Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

I would say the opposite. Montreal has an appropriate skyline for a city of its size (just under 2M). Toronto, on the other hand, looks from many angles like a city of 10M not 6M. Calgary is the same as its skyline is crazy for a city just over 1M.

Montreal has 4 million people living in the metro area. Calgary has 1.6 million. Point taken though about oversized skylines relative to population. Calgary's DT feels bigger to me than LA's the last time I visited. Toronto's skyline is starting to look like that of a mega Chinese city.

[Hybrid247]

Yup, I would also say that Toronto and Calgary punch way above their weight in terms of skyline scale relative to population, and so does Vancouver to a lesser degree. Calgary's skyline easily rivals that of American cities many times its size. Montreal, on the other hand, may not punch above its weight like those 3 cities but it' still appropriately sized IMO.

[Monolith]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-cheng/...-2myrpAQ-2myuV6T-2myq9F4-2myuV4t-2myrpCD Vancouver

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Yup, I would also say that Toronto and Calgary punch way above their weight in terms of skyline scale relative to population, and so does Vancouver to a lesser degree. Calgary's skyline easily rivals that of American cities many times its size. Montreal, on the other hand, may not punch above its weight like those 3 cities but it' still appropriately sized IMO.

To me Montreal is more akin to Boston or Philly. Eastern cities with lots of historic density in their cores but not a ton of skyscrapers. Montreal is experiencing quite a construction boom these days though. The last time I visited in 2018 it felt more like boomtime Calgary or Toronto. There were cranes and towers going up everywhere.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Montreal has 4 million people living in the metro area. Calgary has 1.6 million. Point taken though about oversized skylines relative to population. Calgary's DT feels bigger to me than LA's the last time I visited. Toronto's skyline is starting to look like that of a mega Chinese city.

Wow, I didn't realize MTL metro is that large! Where do you get this data for Calgary. Everywhere I look (on Google) lists the metro at 1.3 and change.

Edit:

NM I see Wikipedia lists the 2021 estimate to be 1.58 now

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

Wow, I didn't realize MTL metro is that large! Where do you get this data for Calgary. Everywhere I look (on Google) lists the metro at 1.3 and change.

Edit:

NM I see Wikipedia lists the 2021 estimate to be 1.58 now

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/20370/calgary/population

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

To me Montreal is more akin to Boston or Philly. Eastern cities with lots of historic density in their cores but not a ton of skyscrapers. Montreal is experiencing quite a construction boom these days though. The last time I visited in 2018 it felt more like boomtime Calgary or Toronto. There were cranes and towers going up everywhere.

In terms of historic medium density, I agree. Montreal, Philly and Boston all have all have an amazing stock of dense pre-war housing. Boston's skyline, though, is pretty underwhelming for a metro of 5+ million. Philly and Montreal are definitely a tier above in that regard. And even though Montreal's skyscraper boom is awesome to see, it'd be nice if it could add a couple 200m+ towers to break the table-top skyline that seems to be forming.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

I would say the opposite. Montreal has an appropriate skyline for a city of its size (just under 2M). Toronto, on the other hand, looks from many angles like a city of 10M not 6M. Calgary is the same as its skyline is crazy for a city just over 1M.


https://media.blogto.com/articles/202110...=resize_then_crop&height=1365&quality=70


https://athenaposters.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2400-0737-Montreal-Skyline.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Downtown_Calgary_2020.jpg

Lol you thought metro Montreal had 2M people.

Also that Montreal skyline shot is comically dated.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Lol you thought metro Montreal had 2M people.

Also that Montreal skyline shot is comically dated.

The Calgary shot is current as it has a completed Telus Sky in it. I also noticed the Montreal shot was old as it doesn't even have the Canadiens tower in it.

[J.OT13]

To those who provided info on bike infrastructure near Broadway, thanks for that!

I agree, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver skylines are far more prominent than what their populations might suggest. Edmonton has made some great strides the last few years as well. Ottawa could potentially make a big jump over the next decade if a few proposed/approved projects get off the ground in that time.

Montreal's skyline is on par with its population, though I worry the density of new towers of similar height might result in a relatively boring flat-top visual. For decades, it had a few distinct towers of the same height, but were at least separated enough to stand on their own. Those will be lost behind a bunch of new towers that don't have quite the same cache.

[WhipperSnapper]

Montreal has hundreds more high rises than its American counterparts. Maybe short on a few plus 100 and plus 150 metres skyscrapers but, that will be made up during the 2020s

Vancouver's towers benefit from point towers separated by lowrise podiums. A 20 storey tower can be distinguished. Montreal builds far denser. A 20 storey tower in the middle of Griffintown blends in with the rest of the blob.

[MolsonExport]

Montreal feels far, far larger on the ground than either Vancouver or Calgary. Only Toronto beats Montreal on both the ground-level "bigness" (which in all honesty, is a much cooler factor) and skyline "bigness" factors.

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Montreal feels far, far larger on the ground than either Vancouver or Calgary. Only Toronto beats Montreal on both the ground-level "bigness" (which in all honesty, is a much cooler factor) and skyline "bigness" factors.

True - unless you live in a high rise building or a hot air balloon, it's the feel on the ground which is the true cool factor. Eventually most high rise dwellers do need to come back to Earth and descend to street level. North America has many cities that look great from afar but are boring wastelands at street level.

