Canadian Skyline Thread III

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

How 'bout they occupy/build basic, inspiring architectural gems? Perhaps people want intelligence and creativity in design rather than opulence. There is such thing as good design without it being luxurious, but creativity and innovation require skill and effort which
aren't always the government's strong suits. So it ends up being that the only way to do something nice is to throw lots of money at it.

Agreed. There is a balance to be found.

At the moment, Government workers often have pretty terrible work environments. I've heard so many horror stories from my wife and friends about the lack of washrooms, board rooms, break rooms, functional kitchen areas. I work at a not-for-profit and our facilities are a little more than adequate, but when I've had Federal worker friends and family visit, they are in awe of our basic amenities (and free coffee).

No wonder a lot of Federal workers are depressed and/or not motivated to work or go to the office, and that's beside the Phoenix debacle and the recent Canada Life issues, but that's another topic.

[WhipperSnapper]

In my limited experience, Bay Street financial institutions modernize more often than government or like Bay Street law firms as they are forever reducing work spaces to squeeze more people in. They leave the impression of a five star sweat shops. Those data entry, analysts working the private sector on Bay Street don't have the option to feel unmotivated. These are streamlined, efficient machines. Government are often clusterfucks.

[GreaterMontréal]

• Video Link

[Acajack]

I never hear that federal offices in Ottawa and Gatineau are lacking in basic amenities. Only that they are sometimes very old, cramped and outdated.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Agreed. There is a balance to be found.

At the moment, Government workers often have pretty terrible work environments. I've heard so many horror stories from my wife and friends about the lack of washrooms, board rooms, break rooms, functional kitchen areas. I work at a not-for-profit and our facilities are a little more than adequate, but when I've had Federal worker friends and family visit, they are in awe of our basic amenities (and free coffee).

No wonder a lot of Federal workers are depressed and/or not motivated to work or go to the office, and that's beside the Phoenix debacle and the recent Canada Life issues, but that's another topic.

[cranes]

Northdale Waterloo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tZf-8nSgwo

[koops65]

Slowly getting more dense...

[casper]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Agreed. There is a balance to be found.

At the moment, Government workers often have pretty terrible work environments. I've heard so many horror stories from my wife and friends about the lack of washrooms, board rooms, break rooms, functional kitchen areas. I work at a not-for-profit and our facilities are a little more than adequate, but when I've had Federal worker friends and family visit, they are in awe of our basic amenities (and free coffee).

No wonder a lot of Federal workers are depressed and/or not motivated to work or go to the office, and that's beside the Phoenix debacle and the recent Canada Life issues, but that's another topic.

I have always found the "free coffee" thing weird in the public sector. There is a fear of spending money on coffee. Weird schemes where they collect money from employees into coffee funds and administer that. The attitude in the private sector is more of, "why are we paying staff salaries to spend time running a coffee fund, when it costs less to just buy the coffee".

Getting back to work-space. I don't know. The "old school" environments where you still have enclosed offices are nice, but they look dated. The new modern with bench seating looks trendy, modern actually quite nice. I get the impression it is form over function. Old fashion cubicles are somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum and I think that is what most people are in (private or public).

While having nice offices helps, I think what makes for grumpy employees goes deeper.

[J.OT13]

What stands out in that Waterloo pic are the five identical towers on the upper, left. Why? Otherwise, it's not bad. Reminds me of Winnipeg, with the spread out cluster of towers.

Originally Posted by casper

I have always found the "free coffee" thing weird in the public sector. There is a fear of spending money on coffee. Weird schemes where they collect money from employees into coffee funds and administer that. The attitude in the private sector is more of, "why are we paying staff salaries to spend time running a coffee fund, when it costs less to just buy the coffee".

Getting back to work-space. I don't know. The "old school" environments where you still have enclosed offices are nice, but they look dated. The new modern with bench seating looks trendy, modern actually quite nice. I get the impression it is form over function. Old fashion cubicles are somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum and I think that is what most people are in (private or public).

While having nice offices helps, I think what makes for grumpy employees goes deeper.

On the whole coffee thing, providing it to your employees is also better for the environment by avoiding disposable cups, and probably results in more time working because they don't have to go downstairs to Starbucks three times a day.

As for office layouts, for sure, the old cubical farms are depressing. No longer the best model. In 2010s, we saw the rise of Office 2.0, brighter offices with fewer and shorter partition walls that still gave everyone their privacy, but resulted in a brighter environment and increased collaboration, while saving some space. The new Office 3.0 where it's line of desks, no walls, no privacy, no cabinet to put away your coat and shoes, (and now no assigned desks). Now that's terrible. Also cramming more people on a floor, so I have a feeling the washroom situation is no longer to code.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

What stands out in that Waterloo pic are the five identical towers on the upper, left. Why? Otherwise, it's not bad. Reminds me of Winnipeg, with the spread out cluster of towers.



On the whole coffee thing, providing it to your employees is also better for the environment by avoiding disposable cups, and probably results in more time working because they don't have to go downstairs to Starbucks three times a day.

