Great Canadian Suburban Skyline Thread!

[Monolith]

West Vancouver, Brentwood, and Surrey

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photod...myXrHT-2mz2tsE

[Klazu]

New Westminster, BC

[Monolith]

Brentwood - Burnaby


https://www.flickr.com/photos/ffwood...-12129624@N00/


https://www.flickr.com/photos/sworld...-12129624@N00/

[Metro-One]

Awesome pics, Vancouver definitely has the most photogenic suburban skylines in the country.

Brentwood is surprisingly colorful and interesting at night.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Awesome pics, Vancouver definitely has the most photogenic suburban skylines in the country.

Brentwood is surprisingly colorful and interesting at night.

You mean Metro-Vancouver or Lower Mainland municipalities, which have their own city halls and make their own planning decisions.

All thanks to City of Vancouver's inability to grow upwards and becoming denser, the more forward-thinking suburb cities are able to produce all these town centre skylines; some from pretty much nothing, these past two decades to house the large number of people entering the region.

Outside downtown, Vancouver's city proper looks embarrassingly flat and suburban. This may change in time, but the city is already very late in the game.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

You mean Metro-Vancouver or Lower Mainland municipalities, which have their own city halls and make their own planning decisions.

All thanks to City of Vancouver's inability to grow upwards and becoming denser, the more forward-thinking suburb cities are able to produce all these town centre skylines; some from pretty much nothing, these past two decades to house the large number of people entering the region.

Outside downtown, Vancouver's city proper looks embarrassingly flat and suburban. This may change in time, but the city is already very late in the game.

Yet Vancouver proper is more than twice as dense Burnaby, which is the most urbanized large suburb.

The combined area of downtown and the Broadway Corridor have a population of around 200 000 people. With the Broadway plan close to being finalized, 40 story towers are going to start appearing very rapidly up and down the Broadway Corridor. In the next 2 decades, Downtown and Broadway will merge into one 5 square mile downtown area with upwards of 300 000 people. This will dwarf anything Burnaby or Surrey can throw at her.

On top of that will be Oakridge and Jericho which on their own will rival most suburban centres. I mean it’s not even close, the comparison between Vancouver and the suburbs.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Monolith

West Vancouver, Brentwood, and Surrey

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photod...myXrHT-2mz2tsE

It almost looks like a different city from that angle, with Mt. Baker (about 70 miles away) hovering like a mirage, in reality it doesn't look anything like this, but here it is thanks to the zoom lens. Metro Vancouver no longer needs its downtown to be in the picture at all.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Vin

You mean Metro-Vancouver or Lower Mainland municipalities, which have their own city halls and make their own planning decisions.

All thanks to City of Vancouver's inability to grow upwards and becoming denser, the more forward-thinking suburb cities are able to produce all these town centre skylines; some from pretty much nothing, these past two decades to house the large number of people entering the region.

Outside downtown, Vancouver's city proper looks embarrassingly flat and suburban. This may change in time, but the city is already very late in the game.

These towers are a product of high real estate values. Their heights seldom correlate with their densities or are they more urban than the mid rise infill in Vancouver. The single family neighbourhoods are not inhibiting infill development. There is room to build.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

These towers are a product of high real estate values. Their heights seldom correlate with their densities or are they more urban than the mid rise infill in Vancouver. The single family neighbourhoods are not inhibiting infill development. There is room to build.

Those town centres are certainly a lot more urban and have added A LOT more to the population densities than what they used to be: industrial parks, parking lots, brush-land and single family lots. The skylines pretty much spring up within the last 15 years or so, and they trump any suburb in other Canadian municipalities when it comes to skyline creation now. The demand for high-rise living have been going to the suburb municipalities because people can't afford the limited number of homes in Vancouver proper. Those municipalities do not have crippling policies like Vancouver's Viewcones, which allow developers to construct a lot of towers there. Period.

