SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Suburban Skylines (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=209620)

dleung Feb 7, 2014 6:13 AM

Your city's suburban skylines in 3D
 
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

http://i.imgur.com/wcn8TS7.jpg

Downtown Vancouver
http://i.imgur.com/sWfy0hC.jpg

Ambleside
http://i.imgur.com/XtDPMB2.jpg

Lonsdale, with downtown in the distance
http://i.imgur.com/LHFIihA.jpg

Lonsdale again
http://i.imgur.com/Hwnr84w.jpg

Metrotown
http://i.imgur.com/lMgLpNE.jpg

New Westminster Downtown
http://i.imgur.com/JFnyRRp.jpg

New Westminster Uptown
http://i.imgur.com/1V7TzVf.jpg

Broadway, viewed from False Creek
http://i.imgur.com/pITzyH8.jpg

Kerrisdale, with Vancouver in background
http://i.imgur.com/hi36VAn.jpg

Richmond, with Vancouver International airport across the river to right
http://i.imgur.com/Qm2H3d8.jpg

Brentwood, with Metrotown in the distance
http://i.imgur.com/gFeq2xW.jpg

Edmonds, with Metrotown and Brentwood in the distance
http://i.imgur.com/UpQFEp1.jpg

Lougheed Town Centre
http://i.imgur.com/wSwMeIU.jpg

Coquitlam Town Centre
http://i.imgur.com/SsCWoDe.jpg

Port Moody, with Coquitlam in distance
http://i.imgur.com/npY1gXD.jpg

dleung Feb 24, 2014 3:38 AM

Seattle, and Bellevue:

http://i.imgur.com/ER03Lsr.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/cYkodo9.jpg

StethJeff Feb 24, 2014 3:49 AM

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

mello Feb 24, 2014 4:08 AM

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 Feb 24, 2014 7:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6465280)
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 Feb 24, 2014 9:17 PM

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

touraccuracy Feb 25, 2014 8:28 AM

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).

http://i.imgur.com/wcn8TS7.jpg

mSeattle Feb 26, 2014 1:20 AM

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 Feb 26, 2014 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austinlee (Post 6466202)
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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypherus (Post 6468466)
Burnaby, BC
http://i.imgur.com/GosS0Ah.jpg
Source: My Photo, 2014-02-17


dave8721 Feb 26, 2014 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman (Post 6469555)
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 Feb 26, 2014 10:33 PM

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

Innsertnamehere Feb 26, 2014 11:19 PM

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

dleung Mar 27, 2014 3:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6465280)
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 Mar 27, 2014 3:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman (Post 6470122)
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 Mar 27, 2014 4:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung (Post 6513768)
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 Mar 27, 2014 8:32 PM

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 Mar 27, 2014 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuckerman (Post 6514937)
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 ):haha: :

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/imag.../04/439159.jpg
http://motorussians.com/wp-content/u...img-299146.jpg

Overpopulation is not fun. :(

pdxtex Mar 28, 2014 12:22 AM

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 Mar 28, 2014 2:41 AM

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 Mar 28, 2014 4:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6514972)
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 ):haha: :

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/imag.../04/439159.jpg
http://motorussians.com/wp-content/u...img-299146.jpg

Overpopulation is not fun. :(


Thats not overpopulation, that is underbuilt infrastructure.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.