HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2801  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 7:16 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 22,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
Yeah, the office thing is a big one for sure, but I guess Vancouver has Broadway to sort of play that secondary office role. I can't think of anything in Calgary that I'd compare to Broadway. In Edmonton I always think of Whyte Avenue since it's urban, low-rise and south of downtown across the water, but it doesn't really have the corporate presence either. I had no idea I spent so much time thinking about dumb stuff like this
Yep, we're nerds. The only other major street with a large office presence on it in Calgary is Macleod Trail. Unfortunately it hasn't been urbanized yet. However, if you're using across the water as part of the distinction, I guess our closest would be Kensington Road or Tenth Street. Calgary is a very centralized city, so we likely will never have an absolute equivalent to Broadway. However, the potential for Elbow Drive is quite promising to be an urban street connecting into the suburban south, along the Elbow River.
__________________
Strong & Free

Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2802  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 2:41 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 12,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
^ I'm more pointing out the fallacy in Leftcoasters arguement, I couldn't care less whether Toronto's core is busier or not. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if downtown vancouver was busier than King & Bay on any given day in February. 90% of people downtown are in the PATH that time of year, especially this winter given how we essentially had 2 straight months of -30 weather.
The fallacy in my argument??

Did you even bother to read my argument??

If you did you would notice I very clearly said if we are to take a broad definition of Toronto's downtown we must take a broad definition of Vancouver's downtown in order to compare. I never said that area wasn't part of a broad definition of Toronto.

The level of measured thought out posting on this forum has really taken a nose dive compared to the level of reactionary/contrarian posting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2803  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 2:48 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,806
So, how about those skylines? I hear they have a great team this year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2804  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 3:44 PM
koops65's Avatar
koops65 koops65 is online now
Intergalactic Barfly
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quarks Bar
Posts: 7,271
Yeah... future skylines... need to see more of them on this thread... that Calgary one looked excellent!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2805  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 3:55 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,806
Vancouver's west end looks like an Argentinean city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2806  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 4:05 PM
thebasketballgeek's Avatar
thebasketballgeek thebasketballgeek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Rimouski, Québec
Posts: 1,645
How do you make future skyline renders. If someone told me I could possibly make one for Winnipeg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2807  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 5:45 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 22,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by koops65 View Post
Yeah... future skylines... need to see more of them on this thread... that Calgary one looked excellent!
Yeah, the crazy part is, around a dozen projects are missing from it! His next batch of Future Renders are surely going to be amazing. I hope he does another one from that angle (from the south) and one from the north, because that view will showcase the Eau Claire Redevelopment and the GWL 7 Tower proposal!
__________________
Strong & Free

Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2808  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 8:54 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,910
I'm baffled by the fact that people could actually get butthurt about how people define their city's downtown. Like, that doesn't even make for any sort civic judgment or criticism of a city.


But then again, this is SSP Canada.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2809  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 9:50 PM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
I'm baffled by the fact that people could actually get butthurt about how people define their city's downtown. Like, that doesn't even make for any sort civic judgment or criticism of a city.


But then again, this is SSP Canada.
Whatever, these little debates are one of my favourite things about SSP. Who of our friends would willingly engage in a conversation about what they consider the boundaries of downtown to be? While here it lasts pages and spurs an entire thread!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2810  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 10:26 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 10,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor View Post
Vancouver is not hong Kong.

I want to preserve the mountain views. A few tall towers 600ft plus would be nice, but I'm opposed to a wall of 600 ft towers everywhere.
And that's why I'll likely never live in Vancouver. I want to live in a big bustling city that celebrates the built form, not one that prioritizes views of nature. If my priority is to stare at mountains, I'd move to Whistler. If Vancouver was busy, dense, tall, noisy, and energetic like Hong Kong I'd be tempted to move there one day. Btw, 600 ft isn't all that tall these days; try 1200 ft.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams

