HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2014, 6:13 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,631
Your city's suburban skylines in 3D

Was playing around with google earth, and they've finally got a 3d scan of the Vancouver region... and all it's skylines Who needs photos anymore lol



Downtown Vancouver


Ambleside


Lonsdale, with downtown in the distance


Lonsdale again


Metrotown


New Westminster Downtown


New Westminster Uptown


Broadway, viewed from False Creek


Kerrisdale, with Vancouver in background


Richmond, with Vancouver International airport across the river to right


Brentwood, with Metrotown in the distance


Edmonds, with Metrotown and Brentwood in the distance


Lougheed Town Centre


Coquitlam Town Centre


Port Moody, with Coquitlam in distance

Last edited by dleung; Feb 8, 2014 at 9:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2014, 3:38 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,631
Seattle, and Bellevue:



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2014, 3:49 AM
StethJeff's Avatar
StethJeff StethJeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,068
Pretty much all of California is available in 3D on Apple Maps.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2014, 4:08 AM
mello's Avatar
mello mello is offline
Babylon falling
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,505
So Vancouver is a young, expensive city laden with scenic views just like SD/LA/SF and they are progressive enough to have been going vertical in their suburbs for decades so what gives in California cities? Van is a clear example of how this works and people are fine with it, I just don't see why CA can't get its act together and go up outside of downtown areas.
__________________
<<<<< I'm loving this economic "recovery" >>>>>

Last edited by mello; Feb 24, 2014 at 5:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2014, 7:20 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by mello View Post
So Vancouver is a young, expensive city laden with scenic views just like SD/LA/SF and they are progressive enough to have been going vertical in their suburbs for decades so what gives in California cities? Van is a clear example of how this works and people are fine with it, I just don't see why CA can't get its act together and go up outside of downtown areas.
Well, your statement is not really true for LA, but SD can use some highrises out side of Downtown and La Jolla
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 3:12 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by mello View Post
So Vancouver is a young, expensive city laden with scenic views just like SD/LA/SF and they are progressive enough to have been going vertical in their suburbs for decades so what gives in California cities? Van is a clear example of how this works and people are fine with it, I just don't see why CA can't get its act together and go up outside of downtown areas.
Ironically, it's the scenic views that are causing the market to favor high-rise over mid-rise development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 4:03 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
Ironically, it's the scenic views that are causing the market to favor high-rise over mid-rise development.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 3:12 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,631
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
     
     
  #9  
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: 505
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
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2016, 3:03 PM
IMBY IMBY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by mello View Post
So Vancouver is a young, expensive city laden with scenic views just like SD/LA/SF and they are progressive enough to have been going vertical in their suburbs for decades so what gives in California cities? Van is a clear example of how this works and people are fine with it, I just don't see why CA can't get its act together and go up outside of downtown areas.
I've been stumped myself as to why, for instance, San Bernardino isn't a suburban high rise jungle, with a commuter train to L.A., or Riverside or Hollywood or any other suburb of L.A.

I do recall that 72% of L.A. is still? archaically zoned for single family homes, and then there's the anti-density Nimby's to contend with.

Big question, with Vancouver, how did the developers win over their Nimby's?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2016, 5:56 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMBY View Post
I've been stumped myself as to why, for instance, San Bernardino isn't a suburban high rise jungle, with a commuter train to L.A., or Riverside or Hollywood or any other suburb of L.A.

I do recall that 72% of L.A. is still? archaically zoned for single family homes, and then there's the anti-density Nimby's to contend with.

Big question, with Vancouver, how did the developers win over their Nimby's?
San bernardino is an hour away from LA... It's not really a suburb of LA like Pasadena or Glendale for example.. There are many suburbs (or areas outside of DTLA) that have high rise districts.... Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Universal City, Brentwood, Westwood, Santa Monica, Hollywood, Koreatown, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Irvine and so on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2016, 9:28 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 21,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMBY View Post
I've been stumped myself as to why, for instance, San Bernardino isn't a suburban high rise jungle, with a commuter train to L.A., or Riverside or Hollywood or any other suburb of L.A.
Beause it's the least desirable part of Southern CA, and pretty much all sprawl. Why would there be an urgent need for corporate HQ highrises or luxury condo and hotel towers?

Also, that commuter rail line has limited ridership and frequency, and probably has nothing to do with development patterns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IMBY View Post
Big question, with Vancouver, how did the developers win over their Nimby's?
Canada and the U.S. are quiet different when it comes to living preferences and zoning norms. And Vancouver is basically unique in that it's a place for Chinese nationals to park their money in RE.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2014, 9:17 PM
Austinlee's Avatar
Austinlee Austinlee is offline
Chillin' in The Burgh
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring Hill, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,935
Wow, had no idea Vancouver had 13 satellite mini-skylines. That's pretty amazing. Considering downtown is already damn vertical.
__________________
The new Pittsburgh development thread is up.
Pittsburgh Rundown III

"Even Old New York was once New Amsterdam"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 6:21 PM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 5,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinlee View Post
Wow, had no idea Vancouver had 13 satellite mini-skylines. That's pretty amazing. Considering downtown is already damn vertical.

I get the feeling that the majority of people outside of Metro Vancouver have no idea how vertical our suburbs have become. I think Toronto is the only other city in North America with more suburban highrises.

A pic showing New West in the foreground and Burnaby in the background.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
Burnaby, BC

Source: My Photo, 2014-02-17
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 9:48 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 3,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanman View Post
I get the feeling that the majority of people outside of Metro Vancouver have no idea how vertical our suburbs have become. I think Toronto is the only other city in North America with more suburban highrises.

A pic showing New West in the foreground and Burnaby in the background.
Pretty sure Miami could give it a run for its money if by "suburban" you mean non-central city (ie not Miami). Places like Miami Beach, Aventura, Sunny Isles, Coral Gables, Hallandale Beach, or even places like Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 10:33 PM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 5,530
I completely forgot about Miami. I counted about 834 towers for suburban Miami, and 547 for suburban Vancouver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 3:19 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
ψ Sailor of the Mind ψ
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 33,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanman View Post
I completely forgot about Miami. I counted about 834 towers for suburban Miami, and 547 for suburban Vancouver.
Never mind. Answered my own question.

Last edited by chris08876; Mar 27, 2014 at 8:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2014, 8:28 AM
touraccuracy's Avatar
touraccuracy touraccuracy is offline
Registered Loser
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,854
Looking at this map, it seems counter intuitive that Lougheed and Coquitlam are both in the same municipality, the City of Coquitlam (which looks massive), but Port Moody is not a part of it (it hugs the inlet).

__________________
"The modern metropolis is a teeming hive of strung-out dope heads, rapists, home invaders and fine regional cuisine." -Cracked.com
Don't quote me on that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 1:20 AM
mSeattle's Avatar
mSeattle mSeattle is offline
Socialism 4 Extreme Rich?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,073
Haha! I love the *1* (THUD) suburban highrise zone from the Seattle area after the parade of highrise zones up in the Vancouver area.
Did you mean to title this metro highrise zones? Isn't Broadway in Vancouver part of the city and not suburb?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 11:19 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,113
Toronto's highrises don't really cluster all that often though, they are just sort of everywhere.
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 6:38 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.