What the prettiest skyline under 500-600 ft?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ue

Yeah, but I tend to view the natural setting separately. Vancouver and Rio have gorgeous natural geography -- that can't be disputed, but the structures that make up the urban skyline leave a lot to be desired.

Vancouver's most distinctive looking buildings -- the old office core, One Wall Centre, Vancouver House, and the Woodwards building are all the same height generally as the endless curtain wall and stucco condos and so unless you have an angle where these buildings are front and centre (like False Creek and Vancouver House) it kind of gets lost in the shuffle.

A similar thing is happening in Toronto, where the far more distinctive old Financial Core towers are getting hidden behind the endless blue-green glass of Southcore, Harbourfront, and CityPlace. The only thing that still stands out as 'Toronto' from certain angles (especially the lake) is the CN Tower.

Which is a shame, because Toronto's got some really great office towers.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by craigs

Which is a shame, because Toronto's got some really great office towers.

It's fine, Toronto needs more housing much more than worrying about protecting someone's postcard view who doesn't even live here.
As a Torontonian I would gladly take 1000 more 100m+ identical highrises in the core even it it completely blocked those office towers from view.
Cities are for people after all not office towers

[ue]

Originally Posted by Nite

It's fine, Toronto needs more housing much more than worrying about protecting someone's postcard view who doesn't even live here.
As a Torontonian I would gladly take 1000 more 100m+ identical highrises in the core even it it completely blocked those office towers from view.
Cities are for people after all not office towers

I agree with the part I bolded, and your general premise, but it seems to imply that Toronto is doing that in a way that meaningfully addresses the housing crisis, when it isn't. It'd be a different story if all those generic condo towers were actually affordable and accessible, but they aren't. They're built speculatively in order for a wealthy tranche to continuously profit off land values they've inflated and the further commodification of housing, such that the city continues to become more unaffordable with each passing year, the unhoused population continues to grow, and yet more and more condo towers are built, often with many units sitting empty. It's exceptionally egregious and so these towers have the worst of both aesthetics and livability for the city.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by ue

I agree with the part I bolded, and your general premise, but it seems to imply that Toronto is doing that in a way that meaningfully addresses the housing crisis, when it isn't. It'd be a different story if all those generic condo towers were actually affordable and accessible, but they aren't. They're built speculatively in order for a wealthy tranche to continuously profit off land values they've inflated and the commodification of housing, such that the city continues to become more affordable with each passing year, the unhoused population continues to grow, and yet more and more condo towers are built, often with many units sitting empty. It's exceptionally egregious and so these towers have the worst of both aesthetics and livability for the city.

The only way to address the housing crisis meaningfully is to build more. prices only come down with more supply. Prices are only high now because we have been underbuilding for 2 decades now.
The only reason Toronto and Vancouver have expensive housing is do to both cities are aggressive in protecting single family homes and low density neighborhoods from being redeveloped into high densities, getting rid of the yellow belt would solve our housing issues rapidly.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Nite

The only way to address the housing crisis meaningfully is to build more. prices only come down with more supply. Prices are only high now because we have been underbuilding for 2 decades now.
The only reason Toronto and Vancouver have expensive housing is do to both cities are aggressive in protecting single family homes and low density neighborhoods from being redeveloped into high densities, getting rid of the yellow belt would solve our housing issues rapidly.

Well, Toronto keeps building more and more condos, with many units sitting empty while more and more people are pushed into more precarious housing situations or ending up unhoused. You can't just keep building glass condos for six figure incomes and expect it to solve affordability.

Yes, there is an issue of much of the city's low density areas being protected, but that is secondary to the laissez faire real estate market inflating prices for greater profits. If all those cranes in the sky were going to affordable/public housing, there wouldn't be the same issue of housing. You say that continuing to build housing will make housing come down in price, but we've been told the bubble will burst for over a decade in Toronto now, and it hasn't (there is literally a 10 year old thread in the Canada section with this title). Units sit empty while owners wait out to make money on their investment, because the prices just continue to inflate regardless. There is no drop in prices despite ever increasing numbers of projects under construction.

It may seem oxymoronic that cities such as Toronto are filled with residential construction and yet housing continues to become harder and harder to access, but that is what is happening. And it is fueled by a capitalist class manipulating the market via speculation for obscene profit. This isn't even unique to Toronto. Vancouver, New York, Melbourne, and Auckland have similar tales.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Nite

It's fine, Toronto needs more housing much more than worrying about protecting someone's postcard view who doesn't even live here.
As a Torontonian I would gladly take 1000 more 100m+ identical highrises in the core even it it completely blocked those office towers from view.
Cities are for people after all not office towers

You must have mistaken this thread about evaluating the aesthetics of global skylines for a more localized conversation about housing demand/supply issues in Toronto.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Nite

It's fine, Toronto needs more housing much more than worrying about protecting someone's postcard view who doesn't even live here.
As a Torontonian I would gladly take 1000 more 100m+ identical highrises in the core even it it completely blocked those office towers from view.
Cities are for people after all not office towers

This is basically what Shanghai seems to have done, and China is likely attempting to do in many places: Build many replicated residential towers that are affordable to the middle class.

