Future Canadian Skylines - Page 190

Klazu · #**3781** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 3:42 AM**

How Vancouver skyline might soon look like. I kind of like the idea of evolving our skyline towards a dome shape with several skyscrapers around 200 meters. This view is from west which is not often seen as there is no natural place to see it like this.

dleung · #**3782** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 5:18 AM**

I prefer a more mountainous-shaped skyline for better legibility. 2015 actually looks better. The dome will look like a tabletop from any vantage point that isn't far away.

Nouvellecosse · #**3783** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 5:23 AM**

If I was to choose between the 3 from a purely skyline perspective, I'd say the first one is the most distinctive. For the other two, you wouldn't even know they have a "shape" without the aid of that line.

Beedok · #**3784** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 1:47 PM**

More distinct, but less appealing I'd say.

Metro-One · #**3785** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 2:24 PM**

I don't see why it would be less appealing. It is a decent gain in height with far more opportunities of signature towers. It could benefit from a couple taller towers in the centre of the dome around 215 meters in height.

In general, for me, I think it is a big improvement.

I think these renders show how much taller and impressive the skyline will be. Shangri-La and Trump are the two tall towers furthest to the left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks!

A few snips from the pdf.

The corner treatment looks revised from the initial renderings. (no triangular panels).
The ground level looks too stilt-like for my liking.

http://wallfinancialcorporation.com/...0brds%20LR.pdf

TorontoDrew · #**3786** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 2:52 PM**

that dome should be another 100m higher for 2035. Way too short IMO.

Nouvellecosse · #**3787** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 2:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I don't see why it would be less appealing. It is a decent gain in height with far more opportunities of signature towers. It could benefit from a couple taller towers in the centre of the dome around 215 meters in height.

In general, for me, I think it is a big improvement.

I think these renders show how much taller and impressive the skyline will be. Shangri-La and Trump are the two tall towers furthest to the left.

He was talking about me calling the flat table top more distinct.

I'll reserve judgement on how appealing it is until after the new additions are completed.

esquire · #**3788** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 3:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

How Vancouver skyline might soon look like. I kind of like the idea of evolving our skyline towards a dome shape with several skyscrapers around 200 meters. This view is from west which is not often seen as there is no natural place to see it like this.

I presume that image you posted is from the official Vancouver planning policy? If so, I love the fact that it speaks to the appearance of the city's skyline and how it relates to urban image... I wish Winnipeg's plan considered how buildings fit into the skyline when making zoning or other such decisions.

Innsertnamehere · #**3789** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 3:42 PM**

winnipeg has so little new construction they should take what they can get if you ask me.

I'm not a fan of "planning" a skyline, skylines should be organic and grow how markets see fit, its what makes them so interesting.

WhipperSnapper · #**3790** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 5:00 PM**

I like skylines but the aesthetics of them are superficial when it comes to building dense, high rise communities. I rather not leave it to the market even if planning rationale is centred more on maximum buildable area like in Manhattan. I doubt when the planning was conceived that pencil thin residential towers with super high ceilings and low lot coverage would ever be economical. Now a push for height limits.

MolsonExport · #**3791** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 5:15 PM**

Cones>Domes>Tabletops

ssiguy · #**3792** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 7:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

winnipeg has so little new construction they should take what they can get if you ask me.

I'm not a fan of "planning" a skyline, skylines should be organic and grow how markets see fit, its what makes them so interesting.

I agree.

As long as the buildings fit the general area then who cares where precisely they go? It's this stupid planned skyline that led to Vancouver flat and uninteresting table top skyline in the first place.

esquire · #**3793** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 7:06 PM**

^ I don't want skyline related policies to be a cudgel to be wielded by NIMBYs... rather, I'd like to see the acknowledgment of the importance of skyline when it comes to civic image and use it as a way to encourage (or at the very least remove obstacles to) buildings of taller height.

In essence, if there is a controversial proposal that is getting NIMBY'd to death, it would be great if a developer could point to a rendering and cite the tower's positive impact on the skyline as a reason to allow it.

TRiToNDREyJA · #**3794** Posted **Nov 16, 2015, 2:41 AM**

True north square's 27 story tower probably wont be this tall and parcel 4 may very well be completely redone, but this hyper-optimistic model of what we could potentially have is very satisfying.

Something more than a 4 building cluster with a few buildings far away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

winnipeg has so little new construction they should take what they can get if you ask me.

I'm not a fan of "planning" a skyline, skylines should be organic and grow how markets see fit, its what makes them so interesting.

^^
I agree, there arent enough options to be picky about it. Nothing will ruin the chances of a nice skyline, so taking what is there can't ever be bad in Winnipeg's case IMO