Future Canadian Skylines

[dleung]

This is the built form in Coquitlam, 30km from downtown Vancouver:



No streetlife though. For that you have to look in New West (20km from downtown)


or Richmond (15km from downtown)


In future skyline news, the future has caught up with my render from 8 years ago. All rendered buildings here have been built or topped out

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Toronto: 34 u/c
Vancouver: 2 u/c
Montreal: 8 u/c
Calgary: 8 u/c

Not that it makes a big difference, but there are 10 buildings over 100 meters UC in Mtl: Le Petersen (115), Tom (120), AC Hotel (120), TDC (167), Icone (145), Rocabella (147), YUL (120), Holiday Inn (120), Avenue (180), Manuvie (110), all of them within a one kilometers radius.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

In it's pre-war structures, absolutely. But you don't have stuff like this going on for 10km outside of downtown Montreal:

But that looks more suburban than anything else. To my eyes, it even feels empty and desolate, not a urban lover's walking experience. So it valides the point Beedok was making. The rows of triplexes tightly packed on much narrower streets feel a lot more urban to me and gives the city a much more denser feel, a more enclosing sentiment. I don't envy the kind of streetscapes pictured above.

I don't have absolute proof about Montreal's streets being narrower in general than Toronto's, but it's a feeling I have time and time again when I visit your city. Downtown Montreal really has only ONE very large street (René-Lévesque) and the occasional bits here and there, very short, like Union between Sherbrooke and Ste-Catherine. Otherwise, all the streets are much narrower, and that is without mentioning Le Plateau, an extension of the downtown core where the streets are narrow, and Old Montreal too, of course. Once again, no proof,no scientific studies, but it's something that I notice everytime I'm in Toronto. In general, Montreal feels more compact than Toronto, smaller, but more tightly build. I don't think it's a value judgement, it is what it is, and both cities have their own urban merits. They are simply not build the exact same way.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by dleung

This is the built form in Coquitlam, 30km from downtown Vancouver:



No streetlife though. For that you have to look in New West (20km from downtown)


or Richmond (15km from downtown)


In future skyline news, the future has caught up with my render from 8 years ago. All rendered buildings here have been built or topped out

You should add all the new proposals into that render now

Also Coquitlam is in the middle of a major transformation phase. I think the Evergreen Line skytrain and having 2 stations within / near that tower cluster will help the street life when it opens next year.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

But that looks more suburban than anything else. To my eyes, it even feels empty and desolate, not a urban lover's walking experience. So it valides the point Beedok was making.

The picture is deceiving, the sidewalks are wide and active. Lots of cafes, patios, and shops line the streets from north of Finch to south of Sheppard. Yonge Street is basically a highway up here, and there are underground passings-connections at Finch, Empress and Sheppard. If I have to travel between the nodes in a rush, sometimes I just use the subway.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

But that looks more suburban than anything else. To my eyes, it even feels empty and desolate, not a urban lover's walking experience. So it valides the point Beedok was making. The rows of triplexes tightly packed on much narrower streets feel a lot more urban to me and gives the city a much more denser feel, a more enclosing sentiment. I don't envy the kind of streetscapes pictured above.

Actually I was focused a bit more downtown. More like a walk along Rue St. Catherine vs. Queen St, or 4th Avenue in Calgary and King St. in Toronto. Toronto peaks higher, but being linear those intersecting roads go through the peak faster, and in Calgary's case the difference of maximum height isn't that huge. Toronto's still on top of course, just the lead in that department isn't as big as one would at first expect when just counting towers. Once you move out to the triplexes of Montreal then it's only Toronto and Montreal in the running, and when you move out to Vancouver's outer nodes it's only Toronto and Vancouver really in the running (though Ottawa does try and have a few decent attempts there).

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Not that it makes a big difference, but there are 10 buildings over 100 meters UC in Mtl: Le Petersen (115), Tom (120), AC Hotel (120), TDC (167), Icone (145), Rocabella (147), YUL (120), Holiday Inn (120), Avenue (180), Manuvie (110), all of them within a one kilometers radius.

2 of those are taller than the 150m cap that was on that list.

So, 6 for Montreal between 100m and 150m (why they included the cap, I don't know, but the numbers were correct for the stated building height range).

[TorontoDrew]

wrong thread

[WhipperSnapper]

North York Centre is surburban. I don't find road allowances on residential side street that create larger setbacks for front yards with street trees any less urban than a rowhouse block of similar densities. I know this goes against the grain on SSP probably because there does tend to be less to explore with commercial activities concentrated on main streets

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

In it's pre-war structures, absolutely. But you don't have stuff like this going on for 10km outside of downtown Montreal:

The thing that revolts me about this photo is that the corner is anchored by not one but two loansharking establishments. And I can't see the other side of the street.

[WhipperSnapper]

I've been led to believe their primary business is cashing cheques for those that can not wait out the banks cheque holding period. 4 days wait seems a little ridiculous these days.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

North York Centre is surburban. I don't find road allowances on residential side street that create larger setbacks for front yards with street trees any less urban than a rowhouse block of similar densities. I know this goes against the grain on SSP probably because there does tend to be less to explore with commercial activities concentrated on main streets

I would consider the main characteristics that differentiate urban from suburban are the distances from the sidewalk to the buildings, and the distances from one building to another (that includes both any space between two buildings side by side as well as the distance from buildings across the street due to the width of the road and medians, and the distance between any buildings behind on another street created by backyards or parking lots. The height of the buildings only plays a roll in intensity rather than urban vs suburban.