As for office layouts, for sure, the old cubical farms are depressing. No longer the best model. In 2010s, we saw the rise of Office 2.0, brighter offices with fewer and shorter partition walls that still gave everyone their privacy, but resulted in a brighter environment and increased collaboration, while saving some space. The new Office 3.0 where it's line of desks, no walls, no privacy, no cabinet to put away your coat and shoes, (and now no assigned desks). Now that's terrible. Also cramming more people on a floor, so I have a feeling the washroom situation is no longer to code.

I remember how folks fought (1990s/early 2000s) to retain their 100sqft individual offices (public sector). I try to imagine working in the new office environment and have decided that I would lose my mind. (I know, "OK Boomer").

[MolsonExport]

Shitty quality (from my cellphone) London skyline shot (with our new tallest in the centre), taken about 3 blocks from my home.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

What stands out in that Waterloo pic are the five identical towers on the upper, left. Why? Otherwise, it's not bad. Reminds me of Winnipeg, with the spread out cluster of towers.



On the whole coffee thing, providing it to your employees is also better for the environment by avoiding disposable cups, and probably results in more time working because they don't have to go downstairs to Starbucks three times a day.

As for office layouts, for sure, the old cubical farms are depressing. No longer the best model. In 2010s, we saw the rise of Office 2.0, brighter offices with fewer and shorter partition walls that still gave everyone their privacy, but resulted in a brighter environment and increased collaboration, while saving some space. The new Office 3.0 where it's line of desks, no walls, no privacy, no cabinet to put away your coat and shoes, (and now no assigned desks). Now that's terrible. Also cramming more people on a floor, so I have a feeling the washroom situation is no longer to code.

The standard in the federal public service is now two days a week in the office, three days at home. Of course people likely congregate more in offices on certain days (Tue-Wed-Thu) but even so office buildings in downtown Ottawa are not even close to capacity when it comes to amenities per person.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The standard in the federal public service is now two days a week in the office, three days at home. Of course people likely congregate more in offices on certain days (Tue-Wed-Thu) but even so office buildings in downtown Ottawa are not even close to capacity when it comes to amenities per person.

Related to that, downtown Ottawa traffic is a breeze on Mondays and Fridays.

[megadude]

Was in the Sun Life tower in Waterloo. Had no idea what was Waterloo and what was Kitchener.

And why does this building with the BMO logo on it look like it has now windows?

[MolsonExport]

^I appreciate that KW is booming, but man, the city looks grim from the air (to be fair, so does London).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^I appreciate that KW is booming, but man, the city looks grim from the air (to be fair, so does London).

To be fair to them (and any of our cities, really), this isn't the prettiest time of year after the snow melt and before the spring clean-up and green-up.

[Gresto]

^Quite so. Everything is brown and grey at this time of year. It can make depressives of the most Panglossian among us.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

There are angles of central Hamilton that appear quite similar, through the trees. Usually from atop the escarpment, but there are lower vantage points that are less photographed.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Acajack

To be fair to them (and any of our cities, really), this isn't the prettiest time of year after the snow melt and before the spring clean-up and green-up.

Winter isn't a valid excuse for depressing, dreary looking cities. We can't do anything about climate but we have full control over what we build. In northern climates, architecture and design are even more important yet we fail miserably to mitigate the grey of winter. Colour, texture, quality materials, ornamentation, landscaping, and people focused design are all vital but what do we do instead?

We install concrete sidewalks. They're grey, primitive, and make a dreary day even more depressing. We turn over 80% of our public realm to asphalt, our streets are lined with a chaotic mess of overhead electrical, the majority of our buildings are functional with little thought given to appearance, and even our new builds are often colourless sheets of glass a block wide and 100m+ tall.

We could absolutely have cities that look attractive/inviting on a grey winter day but our design choices ramp up the dreary depressing skies even more. Winter doesn't help but isn't why our cities look like this in March. It's the design choices we make .... or more accurately, not paying attention to design.

[Acajack]

Yeah. I guess you are right. Thinking of Scandinavia now.

Originally Posted by isaidso

Winter isn't a valid excuse for depressing, dreary looking cities. We can't do anything about climate but we have full control over what we build. In northern climates, architecture and design are even more important yet we fail miserably to mitigate the grey of winter. Colour, texture, quality materials, ornamentation, landscaping, and people focused design are all vital but what do we do instead?

We install concrete sidewalks. They're grey, primitive, and make a dreary day even more depressing. We turn over 80% of our public realm to asphalt, our streets are lined with a chaotic mess of overhead electrical, the majority of our buildings are functional with little thought given to appearance, and even our new builds are often colourless sheets of glass a block wide and 100m+ tall.

We could absolutely have cities that look attractive/inviting on a grey winter day but our design choices ramp up the dreary depressing skies even more. Winter doesn't help but isn't why our cities look like this in March. It's the design choices we make .... or more accurately, not paying attention to design.

[Nouvellecosse]

I agree that we can and should make our cities more attractive. But but at the same time, urban design doesn't generally focus on making cities look attractive in aerial views. It's about making them look and function in an attractive way on the ground. Most people in a city like Kitchener don't live in highrises, and the ones who do don't spend the majority of their time starring out the window. So even if we changed a lot of things in our cities to make them more attractive it wouldn't necessarily do much for winter aerial shots like the ones above that prompted the critiques.