I don't know if it's working, but, anecdotally, I didn't see a lot of homeless people when I was there.

[Steely Dan]

here are a couple more shots of milwaukee's skyline.

it's certainly not a terribly noteworthy skyline from a height perspective, but i think these pics do a decent job
of showing how milwaukee has a respectably expansive skyline for a US MSA of ~1.5M people, thanks in no
small part to the line of lakefront residential highrises that stretches for about 1.5 miles north of downtown.

there's some real urban meat here, for a smaller american city.




source: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...2310614/page-8




source: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...2310614/page-8

[MolsonExport]

^that last one is impressive.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by ue

I think Vancouver has a lot of positive attributes, but I never got the allure of the skyline. It has a strong table top effect due to the egregious height limits (I do think height limits *can* have a place but generally they do nothing in Canadian cities) and just way too much of the same '90s-'00s sea green glass condos that blend in together. I appreciate what Vancouver House has done, and other projects like the Butterfly look interesting, but with the table top, it's going to feel bland and uninteresting. Vancouver's skyline is just a bunch of buildings that blend and don't stand out, becoming a big blob of green/blue, not unlike how a lot of Brazilian skylines are a bunch of generic white/grey slab towers of similar height.

Viewed from the south the skyline only looks good at dawn, dusk or at night. At least then the glass catches the light in interesting ways. Otherwise there are just too many buildings from the same era built of the same materials at the same height.

The best angle of the skyline is from the east where you can see the depth and breadth of the pre war buildings, diversity of building types, height and age, as well the port lands and other heavy industry.

[Camelback]

Midtown Phoenix is photogenic, especially with the mountains in the backdrop. Most buildings are 350-400 feet or so, everything is under 500 feet even in downtown.

flickr

[SFBruin]

Greater Phoenix is just really pretty in general imo. Kinda overlooked because it is so geographically isolated probably.

[suburbanite]

Milwaukee looks great. Always thought the city was kind of positioned to be the Portland of the midwest but it's never really seemed to take off. What are job prospects like in the city? Some more young people to live downtown and fill in some more of those urban gaps would be great.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Milwaukee looks great. Always thought the city was kind of positioned to be the Portland of the midwest but it's never really seemed to take off.

You're not the first person to wonder about that.

But I think too many of the underlying fundamentals of the two cities, and their respective regions, are just too different to really allow for that connection in any meaningful way.

"Portlandia" could have never been made about Milwaukee. It's too regular, and I say that as a compliment, not a prejorative.

[Shawn]

Milwaukee really does look great. The new glass towers in particular give a nice, fresh balance to the city's fantastic variety of older styles. I love the roof lines of 100 East Wisconsin and Milwaukee Center. They're echoing City Hall, right?

[LA21st]

Ive always liked Milwaukee.

[Omaharocks]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

You're not the first person to wonder about that.

But I think too many of the underlying fundamentals of the two cities, and their respective regions, are just too different to really allow for that connection in any meaningful way.

"Portlandia" could have never been made about Milwaukee. It's too regular, and I say that as a compliment, not a prejorative.

Agreed, although it seems that in recent years, Milwaukee seems to be assuming the mantle of mid-sized city with vibrant, livable core more than other midwest cities in it's size range. It seems to actually be reaching it's potential in other words, and already has the historic built form and natural setting to be really nice.

Culturally though, Milwaukee is still rather blue collar in large parts. But...that's not all that different than what Portland was like back before about the mid-90s.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

Agreed, although it seems that in recent years, Milwaukee seems to be assuming the mantle of mid-sized city with vibrant, livable core more than other midwest cities in it's size range. It seems to actually be reaching it's potential in other words, and already has the historic built form and natural setting to be really nice.

Culturally though, Milwaukee is still rather blue collar in large parts. But...that's not all that different than what Portland was like back before about the mid-90s.

Not sure that is still true about blue collar as Milwaukee also has quite a bit of financial/fin tech. Even though blue collar declined, Milwaukee was not devastated like some of the other midwest cities. Milwaukee is somewhat progressive, with a decent cultural scene (arts, nightlife, festivals) but Madison has the capital and flagship university, and is even more progressive and white collar. Not sure it will even be like a Portland with Madison there.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Not sure that is still true about blue collar as Milwaukee also has quite a bit of financial/fin tech.

well, yeah, pretty much every US city is less manufacturing-oriented today than it was 50 years ago, but milwaukee is still more oriented in that direction than most others.

but i don't think that's a big reason why it likely won't be "the next portland".

[hipster duck]

Milwaukee benefits from being close to Chicago. Its two standout features from those pics are clearly Chicago-inspired: having an urban canal-ized river run through downtown and having a wall of luxury highrises extend north along the lake.