas.

In the case of Hull, the City has done some work in preserving the "Cartier du Musée" after rejecting a grossly out of scale proposal of 35 and 55 floors.

There could be an argument to preserve a few blocks, the best preserved group of blocks, of the "wooden shacks" that speak to the working class eras of the pulp and paper mills and Allumettières, but I don't think it's realistic or desirable to maintain all of them.

None of these areas compare to the Exchange District in Winnipeg, or le Vieux Montreal, Vieux Quebec, but that's what we have. It's our history.

That area is actually a bit more bourgeois than the areas of the Vieux-Hull I've been showing.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Rue+Cha...540080933!8m2!3d45.4310518!4d-75.7118956

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That area is actually a bit more bourgeois than the areas of the Vieux-Hull I've been showing.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Rue+Cha...540080933!8m2!3d45.4310518!4d-75.7118956

Yes. Like a well preserved upper-middle class area of the late 19th, early 20th century. Once of very few areas in Hull spared by the 1900 fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Hull%E2%80%93Ottawa_fire

[Chadillaccc]

Delete

[Coldrsx]

Truly wonderful.

[MolsonExport]

Fresh looking 'toontown.

[giallo]

Very nice indeed.