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

Seattle, and Bellevue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

Ironically, it's the scenic views that are causing the market to favor high-rise over mid-rise development.

Never mind. Answered my own question.

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.

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.

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. :(

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.....

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...

Thats not overpopulation, that is underbuilt infrastructure.

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.

That too, but I was referring the fact that the built form, given the same density, favors tall and skinny over squat-midrises more so in Vancouver than elsewhere, due to the premium people pay for the view. On the other hand, Vancouver is the only city where commute times are actually decreasing.

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.

Seems like there's still a fair bit of development on the fringe. Although maybe technically much of the townhouses and SFH being built there is replacing large lot suburban/exurban type development.

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

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.)

Its quite a transition of density. You can be in Bergen County, less than 2 miles West from the Hudson, and it feels like a far flung burb. Yet a mile can mean the difference between two story structures and generous yard sizes, to extreme density.

Example being the areas around Paterson. Driving through them, you wouldn't think you're right by NYC. Or even Fort Lee/ Teaneck.

I meant more so the SF metro, from what I remember. I admit I made that post a while ago now. The Vancouver skytrain services many municipalities, similar to BART, yet has managed to achieve the multi nodal style you see in this thread.When I say SF, I mean the metro, just as when I say Vancouver for that metro, instead of Burnaby, Richmond, etc.

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.

New Rochelle

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.

Good one!

There are good examples of urban suburban downtowns though.

Alas, Bellevue, my local version, has the skyline but might never get there on walkability. The street grid isn't that bad, but you have to push a button to cross legally, which often means waiting when you'd otherwise just go. When I visit I just ignore the buttons and cross of course (and almost got run over by a bus in a fly-through lane once).

evanston certainly doesn't have the mightiest skyline around, but for an american suburb, it sure does do a lot of things right at ground level.

check it out: Evanston, IL - Chicago's fantastic northern neighbor

I've been stumped myself as to why, for instance, San Bernardino isn't a suburban high rise jungle, with a commuter train to L.A., or Riverside or Hollywood or any other suburb of L.A.

I do recall that 72% of L.A. is still? archaically zoned for single family homes, and then there's the anti-density Nimby's to contend with.

Big question, with Vancouver, how did the developers win over their Nimby's?

San bernardino is an hour away from LA... It's not really a suburb of LA like Pasadena or Glendale for example.. There are many suburbs (or areas outside of DTLA) that have high rise districts.... Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Universal City, Brentwood, Westwood, Santa Monica, Hollywood, Koreatown, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Irvine and so on

Beause it's the least desirable part of Southern CA, and pretty much all sprawl. Why would there be an urgent need for corporate HQ highrises or luxury condo and hotel towers?

Also, that commuter rail line has limited ridership and frequency, and probably has nothing to do with development patterns.

Canada and the U.S. are quiet different when it comes to living preferences and zoning norms. And Vancouver is basically unique in that it's a place for Chinese nationals to park their money in RE.

The primary answer is that in Vancouver, nimbys don't have as much power. Which gets into Canadian land use decisions not being as local, etc.

NIMBY's generally have less power in Canada, but they have comparatively more in Vancouver due to the region's focus on quality-of-life, where shadowing, neighbourhood-scale, etc are important factors.

Since the first post 4 years ago, Vancouver's suburban skylines have all grown faster than downtown. There are now 4 skylines that peak at around 500-600 feet.

Metrotown
http://medias.photodeck.com/cd6bab7a...90_xgaplus.jpg

https://mrp-listings.myrealpage.com/...03d25f8d8.jpeg

Brentwood
https://cdnparap130.paragonrels.com/...2348279-19.JPG

Surrey
https://mrp-listings.myrealpage.com/...3c68da670.jpeg

clayton, missouri is in the midst of a building spree (for a suburban midwestern downtown):

https://media.chute.io/resize/aKWKzovg/5hPzG1gfyj/w/800
media.chute.io

but also has apartment neighborhoods like this:

https://www.barronrealty.com/cmss_fi...Screenshot.png
barronrealty.com

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Apartments.jpg
wikipedia.com

For Vancouver an additional factor favoring high-rise condo development was the timing of having half a million or so Chinese people moving over from Hong Kong and other places densely populated places in Asia and having high rise, transit-centric living as the expectation. Is there any data or anecdotal evidence to support my hypothesis?

In those four years, the Seattle area has had a TINY trickle of new highrises outside the Seattle and Bellevue cores. One in Southcenter, one in Renton, one in the U District, one in Tacoma... Others are planned in Lynnwood and Bellevue's I-90 corridor. This gives me hope that real skylines will happen in these places.

The U District and Tacoma are already highrise districts actually, just without large numbers. Tacoma might be stagnant after the current one. But the U District recently upzoned to allow highrises for the first time in decades, and something like eight of them are planned.

Bellevue has also upzoned to allow 600' in a core area, and a few proposals might soon take advantage of that.