Last edited by isaidso; Apr 2, 2014 at 10:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2811  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 11:02 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,982
Vancouver is doing alright. Some of the development from ten years ago could have used higher densities but, the same could be said for development everywhere. 600 feet is close enough to 200m. The map in the buildings and architecture sub forum suggests it is still very tall for the vast majority of the earth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2812  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 11:24 PM
Procrastinational's Avatar
Procrastinational Procrastinational is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
And that's why I'll likely never live in Vancouver. I want to live in a big bustling city that celebrates the built form, not one that prioritizes views of nature. If my priority is to stare at mountains, I'd move to Whistler. If Vancouver was busy, dense, tall, noisy, and energetic like Hong Kong I'd be tempted to move there one day. Btw, 600 ft isn't all that tall these days; try 1200 ft.
If there were lots of 1200 foot towers being built, there likely wouldn't be as many total towers... And that could arguably make downtown Vancouver feel less urban.
I actually find that for Vancouver's size, it is impressive in terms of the number of mid/high rises. When you are downtown you are thinking, wow, these towers are never ending. Not "how sad, these towers should be taller. the city feels so small".
I think the height limits have made Vancouver feel more urban overall.


That being said, I'm not opposed to a couple of 1000+ foot towers to spice up the skyline a little bit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2813  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2014, 5:50 AM
Bcasey25raptor's Avatar
Bcasey25raptor Bcasey25raptor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver Suburbs
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrastinational View Post
If there were lots of 1200 foot towers being built, there likely wouldn't be as many total towers... And that could arguably make downtown Vancouver feel less urban.
I actually find that for Vancouver's size, it is impressive in terms of the number of mid/high rises. When you are downtown you are thinking, wow, these towers are never ending. Not "how sad, these towers should be taller. the city feels so small".
I think the height limits have made Vancouver feel more urban overall.


That being said, I'm not opposed to a couple of 1000+ foot towers to spice up the skyline a little bit
I think 1000 feet is a little too tall.

I'd like to see taller buildings in downtown vancouver around 700ft to 900ft at most.

But a small cluster and not a wall of them is what I'd want.
__________________
River District Big Government progressive
~ Just Watch me
- Pierre Elliot Trudeau
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2814  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 12:32 AM
Procrastinational's Avatar
Procrastinational Procrastinational is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor View Post
I think 1000 feet is a little too tall.

I'd like to see taller buildings in downtown vancouver around 700ft to 900ft at most.

But a small cluster and not a wall of them is what I'd want.
I'd be perfectly fine with that.
It's funny though, because of the height limit we ended up with a wall of buildings anyways. It just doesn't block the views. But it's pretty boring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2815  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 1:29 AM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,806
Vancouver picked a good cap height. It let's buildings be tall enough to be tall looking. Ottawa's cap is too short so most of the buildings look stubby.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2816  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 2:00 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
And that's why I'll likely never live in Vancouver. I want to live in a big bustling city that celebrates the built form, not one that prioritizes views of nature. If my priority is to stare at mountains, I'd move to Whistler. If Vancouver was busy, dense, tall, noisy, and energetic like Hong Kong I'd be tempted to move there one day. Btw, 600 ft isn't all that tall these days; try 1200 ft.
You would actually dislike the majority of Japanese cities then. The vast majority of towers here are between 15 and 25 stories.

For its population (2.5 million) Vancouver would actually be an extremely tall city in Japan, and many European cities, and in fact many cities throughout the world.

Even in Tokyo, arguably the world's largest urban centre, the tallest towers (excluding the two observation towers) are only around 250 meters. And that is a city of 35 million people.

For equal comparison, the Metro area of Sapporo Japan is 2.3 million, the tallest tower is around 173 meters, quickly after that tower height falls to around 1oo meters as there are indeed only 8 towers above 30 floors.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2817  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 2:11 AM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,968
Most people can agree that Vancouver's skyline is too much of a tabletop, and can use more buildings around 500'-700'. The ones who say that Vancouver should build a 1200-footer, or claim with a straight face that certain proposals there should be several times taller, tend to be from Toronto. Knowing this forum, I suspect they want for Vancouver what the CN tower did to Toronto's skyline in terms of size perception.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2818  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 2:17 AM
Ramako's Avatar
Ramako Ramako is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
The ones who say that Vancouver should build a 1200-footer, or claim with a straight face that certain proposals there should be several times taller, tend to be from Toronto.
How many people have been making this argument? I see only one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2819  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 2:19 AM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,968
Similar comments have been made on many other threads by others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2820  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 2:22 AM
Mrs Sauga Mrs Sauga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 730
I've seen mostly Vancouver posters wanting a 1200 foot tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:54 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.