Future Canadian Skylines - Page 57

Ramako · #**1121** Posted **Jan 18, 2012, 7:03 PM**

Agreed. There are so many better views of Toronto's skyline than from the lake/islands. It's also the least accessible view.

Chadillaccc · #**1122** Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 1:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

I for one have always found the lakefront view to be the least beautiful angle of the skyline. Like I said earlier it was ruined back in the 70's but in reality ever since the first building was erected 200 years ago it's never really had a great waterfront presence from the inner harbour. In fact the inner harbour view is the most limiting of the entire skyline which extends north past Bloor. It seems like the majority of postcard pictures we see are from the ferry going out to the Island when in reality there are so many better angles of the city. Perhaps once the once all the waterfront projects are complete that view will improve, but to say it's getting worse and not better is a little unjustified.

Seen from the spit those towers will be in between the core and the tower.

Viewed from the west they will be to the right of the tower.

From the north you won't even see them.

And from the east they will be seen to the left of the core.

I do get your point, I'm just suggesting that view had been ruined years ago, and also that has never been the best vantage point for the city.

Cool! I see your point and agree. With those towers, even if 2 or 3 are hideous blights, it will give a huge presence to the city skyline, like Chicago almost, and only ruin it from the one angle... so I guess it's not that bad. I just really don't like the twins. At least Ice has some architecturally interesting elements... the twins are just wrap around balcony boxes of crap.

I do like the lake front view though because I really like natural elements with a skyline... like Vancouver with the water in the foreground and the mountains in back, and Toronto with the water in front and amazing sunset colours in the back.

Andrewjm3D · #**1123** Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 3:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I do like the lake front view though because I really like natural elements with a skyline... like Vancouver with the water in the foreground and the mountains in back, and Toronto with the water in front and amazing sunset colours in the back.

Well then you my friend have to take a trip out to the spit (take a bike) for the best views of the city.

Lets face for the last one hundred years Toronto Harbour has been anything but natural.

I took this in May. (no tripod)

The_Architect · #**1124** Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 2:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

Well then you my friend have to take a trip out to the spit (take a bike) for the best views of the city.

Lets face for the last one hundred years Toronto Harbour has been anything but natural.

The spit is great but it's not the most accessible. The most popular skyline shot will always be from the islands and ferry IMO.

caltrane74 · #**1125** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 3:05 AM**

In another 10 years you won't recognize the Toronto skyline. We need to let go of our memories of the past, which delude us in our thinking of what is good and bad.

TheMaxMan · #**1126** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 3:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

In another 10 years you won't recognize the Toronto skyline. We need to let go of our memories of the past, which delude us in our thinking of what is good and bad.

Speaking of delusions: in a decade you'll still recognize the Toronto skyline, no problem. There's this little thing called the CN tower. There's the distinctive shapes of the Skydome (or whatever they're calling it these days) and Roy Thomson Hall. The ever-evolving aggregate impression that is the skyline is just going to be that much more built up and variegated. But it's not as if Toronto is going to change into some wondrous magic kingdom - no matter what timeline one, in a delirious fit of fanciful imagination, applies to it.

When the Chrysler Building and the Empire State building were just nothing more than a crisp set of blueprints and a few artistic illustrations, no doubt there were locals who busied themselves fretting that the New York skyline would soon be unrecognizable. It didn't happen. New York just became more like itself.

Vertigo3000 · #**1127** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 4:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMaxMan

Speaking of delusions: in a decade you'll still recognize the Toronto skyline, no problem. There's this little thing called the CN tower. There's the distinctive shapes of the Skydome (or whatever they're calling it these days) and Roy Thomson Hall. The ever-evolving aggregate impression that is the skyline is just going to be that much more built up and variegated. But it's not as if Toronto is going to change into some wondrous magic kingdom - no matter what timeline one, in a delirious fit of fanciful imagination, applies to it.

When the Chrysler Building and the Empire State building were just nothing more than a crisp set of blueprints and a few artistic illustrations, no doubt there were locals who busied themselves fretting that the New York skyline would soon be unrecognizable. It didn't happen. New York just became more like itself.

You can't see the roy thompson hall from anywhere that captures the skyline, unless you are in the CN tower, and the Rogers centre is starting to disapear in the skyline. And I'm pretty sure this there is nothing wrong with dreaming of Toronto as a greater city than it is today, I would back up Caltranes opinions on Toronto, his comments make Toronto appear to be on fire(which it is), which is a good thing for a skyscraper lover, unless your not on this forum for skyscrapers and skylines but whatever,Haters gonna hate

caltrane74 · #**1128** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 9:28 AM**

If that plot of land at Rees and Queens Quay ever gets developed, that tiny view of SkyDome aka Rogers is gone.

armorand93 · #**1129** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 1:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

In another 10 years you won't recognize the Toronto skyline. We need to let go of our memories of the past, which delude us in our thinking of what is good and bad.

In another 10 years, I can hold up a picture of the Winnipeg Skyline from the 1990s and see no change.

jmt18325 · #**1130** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 2:43 PM**

That's shouldn't really be true of Winnipeg.

armorand93 · #**1131** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

That's shouldn't really be true of Winnipeg.

Well, from the Forks angle anyway (looking at Portage and Main from the Goldeyes stadium). It'll be ALOT more visible from lets say...

