H v d

[TorontoDrew]

London has the perfect mix for me. Paris felt too over planned and while the buildings are beautiful the lack of variety made kind of boring experience. But I'm here for height so give me Manhattan.

I chose Variety + Height because lets face it V + H = D.

[FrAnKs]

I only need density!

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

If we're strictly talking about skylines here, then height + density.

If we're talking about cityscapes in general, then variety + density.

I'd generally echo this sentiment.

Overall I'll go with the V+D, though it's very cool seeing skyscrapers loom in the distance whenever you get to a major crosstreet.

A curveball option could be H+V, depending on how we define both variety and density. If one were to take the opinion that the west end of Toronto isn't dense (compared to Manhattan it isn't) but rather features a variety of housing options / built vernacular, and that the height counts for towers in the CBD and other nodes. I love visiting places with big streetwalls and incredible density, but I also rather like having a yard or some form of personal outdoor space - even if it's shared with a couple other apartments. So long as I'm still within walking distance of the types of amenities I also enjoy. The apartment I stayed at in Norrebro in Copenhagen when I visited for a week had a neat looking courtyard that seemed well used - I wonder if that would suffice?

[MolsonExport]

Cleveland has variety and height, but lacks density. Buffalo too.


Many "towers in the park" places have height and density but lack variety.

skyrisecities

Heaven:

wikipedia

This place had it all. it still does, but strangely seems diminished since the glory days of the 1920s-1950s (prior to the grotesque makeover of lower manhattan)

traveltips

[biguc]

Some people seem to read qualities of urbanities in these choices. I don't know; I think we're talking about skylines alone. That's why I chose variety and height. The city below the skyline ought to be dense; it can be varied or not. But it's the icons that stick out above the noise that make the skyline.

Give me Shanghai over Sao Paolo any day.

[MolsonExport]

Has anyone spent more than 10 minutes walking around MCC?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by biguc

Some people seem to read qualities of urbanities in these choices. I don't know; I think we're talking about skylines alone. That's why I chose variety and height. The city below the skyline ought to be dense; it can be varied or not. But it's the icons that stick out above the noise that make the skyline.

There are also good and bad examples of each kind - simply looking at height, density, and variety in and of themselves isn't a qualitative urban assessment. For example:


Height + Density (low variety), the good kind:


https://goo.gl/maps/QihJZCVtvtBS3o9y6


Height + Density (low variety), the bad kind:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...n_Fu_Court.jpg

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Height + Density (low variety), the bad kind:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...n_Fu_Court.jpg

Rideau Street.


https://twitter.com/DowntownRideau/s...40967190204417

[Doady]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Has anyone spent more than 10 minutes walking around MCC?

Considering more than half of Mississauga City Centre is either parking lots and garages or undeveloped land, probably not much. Height, but lack of density and variety. One of the old office buildings got demolished recently, which doesn't help increase density or variety either.

The sidewalks of Buffalo and Cleveland aren't exactly packed either, and those downtowns lost much of their density to parking lots and garages. Mississauga still is at that same stage. Too much demand for parking because the population and jobs density is still low. Population of Mississauga City Centre in 2016 was still only 34,000, still less than Malton (population 37,500), for example. The travel distances in Mississauga are still too high for cycling, let alone for walking.