Why Do Canadian Skylines Overperform Relative To Their Metro Populations?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Philly has my 3rd favourite skyline in the US. Extremely well-proportioned with standout buildings that all seem to relate to one another. For an old city that hasn’t grown quickly, almost all of its notable skyscrapers were built in the last 35 years, or after the William Penn statue height limit was removed. Its older, sub-450 ft high rises provide a decent beige-coloured background filler.

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I think San Fran could be making a sneaky push for 3rd best skyline by the time it's current building cycle is completed.

Philly and SF both seem to be vying for the title of third best American skyline these days. Which is interesting, 'cause they kinda came out of nowhere* - neither of them had particularly noteworthy skylines until recently. Even just a few years back when I joined the forum, they were both a solid tier below cities like Los Angeles, Houston, and Miami. Compare this to New York and Chicago which have always been the skyscraper kings.

*Though I guess it does make sense. Both cities already had dense cores with a strong build up of smaller towers. The foundations were there, and all they needed were a few tall, signature towers to break the plateaus - which they got.

(FWIW, Philly gets my vote for #3 - for now at least)

[kool maudit]

The Bay Area is arguably the third most powerful US region now, behind New York and DC and ahead of most countries' top city, including Toronto.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

The Bay Area is arguably the third most powerful US region now, behind New York and DC and ahead of most countries' top city, including Toronto.

Southern California (LA/Riverside/San Diego etc) is still a more powerful region than the Bay Area, no?

(In any event, California is truly an economic and cultural powerhouse.)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

The Bay Area is arguably the third most powerful US region now, behind New York and DC and ahead of most countries' top city, including Toronto.

Well, behind LA too. LA has to be #2; the economic/soft power gap is too wide.

The issue with the Bay Area, though, is that it's more Rhein-Ruhr or Randstad. Its power is derived from Sand Hill Road office parks, 40 miles from the primate city, and largely disconnected except by accident of geography.

[kool maudit]

I would say that the Bay Area's role as "the capital of the internet" gives it even more weight (or 'strategic importance', perhaps) than LA's cultural heft, although I'll admit the change was very recent (i.e. post-2012).

[suburbanite]

LA is so massive people forget how much there is beyond Hollywood. There's probably more pure finance jobs (other than VC) compared to the Bay Area. The continent's largest port and the gateway to China and the far East. Massive swaths of industrial land, I wouldn't be surprised if LA had the most Industrial SF of any metro.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

LA is so massive people forget how much there is beyond Hollywood. There's probably more pure finance jobs (other than VC) compared to the Bay Area. The continent's largest port and the gateway to China and the far East. Massive swaths of industrial land, I wouldn't be surprised if LA had the most Industrial SF of any metro.

Pretty sure that it does. I think within the U.S., Los Angeles is far more important because of its manufacturing role. Globally, the Bay Area is far more important.

[iheartthed]

I think Philly is probably the #3 skyline in the U.S., Miami #4, and SF #5.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Massive swaths of industrial land, I wouldn't be surprised if LA had the most Industrial SF of any metro.

Yeah, LA has the most industrial jobs, by a longshot. Huge port, easily the largest in the Americas, and huge distribution/logistics center.

LA has a gigantic economy. It arguably has the world's third largest metropolitan economy.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, LA has the most industrial jobs, by a longshot. Huge port, easily the largest in the Americas, and huge distribution/logistics center.

LA has a gigantic economy. It arguably has the world's third largest metropolitan economy.

I do wonder how much of the LA economy historically has been fueling growth within the metro itself. I swear it must have the most residential developers of any city on the planet. I have notifications setup on Indeed for real estate finance jobs in a few cities just for kicks mostly. I probably get double the hits for LA as I do for New York, San Fran, and Vancouver.

I don't like comparing city GDP's and I think LA's is probably actually understated compared to it's true economic importance. It feels like more of a domestic powerhouse though than the traditional international centers like New York, Tokyo, London, Hong Kong, etc.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, LA has the most industrial jobs, by a longshot. Huge port, easily the largest in the Americas, and huge distribution/logistics center.

LA has a gigantic economy. It arguably has the world's third largest metropolitan economy.

Some list it third in the world, with Tokyo and New York occupying 1st and 2nd spots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

OECD:

[chris08876]

I do envy Canadian cities a bit. Like compared to the American counterparts, they seem to offer a more of a in-your-face-urban-experience. We have our set of shining beacons in the states, but also many atrocious examples. Canadian cities though... they are nice (most of them). Some of them do have ugly sprawl, but not on the level of the U.S. cities. Some U.S. cities, are just travesties. Both in urban form, and efficiency. So I gotta give credit to Canada, they are doing okay with respect to cities/metros and their efficiency (density helps).

[Razor]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I do envy Canadian cities a bit. Like compared to the American counterparts, they seem to offer a more of a in-your-face-urban-experience. We have our set of shining beacons in the states, but also many atrocious examples. Canadian cities though... they are nice (most of them). Some of them do have ugly sprawl, but not on the level of the U.S. cities. Some U.S. cities, are just travesties. Both in urban form, and efficiency. So I gotta give credit to Canada, they are doing okay with respect to cities/metros and their efficiency (density helps).

What has Canada done to have these "larger then they should be' skylines for their respect sizes was my main question for discussion?..There has been some great answers to that on here. One being more apartment or condo dwellers in their cores. Something I never thought of. Canada also lucked out in the sense that our cities came of age when there was more modern urban planning and transportation when that concept wasn't a frontier. Zoning ,etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Viggo also wore a Habs jersey under his armor in the epic battle scenes of the LOTR movies.

Cool!

