Canadian Skyline Thread III

[Acajack]

Our cities at this time of year look dreary at ground level too.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Thinking of Scandinavia now.

You win some, you lose some.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I agree that we can and should make our cities more attractive. But but at the same time, urban design doesn't generally focus on making cities look attractive in aerial views. It's about making them look and function in an attractive way on the ground. Most people in a city like Kitchener don't live in highrises, and the ones who do don't spend the majority of their time starring out the window. So even if we changed a lot of things in our cities to make them more attractive it wouldn't necessarily do much for winter aerial shots like the ones above that prompted the critiques.

I mean, it doesn't take looking at streetview to know that this environment is going to suck just as much from ground level as does from the air:



Generally speaking, a good ground-level urban environment will also look better from above than a crappy one will (the reverse isn't necessarily true though).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I mean, it doesn't take looking at streetview to know that this environment is going to suck just as much from ground level as does from the air:



Generally speaking, a good ground-level urban environment will also look better from above than a crappy one will (the reverse isn't necessarily true though).

Honestly, I don't think that's true. Things like the quality of the sidewalks, the presence or lack of utility wires, the quality of street furnishing and signage, how inviting the buildings are at street level... you aren't really going to see those very well from above. And sure, you can tell in those images that there are surface parking lots that won't be attractive at street level, but on the ground some of them seem to be obscured by things like hedges, evergreens, buildings, etc. while from the air the full extent is visible. And even without the surface parking, aerial views would still have the same same drab colour tones because the view is dominated by leafless tree canopies, roofs, roads, and highrises where you can see the tower facades but not anything inviting around the entrances. That happens a lot in Halifax from my experience. Aerial views capture a lot of stuff that's mostly hidden from the street. Stuff like parking behind buildings where from the street level you mostly just see is the buildings lining the street. And especially in winter since the leaf canopies that normally obscure wide roads from above suddenly reveal all the pavement.

I've also seen urban environments that look great from the street level but look like concrete jungles from above, especially those dominated by midrise and highrise buildings that are tall enough to obscure most of the trees. All you see is roofs and various rooftop equipment. On the other hand, low density suburban areas don't look good from either perspective in the winter, but they can look great from above in summer with lots of lush greenery while on the ground... bland, and repetitive.

[megadude]

While viewing KW from above, we were talking to our peers in the commercial real estate industry that live there. Got some good back stories on all kinds of high rise apartments, condos, offices and homes. The history or back stories were good but not the aesthetics of the buildings themselves, which they very much acknowledged.

There's a recent development with sister condos that we were observing and the story was the guy that owned the land, got many millions for it and bought the penthouse in pre construction. Then when it was decided that one would be higher than the other, he sold his interest and bought the interest in the penthouse on the higher building.

We were also shown all the blocks of houses or tired, old plazas that were zoned for demolition and development. One of those areas set for demolition had one holdout who said in addition to the buyout, he wanted a house in Muskoka thrown in. Developer didn't budge and they are going to build around him. Going to look awkward. Or cool. Or both.

We were also told about the relatively recent history of the manufacturing or warehouse industry in spots that were developed into condos not that long ago or are going to be. One being the Bauer skate factory. All cities had that kind of industry where their core stands today, but that history is more recent in smaller cities. It's interesting to see 100+ year old buildings or their remamants right in the downtown.

[WhipperSnapper]

Too much concrete can be overwhelming but, I'm not going to notice what I'm walking on in a great vibrant urban environment. The same with overhead wiring. Both exist in the peripheral line of site

I can tell Yonge and Eglinton is being built to extreme densities from the air. All the streets will join Broadway and Red path in perennial shadows before long. The crush of slow moving people on the sidewalks isn't vibrancy. It's a human body traffic jam.

[Nouvellecosse]

One thing I find about Toronto is that while it may not be the most colourful city, it is still fairly colourful at street level. Mostly due to the frequent pops of red from the buses and streetcars, the teal, orange, red and yellow from Beck's and Co-op cars, the store signs, and the street art in certain areas. But none of those things are very prominent from the air. It takes a pretty big mural like the Cohen one in Montreal or The Charleson building in Vancouver for that.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Too much concrete can be overwhelming but, I'm not going to notice what I'm walking on in a great vibrant urban environment. The same with overhead wiring. Both exist in the peripheral line of site

I can tell Yonge and Eglinton is being built to extreme densities from the air. All the streets will join Broadway and Red path in perennial shadows before long. The crush of slow moving people on the sidewalks isn't vibrancy. It's a human body traffic jam.

I full agree. The area needs a fundamental redesign before the inner street intersections around Redpath get too busy with pedestrians. The current plan of having every redeveloped property expand the public realm is not good enough, for it's becoming a nuisance when half of the area is high density post-war apartment stock.
As much as I understand the density arguments made here, I can't help but wonder how much is too much with how slow new parks and community services are coming to the area.
I'm sure this is a similar sentiment felt in other higher density areas like the ED, or by the mouth of the Humber.