Mid-rise infills in Vancouver are hard to come by. Other than the Olympic Village (which has stagnated), not much is going on elsewhere. Even the Cambie corridor is pretty pathetic with 6 stories supposedly lining Cambie, and it is only happening very slowly, compared to what is happening in other municipalities. In addition, the cost to own one of these units is going through the roof. Even if they do line the arterial roads. the overall density declines because you also have to include the single family lots adjacent to them.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Those town centres are certainly a lot more urban and have added A LOT more to the population densities than what they used to be: industrial parks, parking lots, brush-land and single family lots. The skylines pretty much spring up within the last 15 years or so, and they trump any suburb in other Canadian municipalities when it comes to skyline creation now. The demand for high-rise living have been going to the suburb municipalities because people can't afford the limited number of homes in Vancouver proper. Those municipalities do not have crippling policies like Vancouver's Viewcones, which allow developers to construct a lot of towers there. Period.

Mid-rise infills in Vancouver are hard to come by. Other than the Olympic Village (which has stagnated), not much is going on elsewhere. Even the Cambie corridor is pretty pathetic with 6 stories supposedly lining Cambie, and it is only happening very slowly, compared to what is happening in other municipalities. In addition, the cost to own one of these units is going through the roof. Even if they do line the arterial roads. the overall density declines because you also have to include the single family lots adjacent to them.

By the way, there is no demand for highrise living. Land use policies heavily favour high rise condos, so people are left with little choice but to look at living in one. Suburbs aren't doing anyone any favours here. The cost to live in a condo that is big enough for a family is prohibitive for the vast majority of people. Even a 600 sq foot unit is unaffordable for most.

You worship condo towers too much.

The suburbs would serve its population far better if they built ground oriented housing units at the same rate (or better yet at a higher rate) they build high rise condo units. A ground oriented unit saves the buyers 100's of thousands on the cost of a good sized unit appropriate for a family. The suburbs also have housing lots that are twice as big as lots in the CoV. You could build 2 detached homes on those, but the municipalities continue the dream of building their own downtown Vancouver. There is no reason to be forcing extra costs on people in the suburbs.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

By the way, there is no demand for highrise living. Land use policies heavily favour high rise condos, so people are left with little choice but to look at living in one. Suburbs aren't doing anyone any favours here. The cost to live in a condo that is big enough for a family is prohibitive for the vast majority of people. Even a 600 sq foot unit is unaffordable for most.

You worship condo towers too much.

The suburbs would serve its population far better if they built ground oriented housing units at the same rate (or better yet at a higher rate) they build high rise condo units. A ground oriented unit saves the buyers 100's of thousands on the cost of a good sized unit appropriate for a family. The suburbs also have housing lots that are twice as big as lots in the CoV. You could build 2 detached homes on those, but the municipalities continue the dream of building their own downtown Vancouver. There is no reason to be forcing extra costs on people in the suburbs.

I wonder how the prices of condos are always climbing if there "is no demand". Hmmmmm.

I also wonder whether the suburbs are doing anyone any favour if no highrise condos are built. Where do those coming into this region live in then? Trees and caves perhaps.

FYI, Vancouver is building ground oriented housing units and it is certainly not saving "buyers 100's of thousands on the cost of a good sized unit appropriate for a family". In fact, the highrise condos (outside downtown) are the more affordable option there compared to the low-rises. It would be laughable if they can achieve the same in the suburb municipalities too. Just a simple comparison: A two-lot combined highrise can provide for at least 100 families, whereas a 2-lot duplex only provides for four. If you want highrise condo developers to build family-size units, then it is a totally different matter altogether. There may be a lack of such buildings, but 3 bedroom highrise condos can still provide way more density and cost-saving than any ground-oriented apartment building of similar quality.

[Monolith]

Metrotown

Sunrise at Burnaby, Vancouver by David Zhang, on Flickr

[Klazu]

Winter in Burnaby.

[JHikka]

Mississauga

via bangkok at UT
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread....25772/page-59

[MolsonExport]

great density. great height. zilch on pedestrian attractiveness. Stroadsville. A pseudo downtown.

[905er]

That view is going to look so much different in 5 years time. ..and there's a chunk of skyline not even catptured in that pic that would be just off to the right.
The pedestrian experience is changing for the better slooowwly... as these towers get built. The greater density is proving to help with that.