[pip]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I do envy Canadian cities a bit. Like compared to the American counterparts, they seem to offer a more of a in-your-face-urban-experience. We have our set of shining beacons in the states, but also many atrocious examples. Canadian cities though... they are nice (most of them). Some of them do have ugly sprawl, but not on the level of the U.S. cities. Some U.S. cities, are just travesties. Both in urban form, and efficiency. So I gotta give credit to Canada, they are doing okay with respect to cities/metros and their efficiency (density helps).

And also safety.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I do envy Canadian cities a bit. Like compared to the American counterparts, they seem to offer a more of a in-your-face-urban-experience. We have our set of shining beacons in the states, but also many atrocious examples. Canadian cities though... they are nice (most of them). Some of them do have ugly sprawl, but not on the level of the U.S. cities. Some U.S. cities, are just travesties. Both in urban form, and efficiency. So I gotta give credit to Canada, they are doing okay with respect to cities/metros and their efficiency (density helps).

Canadians are the ones who should envy the US. NYC is still #1 in terms skyscrapers and density and urbanity and transit. Even if Toronto had 20 million people it would not be anywhere close to the same level as NYC.

It is weird though such a big gap between NYC and the rest of country, like NYC vs. OKC, it's like night and day. Toronto isn't really that different from the rest of Canada. USA is known for widening gaps, Canada isn't really like that.

Canada has nothing to compare to OKC but it has nothing to compare to NYC either.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Philly and SF both seem to be vying for the title of third best American skyline these days. Which is interesting, 'cause they kinda came out of nowhere* - neither of them had particularly noteworthy skylines until recently. Even just a few years back when I joined the forum, they were both a solid tier below cities like Los Angeles, Houston, and Miami. Compare this to New York and Chicago which have always been the skyscraper kings.

Unlike #1 and #2 (which have been undebatably set in stone for decades now), the #3 largest skyline in the US has been quite fluid and uncertain over time.

"Largest skyline" is obviously an inexact calculation of height + mass + density, but with #1 and #2, the numbers are definitive, no matter how you slice 'em. However, when you get to the 3-spot, shit gets a lot less clear and subjectivity comes more to the fore.

I can see legit arguments being made for Miami, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Philly, but at the end of the day, I'd be hard pressed to say that any of them are a case-closed lock the way that NYC and Chicago are. However, if Miami could ever figure out a way to get any of its two dozen supertalls proposals ever built, it's case as a free and clear #3 would get a lot stronger, as it already has a pretty sizeable lead over the others in the 500+ footer game. It just really needs more top-end height.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Razor

^ Yes it's hard to describe or pigeon hole the Quebec/On border. Obviously there's a freedom of movement between the two provinces, but I have almost have that same duplicity yet different sensation as crossing into the U.S..More muted, but it's there. I'm used to Quebec culture, so someone from Alberta crossing into Quebec would probably see more of the transition vs crossing into Montana or Wyoming. Makes me wonder if there are sudden similiar cultural shifts once you cross State lines down In the U.S? Louisiana and Texas maybe?

Why would there be a big shift between Louisiana and Texas? The population that's still in touch with their Cajun roots is fairly small (not to mention the majority of LA's population probably isn't even of Cajun descent). Somewhere like Welland or Windsor probably has a higher % of french as a mother tongue speakers than Louisiana as a whole.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Unlike #1 and #2 (which have been undebatably set in stone for decades now), the #3 largest skyline in the US has been quite fluid and uncertain over time.

"Largest skyline" is obviously an inexact calculation of height + mass + density, but with #1 and #2, the numbers are definitive, no matter how you slice 'em. However, when you get the the 3-spot, shit gets a lot less clear and subjectivity comes more to the fore.

I can see legit arguments being made for Miami, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Philly, but at the end of the day, I'd be hard pressed to say that any of them are a case-closed lock the way that NYC and Chicago are. However, if Miami could ever figure out a way to get any of its two dozen supertalls proposals ever built, it's case as a free and clear #3 would get a lot stronger, as it already has a pretty sizeable lead over the others in the 500+ footer game. It just really needs more top-end height.

I think South Florida and Chicagoland are pretty neck to neck in terms of total highrises actually. But Chicago's skyline is undoubtedly more impressive because you can get all of it in one shot and it's taller.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by memph

Why would there be a big shift between Louisiana and Texas? The population that's still in touch with their Cajun roots is fairly small (not to mention the majority of LA's population probably isn't even of Cajun descent). Somewhere like Welland or Windsor probably has a higher % of french as a mother tongue speakers than Louisiana as a whole.

I wasn't targeting a French/Anglo transition..Just an equivalent hard cultural transition between states like you would see here. I admit, I don't have enough experience on that, so I was just grasping a bit at straws at the LA and Texas example.As well, the Quebec/ON transition is not necessarily a huge change, but it is there and noticeable.

Originally Posted by Doady

Canadians are the ones who should envy the US. NYC is still #1 in terms skyscrapers and density and urbanity and transit. Even if Toronto had 20 million people it would not be anywhere close to the same level as NYC.
It is weird though such a big gap between NYC and the rest of country, like NYC vs. OKC, it's like night and day. Toronto isn't really that different from the rest of Canada. USA is known for widening gaps, Canada isn't really like that.

Canada has nothing to compare to OKC but it has nothing to compare to NYC either.

Again, this thread was not intended to be about that..Also, Yes within Canada Toronto is definitely different from the rest of the country in the skyline department..It's somewhat analogous to what NYC is to the rest of the U.S.,but more so. Canada is a fairly small country, so to have (+/-) 20% of it's population within the orbit of one city makes that city loom larger then it should on paper.