Umm you guys do realize our code is up to first world standards right? There are no highrises being built up in Canada with a single elevator nor with only one stairwell.
|
I wouldn't question the code in Vancouver - those are well built highrises and are no doubt of better quality than the sea of high rises in some South American cities. The narrow -one apt per floor high-rise residences are pretty common in Brazil. However structural issues remain a problem in many places - in the US a lot of the new mid-rise buildings are just stick and brick, usually with a base parking structure of concrete with wood framing rising 5 floors above it - giving the allusion of a solid mid-rise once all the cladding or brick are on the outside.
For me the real issue is the infrastructure below ground. On a recent visit to Beijing I was very impressed, if not overwhelmed, by the huge number of high rises going up and/or recently built there - truly remarkable. However, I couldn't help but think of what is at the base of all these foundations and what king of electrical, water, sewage, etc infrastructure exists or is being built to supply this rapid growth. (Not to mention that there was not potable water in my very modern high-rise hotel). Infrastructure is not a problem unique to the developing world, I have the same thoughts when in NYC with its old underground structure- often with a 70 story building going top of it. |
Quote:
|
An update on some of Richmond's new developments (It's a post-war suburb of Vancouver). This is downtown in 1977.
http://www.richmond.ca/cityhall/arch...0001-00105.gif http://www.richmond.ca/cityhall/arch...0001-00105.gif Richmond today, population 190,000 http://graham.ca/_images/AberdeenSq_MG_1881.jpg http://graham.ca/Projects/Commercial/Aberdeen.aspx http://i.imgur.com/lpoE1Tc.jpg photo by SVLT Greenfield development is virtually unheard of in metro Vancouver now. Almost all new construction requires demolition. |
Burnaby, a Vancouver suburb, population: 220,000
Here are 2 of Burnaby's 4 skylines: Brentwood - construction of a mall expansion with twin 600' towers in the foreground http://i.imgur.com/ubeX3lu.jpg Metrotown http://i.imgur.com/GjCaEFT.jpg |
Metro Vancouver from the Cypress Bowl lookout in West Vancouver taken by me today.
http://i.imgur.com/IBmgiSx.jpg?1 http://i.imgur.com/GAPrNOm.jpg?1 http://i.imgur.com/rzmbRKe.jpg?1 |
I'm surprised nobodies posted about the woodlands, a far flung suburb from Houston with a pretty large skyline, which is growing every year.
|
Chicago's suburbs, with a few notable exceptions, lack noteworthy skylines.
Not to say there isn't a lot of TOD or there aren't a lot of cool downtowns, but they are all human scaled. I kind of like them, to be honest. Those pics of Vancouver's burbs just don't appeal to me st all. |
Quote:
|
Yes and no. All the agricultural land is protected, but there is still residential development (townhomes and SFH) happening on woodlands in the valley and up the mountainsides as well (also forest). Regardless, compared to Seattle, for example, the amount of land developed/year is relatively small.
|
The only noteworthy one for Chicago is Evanston. Not much of a skyline but a very nice downtown with easy rail transit to Chicago. Also, trees!
http://kngkyle.com/uploads/095338.png |
Quote:
How do you suggest we leverage BART? SF does not control BART, it is a multi-county authority. Where there are BART stations in the city, there is already very dense commercial development (financial district), rapidly developing transit development (Civic Center), or vociferous opposition to density by the neigborhoods (Mission, Glen Park). |
Chicago and New York are pretty remarkable for their lack of suburban skylines relative to other cities of their sizes. (Jersey City is basically core NYC, and Newark is like a secondary core city.)
|
Quote:
Example being the areas around Paterson. Driving through them, you wouldn't think you're right by NYC. Or even Fort Lee/ Teaneck. |
Quote:
|
The biggest difference between the NY/Chi model's lack of suburban skylines and the Vancouver/Toronto model is that NY/Chi don't control outward growth, while Vancouver's and Toronto's are controlled by both policy and topography. Vancouver can't have low-density office sprawl or housing sprawl, and second-generation development is hard, so when it does develop it does so densely, allowed by policy.
Plus, both NY and Chi have central business districts with huge percentages of their local office space. So they have that going for them. |
White Plains has a pretty good skyline. And there's a city kind of SE of White Plains (can't remember the name off-hand) that has a decent skyline. So there are some suburban skylines near NYC. But I don't believe suburban Long Island for example has any skylines, even with millions and millions of people.
|
Quote:
|
in NYC you have
stanford new rochelle yonkers white plains newark Jersey city Fort Lee New haven new brunswick elizabeth rahway (couple highrises) metro park |
The greatest suburban skylines, a testament to humans ingenuity and respect towards pedestrians and wise stewardship of our finite planet include: Schaumburg, IL, Bloomington, MN & Southfield, MI. These are but a few of the many monuments to man's long term strategy of sustainable land use inclusive to all races and modes of mobility.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.