Suburban Skylines

[dleung]

Was playing around with google earth, and they've finally got a 3d scan of the Vancouver region... and all it's skylines Who needs photos anymore lol



Downtown Vancouver


Ambleside


Lonsdale, with downtown in the distance


Lonsdale again


Metrotown


New Westminster Downtown


New Westminster Uptown


Broadway, viewed from False Creek


Kerrisdale, with Vancouver in background


Richmond, with Vancouver International airport across the river to right


Brentwood, with Metrotown in the distance


Edmonds, with Metrotown and Brentwood in the distance


Lougheed Town Centre


Coquitlam Town Centre


Port Moody, with Coquitlam in distance

[dleung]

Seattle, and Bellevue:

[StethJeff]

Pretty much all of California is available in 3D on Apple Maps.

[mello]

So Vancouver is a young, expensive city laden with scenic views just like SD/LA/SF and they are progressive enough to have been going vertical in their suburbs for decades so what gives in California cities? Van is a clear example of how this works and people are fine with it, I just don't see why CA can't get its act together and go up outside of downtown areas.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by mello

So Vancouver is a young, expensive city laden with scenic views just like SD/LA/SF and they are progressive enough to have been going vertical in their suburbs for decades so what gives in California cities? Van is a clear example of how this works and people are fine with it, I just don't see why CA can't get its act together and go up outside of downtown areas.

Well, your statement is not really true for LA, but SD can use some highrises out side of Downtown and La Jolla

[Austinlee]

Wow, had no idea Vancouver had 13 satellite mini-skylines. That's pretty amazing. Considering downtown is already damn vertical.

[touraccuracy]

Looking at this map, it seems counter intuitive that Lougheed and Coquitlam are both in the same municipality, the City of Coquitlam (which looks massive), but Port Moody is not a part of it (it hugs the inlet).

[mSeattle]

Haha! I love the *1* (THUD) suburban highrise zone from the Seattle area after the parade of highrise zones up in the Vancouver area.
Did you mean to title this metro highrise zones? Isn't Broadway in Vancouver part of the city and not suburb?

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Wow, had no idea Vancouver had 13 satellite mini-skylines. That's pretty amazing. Considering downtown is already damn vertical.

I get the feeling that the majority of people outside of Metro Vancouver have no idea how vertical our suburbs have become. I think Toronto is the only other city in North America with more suburban highrises.

A pic showing New West in the foreground and Burnaby in the background.

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Burnaby, BC

Source: My Photo, 2014-02-17

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by vanman

I get the feeling that the majority of people outside of Metro Vancouver have no idea how vertical our suburbs have become. I think Toronto is the only other city in North America with more suburban highrises.

A pic showing New West in the foreground and Burnaby in the background.

Pretty sure Miami could give it a run for its money if by "suburban" you mean non-central city (ie not Miami). Places like Miami Beach, Aventura, Sunny Isles, Coral Gables, Hallandale Beach, or even places like Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach.

[vanman]

I completely forgot about Miami. I counted about 834 towers for suburban Miami, and 547 for suburban Vancouver.

[Innsertnamehere]

Toronto's highrises don't really cluster all that often though, they are just sort of everywhere.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by mello

So Vancouver is a young, expensive city laden with scenic views just like SD/LA/SF and they are progressive enough to have been going vertical in their suburbs for decades so what gives in California cities? Van is a clear example of how this works and people are fine with it, I just don't see why CA can't get its act together and go up outside of downtown areas.

Ironically, it's the scenic views that are causing the market to favor high-rise over mid-rise development.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by vanman

I completely forgot about Miami. I counted about 834 towers for suburban Miami, and 547 for suburban Vancouver.

Never mind. Answered my own question.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by dleung

Ironically, it's the scenic views that are causing the market to favor high-rise over mid-rise development.

I think its more to do with the lack of highways forcing people to live close to a skytrain station as its the only way to get around the city in a reasonable time frame. If SF was smart they would leverage BART a lot more, it is a similar kind of system even if it is on a larger scale.

[Tuckerman]

From a US perspective the development of the Vancouver area is quite amazing, both in terms of center development as well as the suburbs. It is an extreme example of the general Canadian example of thigh rise residential development taking precedence over suburban housing and lower density residential developments. It also illustrates how difference the US is; with few exceptions there is really nothing equivalent to this vertical growth that is characteristic particularly of most South American countries as well as Canada ad Asia. I used to think of America as the land of skyscrapers, but that has changed drastically - our skyscraper and high rise development is quite paltry in comparison to most other countries, and this is particularly true in the suburban areas that continue to be sprawled and build out rather than up. In particular this rapid high rise development is characteristic of fast growing cities throughout the world, with the exception of the US. It is of course true that fast growing cities in the US such as Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, miami etc. are adding a lot of high rises, but the number and density is not very great in comparison.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

I used to think of America as the land of skyscrapers, but that has changed drastically - our skyscraper and high rise development is quite paltry in comparison to most other countries, and this is particularly true in the suburban areas that continue to be sprawled and build out rather than up. In particular this rapid high rise development is characteristic of fast growing cities throughout the world, with the exception of the US. It is of course true that fast growing cities in the US such as Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, miami etc. are adding a lot of high rises, but the number and density is not very great in comparison.

Were getting there. I would still take quality over quantity. I've seen hundreds of aerials of S.American and cities in Asia, and quite frankly, most of those towers look horrible. Commie blocks really. Not to say that we don't have those as well, but in terms of developments, what is happening in Miami, NYC, Seattle, Chicago, and S.F. just to name a few are of very high quality. In terms of suburban development, we are a suburban nation. We pioneered the suburb and that lifestyle will not be dropping anytime soon. Our infrastructure is built for the suburbs.

Density also has to be considered carefully. Sometimes it works, sometimes it can be a economic burden. Some cities can support it, and the ones that can't, have issues. Our infrastructure need to catch up before we could truly support massive, dense cities. otherwise, they will look like this (Ok 1st pic is exaggeration but you get my point ) :




Overpopulation is not fun.

[pdxtex]

i think all those point towers in vancouver are built around 1 elevator shaft and single stair case that wraps around the core of the building. as far as i know, alot of american zoning calls for at least two stairs cases on either end of the building so the foot print has to be larger, hence stumpier size of glassy high rise condos around here.....

[mhays]

Yes, apparently there are aspects like that that make the US more expensive. I forget the specifics, but we certainly need multiple stairs for fire egress.

The US is all about saving small numbers of people from accidents...despite outcomes like this that do a lot more damage as a result. Our car culture kills what, 40,000 people per year, sprawl contributes to sedentary lifestyles, etc...

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Were getting there. I would still take quality over quantity. I've seen hundreds of aerials of S.American and cities in Asia, and quite frankly, most of those towers look horrible. Commie blocks really. Not to say that we don't have those as well, but in terms of developments, what is happening in Miami, NYC, Seattle, Chicago, and S.F. just to name a few are of very high quality. In terms of suburban development, we are a suburban nation. We pioneered the suburb and that lifestyle will not be dropping anytime soon. Our infrastructure is built for the suburbs.

Density also has to be considered carefully. Sometimes it works, sometimes it can be a economic burden. Some cities can support it, and the ones that can't, have issues. Our infrastructure need to catch up before we could truly support massive, dense cities. otherwise, they will look like this (Ok 1st pic is exaggeration but you get my point ) :




Overpopulation is not fun.

Thats not overpopulation, that is underbuilt infrastructure.