In other words, an area with abundant parking lots, set backs, and space between buildings, but with tall buildings is a high intensity suburban setting, and a space with a consistent streetwall, no surace parking, and streets not overly wide but with no tall buildings is a low intensity urban area.

[Gresto]

Yonge St. in North York is quite vibrant, and has few parking lots, but what makes it peculiar is that the highrises and "downtown activity" are literally almost directly adjacent to postwar residential areas. Finch and Sheppard Aves are also depressing in that they are busy arterials lined largely with run-down residential houses, many of them containing shady neon-lit businesses like Psychic Sally's, and other such bilge. Parts of Finch are being converted to townhouses, which is an improvement.

[softee]

Toronto doesn't exactly give way to single family houses right outside the downtown, it's mostly rows and semi-detached houses with apartment buildings of various sizes and ages mixed in, as well as newer infill in the form of small condo buildings. There are some streets near downtown with single family houses, but they aren't dominant by any means until you go quite a bit farther out.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I would consider the main characteristics that differentiate urban from suburban are the distances from the sidewalk to the buildings, and the distances from one building to another (that includes both any space between two buildings side by side as well as the distance from buildings across the street due to the width of the road and medians, and the distance between any buildings behind on another street created by backyards or parking lots. The height of the buildings only plays a roll in intensity rather than urban vs suburban.

In other words, an area with abundant parking lots, set backs, and space between buildings, but with tall buildings is a high intensity suburban setting, and a space with a consistent streetwall, no surace parking, and streets not overly wide but with no tall buildings is a low intensity urban area.

There are parts of Mississauga that are thoroughly suburban with minimal setbacks (if any) between buildings and the sidewalk. It's less built form in the way of building setbacks once a certain level of density is achieved and more about usage, long puzzle shaped blocks that doublt commuting distances and, roadside parking restrictions to allow a free flow of traffic. It's an attitude.

I've spent a couple summer holidays in Munich living in one of the many five storey walkups. It definitely provided a different feel as a pedestrian but, I can't say it was any more urban than the lowrise neighbourhoods in Toronto's downtown area.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

There are parts of Mississauga that are thoroughly suburban with minimal setbacks (if any) between buildings and the sidewalk. It's less built form in the way of building setbacks once a certain level of density is achieved and more about usage, long puzzle shaped blocks that doublt commuting distances and, roadside parking restrictions to allow a free flow of traffic. It's an attitude.

But in those nabes, are the commercial areas built to the sidewalk with minimal setback and no surface parking or is that just the residential? Do you go a km over and find that most of the businesses are in shopping malls and strip malls with surface parking in front?

Also, you seem to equate auto dependence as suburban, whereas I don't (at least not in the same way). I view lower auto usage as being a by-product of being urban rather than a defining characteristic of it. It's not practical or convenient to own a car and drive everywhere when there isn't much or any surface parking available and when block sizes are too small and you have to many stop signs and traffic lights to go through to get anywhere.

But I do consider it possible to have an urban area that's very car oriented if one is determined to do so. You just need to invest a lot in underground and garage parking facilities and expressways to keep the arterials from getting too unruly. I think LA is a good example of this. It's gotten fairly dense and urban but remains stubbornly auto-oriented.

[Beedok]

I really wish my sketchup and google earth would cooperate so I could do some renders.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Need a ton more density. Don't need supertalls and quality in terms of individual towers doesn't matter.

To me TO looks really close to Chicago in terms of density already and the much higher recent construction activity will continue to benefit TO. I do agree about the inferior overall quality, though not 100% sold that TO needs supertalls in order to match, but supertalls are unavoidably coming to TO regardless.

As of last yr, TO had the third highest office space u/c in North America just ahead of Cgy and the most new condo sales ahead of NY. I believe the condo market has even accelerated even more this yr. There's definitely demand on both sides if the city starts approving.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But in those nabes, are the commercial areas built to the sidewalk with minimal setback and no surface parking or is that just the residential? Do you go a km over and find that most of the businesses are in shopping malls and strip malls with surface parking in front?

Also, you seem to equate auto dependence as suburban, whereas I don't (at least not in the same way). I view lower auto usage as being a by-product of being urban rather than a defining characteristic of it. It's not practical or convenient to own a car and drive everywhere when there isn't much or any surface parking available and when block sizes are too small and you have to many stop signs and traffic lights to go through to get anywhere.

But I do consider it possible to have an urban area that's very car oriented if one is determined to do so. You just need to invest a lot in underground and garage parking facilities and expressways to keep the arterials from getting too unruly. I think LA is a good example of this. It's gotten fairly dense and urban but remains stubbornly auto-oriented.

Well, I thought this conversation was about residential build form. My interest lies with the glorification of the rowhouse on SSP. My post already answered your questions. Not sure how single useage neighborhoods , twisting cul de sac development and, roadside parking restrictions are strictly about car dependancy. It certainly is a product of this form of community planning.

LA is dense. I don't find it particular urban though. Walk ability is pretty bad overall

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

To me TO looks really close to Chicago in terms of density already and the much higher recent construction activity will continue to benefit TO. I do agree about the inferior overall quality, though not 100% sold that TO needs supertalls in order to match, but supertalls are unavoidably coming to TO regardless.

As of last yr, TO had the third highest office space u/c in North America just ahead of Cgy and the most new condo sales ahead of NY. I believe the condo market has even accelerated even more this yr. There's definitely demand on both sides if the city starts approving.

Chicago's core skyline is still much bigger in every sense. High rise development in Toronto is spread out to nearly every corner of the city. In Chicago, it's concentrated to a few neighborhoods. It wouldn't take much for Chicago to begin to widen that distance once again.