The neighbourhood is much more concrete than it used to be, but only because trees have been replaced by buildings, and old homes that used to be part of subdivisions are being replaced by towers anywhere from 20 to 40 floors high depending on the area.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

I took these 3 days ago
Skyline, Mr27 by Josh Kennington Photographics, on Flickr
Skyline, Mr27 by Josh Kennington Photographics, on Flickr
Skyline, Mr27 by Josh Kennington Photographics, on Flickr

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

I full agree. The area needs a fundamental redesign before the inner street intersections around Redpath get too busy with pedestrians. The current plan of having every redeveloped property expand the public realm is not good enough, for it's becoming a nuisance when half of the area is high density post-war apartment stock.
As much as I understand the density arguments made here, I can't help but wonder how much is too much with how slow new parks and community services are coming to the area.
I'm sure this is a similar sentiment felt in other higher density areas like the ED, or by the mouth of the Humber.


The neighbourhood is much more concrete than it used to be, but only because trees have been replaced by buildings, and old homes that used to be part of subdivisions are being replaced by towers anywhere from 20 to 40 floors high depending on the area.

For sure. The density arguments are mainly toward areas that lack it rather than those that are already high density. Even density proponents like me don't tend to love that kind of lumpy density where there are extremely dense small pockets of highrises juxtaposed with large swatches of low density residential. Especially when there isn't enough infrastructure and amenities being added at the same time. It's much better to have it more spread out, but even paltry efforts like allowing four-plexes causes some people to melt down and push politicians like Ford to ban them. So the vast majority of growth ends up being pushed into small pockets where it greatly reducing the QoL for thousands, while it isolates the privileged people in low density areas from experiencing any change that would have little to no actual negative effects. But of course they don't want any change so they make it out to be Armageddon.

[Coldrsx]

A the winner of the blandest skyline award goes to Van... TORONTO!

[Nouvellecosse]

Well yeah... the entertainment district is one of the blander parts of the skyline. But having the CN tower as the central focal point from that angle disqualifies it as the blandest imo. Although the drab grey day sure doesn't help lol.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

For sure. The density arguments are mainly toward areas that lack it rather than those that are already high density. Even density proponents like me don't tend to love that kind of lumpy density where there are extremely dense small pockets of highrises juxtaposed with large swatches of low density residential. Especially when there isn't enough infrastructure and amenities being added at the same time. It's much better to have it more spread out, but even paltry efforts like allowing four-plexes causes some people to melt down and push politicians like Ford to ban them.

Agreed in full. It's really strange when we see this policy by the city followed now to this point, as Yonge and Eglinton is probably the most clear example in the entire city of how land designations (from decades ago) are a massive factor in how housing gets built in the city.
And yet, a five minute walk from the intersection leads you to 80 year old housing that looks the same (more or less) as the day the first subway opened in the city.

And yes, the skyline is rather unfortunate from many angles. I simply favour any view of the skyline from east or south east at this point. But as Nouvellecosse pointed out, the grey of the clouds doesn't help at all, or our lack of coloured buildings over the last decade+ of the boom.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

A the winner of the blandest skyline award goes to Van... TORONTO!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...802c6e2a_b.jpg

Goals:


https://www.stockaerialphotos.com/me...ntown-edmonton

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Honestly, I don't think that's true. Things like the quality of the sidewalks, the presence or lack of utility wires, the quality of street furnishing and signage, how inviting the buildings are at street level... you aren't really going to see those very well from above. And sure, you can tell in those images that there are surface parking lots that won't be attractive at street level, but on the ground some of them seem to be obscured by things like hedges, evergreens, buildings, etc. while from the air the full extent is visible. And even without the surface parking, aerial views would still have the same same drab colour tones because the view is dominated by leafless tree canopies, roofs, roads, and highrises where you can see the tower facades but not anything inviting around the entrances. That happens a lot in Halifax from my experience. Aerial views capture a lot of stuff that's mostly hidden from the street. Stuff like parking behind buildings where from the street level you mostly just see is the buildings lining the street. And especially in winter since the leaf canopies that normally obscure wide roads from above suddenly reveal all the pavement.

I've also seen urban environments that look great from the street level but look like concrete jungles from above, especially those dominated by midrise and highrise buildings that are tall enough to obscure most of the trees. All you see is roofs and various rooftop equipment. On the other hand, low density suburban areas don't look good from either perspective in the winter, but they can look great from above in summer with lots of lush greenery while on the ground... bland, and repetitive.

Just going to have to agree to disagree then, I guess. I've never seen an environment that I liked at street level that I didn't also like from above; and I've never seen a place that looked bad from above that didn't also look bad at street level. On the flipside though, there are some places that look kinda cool from skyline/aerial views but suck on the ground (eg. Dubai).

[Maldive]

[QUOTE=MonkeyRonin;10175205]Goals:


https://www.stockaerialphotos.com/me...ntown-edmonton

^^^ Is this London, Ontario???

