Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisallard5454
I am sorry to London, but for a city with its growth and size it should have a much nicer skyline. And I personally do not like downtown London. Though Richmond is very lively, outside of that though, there is nothing really. Sorry. It could do so much better. Although, with two more condo's coming it could help. It needs to fill gaps rather than spread out like it is. It is making Winnipeg's mistakes. Why would they build a 15 story condo unit half way down Dundas. Build it right downtown, increase density. Does anyone know how tall that twin is going to be downtown?
|
London is filling gaps. The condo downtown is part of the Renaissance complex, which is built on a surface lot. The twin will be the same height as phase 1 at just over 93m. And the buildings on Dundas that you're referring to are situated in Old East Village, only a 15 minute walk from the core (they are around 80m). That area desperately needs intensification and all of us in the London Local agree it's a fantastic development for Old East.
--------------------------
All of my posts in this thread have been in defense of city's skylines as opposed to attacking other cities. By reading my posts, it should be apparent that I actually like Halifax' skyline, more than my hometown's. There's no need for snarky comments like "not in the same league."
It's just the thought of a skyline "punching above its weight" that seems stupid to me, since there are so many other factors which have an equal impact (good/bad vantage points, mountainous backdrop, stunning water features). As has been pointed out by someone123 and I, the Halifax harbour has a huge impact on the skyline. The harbour makes the skyline more visually impressive, yet it really doesn't have anything to do with Halifax' population. Again, having the buildings built right up to the water allows historic low and mid-rises to be showcased. London also has its fair share of art deco mid-rises, historic churches and Victorian wholesale warehouses. Yet none of these are seen in our skyline because of our natural topography. Just for the sake of discussion, can you imagine what Halifax would look like in London's position at the bottom of a treed river valley like in the panorama that I posted? Half of its buildings would be hidden from view by rolling lands and trees. Would you be so quick to say "not in the same league" even though all of the same buildings are present, just obscured from view? Would Halifax cease to be an overachiever just because of a change in location? The density and variety would still be there, but half of it would not be seen. See what I'm trying to get at?
It's just annoying that London's buildings have to be taller and more prominent than Halifax' to be seen as equally impressive. As I pointed out in my panorama, the taller Purdy's tower and 1801 Hollis are equal to the pink and blue Talbot Centre towers. That should give you guys a fair idea of just how tall London's core buildings are. A good third of the Talbot Centre towers are visually eaten up by trees and rolling valley lands. The depth and density of Halifax that you guys say London is lacking is actually there, it's just hidden from view. I tried to explain this point further when referencing your Dominion Public building. In Halifax' skyline it is very striking, but if it were in London it would hardly peak above the tree line.
All of this comes back to my original post about how I don't care for this thread's premise. Some cities just have an easier time punching above their weight.
Edit: Totally agree with you, flar. Nice post.