H v d

[MolsonExport]

Skyline/Cityscape Wars: Height (typical SSP nerdism), vs. Variety (panache, eclecticism, texture) vs. Density (Concentration of built/human environment).

Some cities have all three (e.g., New York City). Most only have two or one.

Take your pick, but choose wisely: you can only choose two out of three of the following:
Height
Variety
Density

[kool maudit]

This one is pretty good, and while my instinct is to hew to Variety + Density, living in Europe means I do miss the sheer vertigo of a cityscape that stretches along that Z axis as well.

So put me down for H + D, and consider that while my choice does allow for any number of inhospitable hives, perhaps we can have enough faith in humanity to say that anywhere we live will become interesting if the scale is right and forces interactions of broad and varied types.

So H+D. Strange signs and awnings on the sheer walls and canyons of the megalopolis.

[Truenorth00]

I picked variety + density. I see height as a policy failure.

[J.OT13]

What would be the definition of Height? And is Density only considered in the core skyline, of the entire city?

We could spin this in a listing of cities and which of the three each have. For Ottawa, it's just D. For Toronto, it leans towards HD. Calgary, HVD.

[SignalHillHiker]

I just want the D lol

But variety is more important to me than height so I chose that. I'd rather Oslo than Hong Kong.

[MonkeyRonin]

If we're strictly talking about skylines here, then height + density.

If we're talking about cityscapes in general, then variety + density.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

But variety is more important to me than height so I chose that. I'd rather Oslo than Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is the ideal from my perspective...put me down for H + D.

[J.OT13]

I have HV. Living in Ottawa, I long more for better design than more height.

[MolsonExport]

Growing up, it was all about height (if you will pardon the pun, and forget any double entendres).

But then, gazing upon city scenes captured by photographers in the National Geographic in articles about New York, Chicago, Paris, and other places, I fell in love with the grit, the masonry, and the eclecticism. Later, experiencing Times Square, the Financial district of Lower Manhattan, (and much later still, Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, etc.), density became the trait that I most coveted about giant cities. Of course, after spending weeks on end in these giant cities, I realized that density also has its shortcomings (but I will take it anyday over the monotonous glasscapes dominating most Canadian cities).

As a youngster: Height > Variety > Density

For the thrill: Density > Variety > Height

Older and wiser: Variety > Density > Height

[Chadillaccc]

Density + Variety = Lively/Walkable

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Growing up, it was all about height (if you will pardon the pun, and forget any double entendres).

But then, gazing upon city scenes captured by photographers in the National Geographic in articles about New York, Chicago, Paris, and other places, I fell in love with the grit, the masonry, and the eclecticism. Later, experiencing Times Square, the Financial district of Lower Manhattan, (and much later still, Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, etc.), density became the trait that I most coveted about giant cities. Of course, after spending weeks on end in these giant cities, I realized that density also has its shortcomings (but I will take it anyday over the monotonous glasscapes dominating most Canadian cities).

As a youngster: Height > Variety > Density

For the thrill: Density > Variety > Height

Older and wiser: Variety > Density > Height

Exactly the same evolution for me. Probably during the exact same years - or close.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I just want the D lol

But variety is more important to me than height so I chose that. I'd rather Oslo than Hong Kong.

This.

Given how much land we have, the only two cities who should have actually have high rises are the Vancouver and Montreal. Both geographically constrained. Yet, we're seeing 40-50 storey condos outside the CBD in Ottawa. It's ridiculous.

[ssiguy]

Interesting idea and poll MolsonExport.

For myself I said density & variety.

These huge high rise developments {ie Metrotown/Brentwood} are sterile places with no sense of community or warmth...........McDevelopments just add money. They are transit friendly but definitely not pedestrian friendly. Really nothing more that vertical glass boxes connected to a standard mall. Due to being high rise only they also tend to just be geared to one main income and demographic ie high and no children. They are really only options for DINKs. This also makes them far more transitory as being may move there when they are younger but have to move out of the area if they dare have a kid.

Density and variety offers a more natural development feel, offers options for all family sizes, incomes, and ages.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Given how much land we have, the only two cities who should have actually have high rises are the Vancouver and Montreal. Both geographically constrained. Yet, we're seeing 40-50 storey condos outside the CBD in Ottawa. It's ridiculous.

Only cities that should have extreme height are ones like Hong Kong that have geographic limitations that force them to go up. A lot of other cities, like Paris, London, and many Canadian examples, should really focus on density and variety. Skylines are cool and all but don't mean much if the streetlevel is sterile.

DVH in that order for me.

[goodgrowth]

In a lot of ways we have the worst of both worlds because have 80-90% of urban areas being zoned low density and then our solution to compensate for that lack of density is to zone a small portion of the urban land for towers....which isn't really pedestrian friendly either. So it's this extreme on both ends.

Almost everything comes back to zoning rules and how it blocks organic density forming and organic development of mixed used areas(commercial and residential).

It's almost laughable to hear planners talk about "mixed use developments" as if the rules haven't basically outlawed it for 50+ years and they just discovered how to make it happen.

[hipster duck]

D > V > H for me.

But I want to stick up for height a bit. There's something about seeing a 400 meter tall building in the flesh that's kind of like seeing a big mammal in the wild.

A 400 meter tall building has about 10 X more oomph than a 300 meter tall building, which, in turn, has 10 X more oomph than a 200 meter tall building, all else being equal. It's a bit like the Richter scale.

[Architype]

Density, variety, then height, in that order, but you forgot about "quality", which is even more important than the other three.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

D > V > H for me.

But I want to stick up for height a bit. There's something about seeing a 400 meter tall building in the flesh that's kind of like seeing a big mammal in the wild.

A 400 meter tall building has about 10 X more oomph than a 300 meter tall building, which, in turn, has 10 X more oomph than a 200 meter tall building, all else being equal. It's a bit like the Richter scale.

On that note, it's interesting to see how height has fallen somewhat out of fashion here over the years. Enjoying tall buildings is now regarded as something vaguely childish, which is weird for a forum literally called "skyscraper page".

In my opinion, tall buildings and a vibrant urban environment are not mutually exclusive.

[kool maudit]

That developed over time; there was a split between skyscraper-rankers and urbanists in like 2003 that kind of broadened into orthodoxy from there.

I probably really am a DVer at heart, but I've been up to my eyeballs in prewar wedding cake for years now, so the tall towers are becoming exotic objects again.

Besides, low variety isn't the worst if you pick a good house style:

[SignalHillHiker]

Low variety does get to me if it's the Parisian colour palette. But, I mean... I'm basically a neckbeard complaining about a porn star's knobby knees when it comes to this sort of thing... obviously I would gleefully live in any shadow of Paris, Hong Kong, etc.

But my ideal is dense (no setbacks, no block-wide buildings with one entrance), colourful (whether it's good like Ljubljana, or cheaper like Tirana), a little gritty with a blend of classes (like Kensington Market, or the big Irish/British cities, excluding Edinburgh - like that saying, Glasgow is a big girl who'll show you a good time, Edinburgh is the prim and proper one you'd take home to Mom). So London in my mind is always going to be far ahead of cities like Paris.

Height does factor in... if I'm paying condo fees, I want to be on a high floor with a view. And I'd rather have a variety of height, including very tall buildings, than none at all. But it is the least important to me.