Didn't realize the Thames River was quite so curvy.... and where have all the trees gone?


Link

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

A the winner of the blandest skyline award goes to Van... TORONTO!

If one literally puts the most distinctive tall structure in the country directly in the middle of the frame and then throws shade using 'bland' as a pejorative, what can one say, really?

I probably could frame a picture the Empire State Building with Hudson Yards and take a strip off New York City. Look at the ugly generic glass towers! It could be Jacksonville.



Except that absolutely no one would take me credibly on a skyscraper forum. Whatever makes people feel better about themselves, I suppose.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Just going to have to agree to disagree then, I guess. I've never seen an environment that I liked at street level that I didn't also like from above; and I've never seen a place that looked bad from above that didn't also look bad at street level. On the flipside though, there are some places that look kinda cool from skyline/aerial views but suck on the ground (eg. Dubai).

Yes I'm sure some of it is down to personal taste. I'm personally influenced by the fact that Halifax tends to look horrible in winter aerials. I often think, "Is it really that ugly and underwhelming??" but then in person I don't find it that bad. It could also sometimes be the knowledge of the experience from the ground that influences how one feels about what they see from the air. Kind of like how, if I know a food or drink is nutritious that subconsciously makes it taste better to me, while knowing that it's empty calories or poses risks dampens my enjoyment since I care about that aspect of food. While someone else may just consider the taste strictly on its own merits. Psychology is weird...

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

Agreed in full. It's really strange when we see this policy by the city followed now to this point, as Yonge and Eglinton is probably the most clear example in the entire city of how land designations (from decades ago) are a massive factor in how housing gets built in the city.
And yet, a five minute walk from the intersection leads you to 80 year old housing that looks the same (more or less) as the day the first subway opened in the city.

And yes, the skyline is rather unfortunate from many angles. I simply favour any view of the skyline from east or south east at this point. But as Nouvellecosse pointed out, the grey of the clouds doesn't help at all, or our lack of coloured buildings over the last decade+ of the boom.

It's a failure in transit investment when transit is seen as more than a utility like water or sewage. It is definitely not a community builder to throw sound planning policy out the window. Yonge and Eglinton is a growing clusterfuck because warehousing people has taking precedence over housing people. It's no different than blaming Toronto's most desirable neighbourhoods for not having enough population and demanding the conversion of Toronto's modest, livable family homes into 3 or 4 shitty, overpriced flats . I guess Nouvellecosse has never viewed one of these beloved 4 plexes

Toronto is a long ways from Manhattan with over 80% of the city undevelopable. Yonge and Eglinton is becoming what it is because that's what a 20 year real estate bubble dictates must be built. This wave is in the 30 to 40 storey range. The next wave will be 40 to 50 storeys. The following waves will be even higher.

[WhipperSnapper]

Skylines were expressions of commercial prowess for most of their existence and that is being conflated with today's residential skyscrapers. A residential skyscraper with 10 plus units per floor within a handshake of the next apartment skyscraper is the opposite of wealth and prestige.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's a failure in transit investment when transit is seen as more than a utility like water or sewage. It is definitely not a community builder to throw sound planning policy out the window. Yonge and Eglinton is a growing clusterfuck because warehousing people has taking precedence over housing people. It's no different than blaming Toronto's most desirable neighbourhoods for not having enough population and demanding the conversion of Toronto's modest, livable family homes into 3 or 4 shitty, overpriced flats . I guess Nouvellecosse has never viewed one of these beloved 4 plexes

Toronto is a long ways from Manhattan with over 80% of the city undevelopable. Yonge and Eglinton is becoming what it is because that's what a 20 year real estate bubble dictates must be built. This wave is in the 30 to 40 storey range. The next wave will be 40 to 50 storeys. The following waves will be even higher.

Yeah the city's approach to transit definitely is a contributor. There are four high capacity rapid transit routes stretching out from downtown in a city proper basically the same size as Chicago who has twice as many. It's pretty tough to have high density in much of the city when so much of it is far from higher order transit. So you have more and more density piled onto the main route that both exists and has sites that allow it even as that route exceeds capacity. But you don't see that quantity and height of development around, say Summerhill, even though its closer to downtown because it isn't permitted. Which would be odd if it was just up to what the building boom was dictating.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with "these beloved 4 plexes". I've seen plenty of semi-detached housing and some I liked more than others. But I don't see why that's relevant as it's up to prospective buyers to decide whether or not they want to buy them at the prices they're being offered at. Not choosing to buy one is a perfectly valid response to thinking they're shitty and overpriced. Enacting policy that prevents others from making that choice... not so much.

I'm also not sure what you meant with the Manhattan comparison. The main issue in Toronto (as with many other cities) isn't that it puts restrictions on development in some areas. It's that there are large areas with inefficient land usage which could comfortably handle a lot more people without crowding. Manhattan is extremely high density for its whole extent other than in parks. Even Queens, the second least-dense burough, has as many people as Toronto proper with almost 50% less land.