Still, hard to deny the initial sex appeal of a skyline from afar - to me it's like emerging from the forest after being lost for years and seeing this glimmering city in the distance. The bigger it appears the more it feels as if there must be something important, exciting, dangerous over there.. sometimes that pans out, often not.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Montreal feels far, far larger on the ground than either Vancouver or Calgary. Only Toronto beats Montreal on both the ground-level "bigness" (which in all honesty, is a much cooler factor) and skyline "bigness" factors.

Yes, despite its mammoth skyline, the "bigness" feeling drops off fast as soon as you get out of the Calgary CBD. Much less so with Vancouver.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by zoomer

True - unless you live in a high rise building or a hot air balloon, it's the feel on the ground which is the true cool factor. Eventually most high rise dwellers do need to come back to Earth and descend to street level. North America has many cities that look great from afar but are boring wastelands at street level.

This doesn't fully capture the difference between Montreal and Calgary though. Even if you subtracted everything that's not a highrise from both cities and then floated above each in a hot air balloon, Montreal would look bigger. It just doesn't look bigger in some of those pictures like the view from Mount Royal because the highrises cover a greater geographic extent and are in blobs less amenable to being shown in single 2D images. It's hard to get a sense of scale in images and areas that a blanket of similar height buildings often look nondescript, whether they're 4 floors or 40 floors.

Where Calgary does well is that its "showcase" office towers are unusually nice/large, and they seem about on par with their Montreal equivalents. But that's maybe 2% of the highrises in and around Montreal.

Re: Calgary and downtown LA, I think you could pick out a 1 km square in downtown LA that would have more pre-war highrises than all of Canada. I guess we can debate how many highrise points you get from a 50 m Art Deco building vs. 100 m 70's concrete building.

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by someone123

This doesn't fully capture the difference between Montreal and Calgary though. Even if you subtracted everything that's not a highrise from both cities and then floated above each in a hot air balloon, Montreal would look bigger. It just doesn't look bigger in some of those pictures like the view from Mount Royal because the highrises cover a greater geographic extent and are in blobs less amenable to being shown in single 2D images. It's hard to get a sense of scale in images and areas that a blanket of similar height buildings often look nondescript, whether they're 4 floors or 40 floors.

Where Calgary does well is that its "showcase" office towers are unusually nice/large, and they seem about on par with their Montreal equivalents. But that's maybe 2% of the highrises in and around Montreal.

Yep, I totally agree Montreal would still look bigger from the air - my comment was more generic re: skylines vs. on the ground in North America. That overall bigness feel is very closely tied to population, and I can't think of a city in Canada that doesn't (not skyline focus only) fall in line with it's actually population. Maybe that's possible if a city has large outlying suburbs that don't have a strong continuous density connection between them?

[WhipperSnapper]

Anytown US is likely to have a pre war high rise. There's more 50 metre pre war high rises, existed or had existed, than 100 metre 1970s concrete ones in the US. Oh heck, drop it to 50 metre too.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by someone123

Re: Calgary and downtown LA, I think you could pick out a 1 km square in downtown LA that would have more pre-war highrises than all of Canada. I guess we can debate how many highrise points you get from a 50 m Art Deco building vs. 100 m 70's concrete building.

Yes, people often underestimate how dense in older mid-rise towers DTLA is.

[WhipperSnapper]

if only the 1929 market crash had instead happened in 1935 or 1940. A NYC business man came to Toronto and built a half dozen or so high rises from 1925 to 1930 however they pale in comparison to what was being planned by him and other Americans. Construction on the 30 storey Victory Tower was halted for many years. Eventually, a new owner finished it at the halted height.

[ue]

Originally Posted by someone123

This doesn't fully capture the difference between Montreal and Calgary though. Even if you subtracted everything that's not a highrise from both cities and then floated above each in a hot air balloon, Montreal would look bigger. It just doesn't look bigger in some of those pictures like the view from Mount Royal because the highrises cover a greater geographic extent and are in blobs less amenable to being shown in single 2D images. It's hard to get a sense of scale in images and areas that a blanket of similar height buildings often look nondescript, whether they're 4 floors or 40 floors.

Where Calgary does well is that its "showcase" office towers are unusually nice/large, and they seem about on par with their Montreal equivalents. But that's maybe 2% of the highrises in and around Montreal.

Re: Calgary and downtown LA, I think you could pick out a 1 km square in downtown LA that would have more pre-war highrises than all of Canada. I guess we can debate how many highrise points you get from a 50 m Art Deco building vs. 100 m 70's concrete building.

To chime in on the LA and Calgary thing, the two downtowns are really different. I can sort of see a comparison, but Los Angeles does feel bigger, although in the downtowns the two cities are closer. But the city as a whole feels far greater than Calgary could hope to ever be, boosterism be damned. However, the wealth of Art Deco high-rises remaining in the Historic Core is unparalleled in Canada, even in Montreal. As well, while the more corporate, newer skyline of Los Angeles may feel less compact, its towers are taller and are still distinctive (as are Calgary's to be fair, unlike the new schlock in Montreal, Toronto, and until recently, Vancouver). Being around Aon or US Bank, there is a weight to the presence of these towers that make up for the lack of intensity of skyscrapers that Calgary has. LA also has far more substantial other high-rise districts than Calgary, like Century City, Hollywood, and Koreatown.