[JHikka]

Transit City @ Vaughan Metropolitan Centre




via oresama at UT


via Ryan8612 at UT

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...t.28907/page-8

TC4 & TC5, currently U/C, will top out at 174m/50s.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by logan5

Yet Vancouver proper is more than twice as dense Burnaby, which is the most urbanized large suburb.

To be fair to Burnaby, about 1/3 of its land area is undevelopable, being locked up in either Burnaby Mountain, the Burnaby Lake and Deer Lake parks and flood lands along the Fraser.

I also think a greater percentage of Burnaby's land is covered in employment areas than the CoV, but I don't have the stats handy.

In general, I don't actually have a problem with the City of Vancouver painting itself into a corner long term. While downtown Vancouver will always be the "centre" of the region, I'd rather that more jobs and amenities shift to the truer geographic centre of the region, which is probably closer to the eastern Burnaby/New West/northern Surrey/southwestern Coquitlam area. The region's transit and [skimpy] highway infrastructure is actually better oriented towards that general area than it is to downtown Vancouver.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I also think a greater percentage of Burnaby's land is covered in employment areas than the CoV, but I don't have the stats handy.

Based on my own speculation, I think that Burnaby may have more land available for employment development but it definitely does not have the job density that the COV has (nor do I think it is part of their plans). In fact, IIRC, Burnaby has more land set aside for light industrial uses which typically takes up more land than Offices and Retail centers. And that is taking into consideration that forms of high density industrial uses will start to become more predominant in the Metro region.

My speculative conclusion here is that even though Burnaby has more developable land geared towards the creation of employment opportunities, that the job densities offered in those areas will be outpaced by the COV and Surrey in the long term. I'm not saying it is a bad thing either as the region will need these kinds of land uses to support the region; I just don't think that more developable land = more jobs when I take into consideration what types of employment that will be offered in these spaces.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

In general, I don't actually have a problem with the City of Vancouver painting itself into a corner long term. While downtown Vancouver will always be the "centre" of the region, I'd rather that more jobs and amenities shift to the truer geographic centre of the region, which is probably closer to the eastern Burnaby/New West/northern Surrey/southwestern Coquitlam area.

I know that you said in the long term but it will be a long, long time before the focus of the Metro region shifts away from the COV though. And even then, I doubt it would shift to Burnaby.

The COV is unmatched at this time when it comes to creating jobs. The second highest employment center in the province of BC is on Broadway Street in Vancouver (after downtown Vancouver) and now it is getting a Skytrain extension built right under it. Plus areas like Mt. Pleasant in the COV are definitely ramping up their own densities when it comes to employment centres.

It will be a long time before Burnaby can catch up and offer the employment opportunities that the COV does. And even then those employment opportunities will look different as I am sure that the competition for employment centers will come from Surrey in a big way.

It also seems to me that Burnaby doesn't have as much political momentum as Surrey when it comes to bringing jobs to their municipal area since most of its development seems to focus on residential with very small office/retail mixed portions of these developments; this is considering that there are some pockets of employment centres sprinkled throughout Burnaby (with some more industrial uses) on the way but I honestly think that Surrey will start to overtake Burnaby in the near future when it comes to job creation since its plans for the future are more ambitious and robust than say developing town centres focused on residential components with small portions of retail/office mixed uses.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The region's transit and [skimpy] highway infrastructure is actually better oriented towards that general area than it is to downtown Vancouver.

Agreed.

I just see a lack of political momentum from Burnaby to really take advantage of this geographical location in the Metro region. I would think that with the larger land availability, the highway infrastructure, and the access to North America's 3rd largest port (Port of Vancouver), and access to some of the region's best transit infrastructure that Burnaby would be happy to race towards developing multiple diverse job creation centers.

But alas, we just don't see it in Burnaby and they quite frankly seem happy to continue developing residential focused town centers serving as the region's bedroom community even though they could be a lot more ambitious with developing office towers, Tech hubs, or light industrial centers .

Btw, I feel that this kind of intra-regional competition is actually a very good thing for Metro Vancouver overall but Burnaby is a little behind when it comes to developing an ambitious long-term development plan. And don't get me started on the missing middle SFH issue.

[Monolith]

Metrotown, Burnaby by Jul.Love life, on Flickr