HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 5:14 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,149
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 2:40 PM
Tuckerman Tuckerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 840
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 3:12 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2014, 5:59 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,105
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

Richmond today, population 190,000

http://graham.ca/Projects/Commercial/Aberdeen.aspx


photo by SVLT

Greenfield development is virtually unheard of in metro Vancouver now. Almost all new construction requires demolition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2016, 9:15 PM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,105
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

Metrotown
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2016, 3:28 AM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 5,418
Metro Vancouver from the Cypress Bowl lookout in West Vancouver taken by me today.





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2016, 3:30 AM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oakland, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,168
I'm surprised nobodies posted about the woodlands, a far flung suburb from Houston with a pretty large skyline, which is growing every year.
__________________
Mega City One. 800 million people living in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Only one thing fighting for order in the chaos: Judges.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2016, 1:48 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2016, 2:20 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post

Greenfield development is virtually unheard of in metro Vancouver now. Almost all new construction requires demolition.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2016, 9:29 AM
Marshal Marshal is offline
from the inside out
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,066
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 third eye squirms when you do that . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2016, 3:56 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,394
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!

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2016, 5:47 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
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.

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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2016, 10:10 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,498
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.)
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2016, 10:55 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 29,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2016, 11:51 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Insertoronto
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotetrickster View Post
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).
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2016, 5:42 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,498
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.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2016, 7:33 PM
NorthernDancer NorthernDancer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 584
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2016, 12:31 AM
softee's Avatar
softee softee is online now
Aimless Wanderer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown Toronto
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernDancer View Post
there's a city kind of SE of White Plains (can't remember the name off-hand) that has a decent skyline.
New Rochelle
__________________
Public transit is the lifeblood of every healthy city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2016, 12:54 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 6,648
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
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2016, 3:05 PM
Austinlee's Avatar
Austinlee Austinlee is offline
Chillin' in The Burgh
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring Hill, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,888
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.
__________________
The new Pittsburgh development thread is up.
Pittsburgh Rundown III

"Even Old New York was once New Amsterdam"
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 > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.