- Kenaston Bridge
- Garbage Hill
- Disraeli or
- Osborne

bkd · #**1132** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMaxMan

Speaking of delusions: in a decade you'll still recognize the Toronto skyline, no problem. There's this little thing called the CN tower. There's the distinctive shapes of the Skydome (or whatever they're calling it these days) and Roy Thomson Hall. The ever-evolving aggregate impression that is the skyline is just going to be that much more built up and variegated. But it's not as if Toronto is going to change into some wondrous magic kingdom - no matter what timeline one, in a delirious fit of fanciful imagination, applies to it.

When the Chrysler Building and the Empire State building were just nothing more than a crisp set of blueprints and a few artistic illustrations, no doubt there were locals who busied themselves fretting that the New York skyline would soon be unrecognizable. It didn't happen. New York just became more like itself.

Great post!

TheMaxMan · #**1133** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vertigo3000

You can't see the roy thompson hall from anywhere that captures the skyline, unless you are in the CN tower, and the Rogers centre is starting to disapear in the skyline. And I'm pretty sure this there is nothing wrong with dreaming of Toronto as a greater city than it is today, I would back up Caltranes opinions on Toronto, his comments make Toronto appear to be on fire(which it is), which is a good thing for a skyscraper lover, unless your not on this forum for skyscrapers and skylines but whatever,Haters gonna hate

You are mistaken in your assumptions, then. Again, the skyline changes depending on where you're standing.There is no one place everyone agrees on from which to view the city and say 'yep, this is the real Toronto.' Are we all about to submit to some dry, committee-approved list of vantage points from which to properly observe the city? I would hope not. And that's a good thing - wouldn't you agree?

I have nothing against Caltrane - his enthusiasm is infectious. If you want to believe that I'm hateful, that's your burden. Haters gonna hate, indeed. Must everything on the net be reduced to simplistic slogans?

Waterlooson · #**1134** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 5:22 PM**

Still though, if you look at the photos of Toronto taken from the air each decade from 1930 to 2010... the view has changed drastically every decade. Saying that in 10 years the skyline will be "unrecognizable" is only a small stretch.

TheMaxMan · #**1135** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 6:37 PM**

No question it's changed up since the 50s. Right now it's in the midst of a record-breaking spurt, with dramatic implications for the skyline. It's very impressive and people around the world have certainly taken notice. But if you think about it, that skyline is still peppered with classic Toronto buildings from the past few decades. They're just getting more and more neighbours.

WhipperSnapper · #**1136** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 9:15 PM**

I rag on Caltrane all the time but, in this case, I don't consider his boosterism to be as outlandish as you find it. Some landmarks will continue to make it undeniably Toronto however, that doesn't preclude it from being unrecognizable from the Toronto skyline we know today. If things go as plan, we will see several major office towers go up in the immediate core on top of all the residential skyscrapers around the periphery. Landmarks such as Fairmont Royal York, TD Centre, Royal Bank Plaza will continue to be reduced from focal points to skyline density/depth.

Wigs · #**1137** Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 11:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

...
5. Ask people in Buffalo what it's like to have a skyline that doesn't change, the Buffalo skyline is basically the Toronto skyline from 50 years ago. No change in your skyline means, no money, no jobs and nobody wants to live there.
...

Which is funny because I see Buffalo on this list. but no Toronto

but Calgary made it!

TallBob · #**1138** Posted **Jan 23, 2012, 12:10 AM**

Considering the cost housing Calgary, Toronto & other Canadian cities, that tells me that Canadian housing is way over-priced. Vancouver, TO & Calgary in that order. I thought incomes in our cities were higher than this. Looks like Stats Canada's been lying to us for quite some time now! Something doesn't make sense here.

TheMaxMan · #**1139** Posted **Jan 23, 2012, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I rag on Caltrane all the time but, in this case, I don't consider his boosterism to be as outlandish as you find it. Some landmarks will continue to make it undeniably Toronto however, that doesn't preclude it from being unrecognizable from the Toronto skyline we know today. If things go as plan, we will see several major office towers go up in the immediate core on top of all the residential skyscrapers around the periphery. Landmarks such as Fairmont Royal York, TD Centre, Royal Bank Plaza will continue to be reduced from focal points to skyline density/depth.

Are you talking to me, WhipperSnapper? I generally like Caltrane's boosterism. It gets a tad breathless and over the top sometimes, but he's got good energy and his love of Toronto and skyscrapers is genuine. Optimism is almost always better received than its opposite.

As for skylines and how recognizable they will be in x years' time, I guess we're just going to disagree. I'm fine with that. Taking any further time on it seems like shaving the whiskers off a gnat.

TheMaxMan · #**1140** Posted **Jan 23, 2012, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallBob

Considering the cost housing Calgary, Toronto & other Canadian cities, that tells me that Canadian housing is way over-priced. Vancouver, TO & Calgary in that order. I thought incomes in our cities were higher than this. Looks like Stats Canada's been lying to us for quite some time now! Something doesn't make sense here.

The nay-sayers keep promising that a correction in the urban real estate market is overdue, but with interest rates at record lows it's hard to see that a crash will happen - a softer let-down and relatively mild correction is more likely. Can't speak to the situation on the ground in Vancouver or Calgary but Toronto seems to be doing fairly well economically these days and that too is pouring fuel on the fire.

If anything, I expect it'll be the local condo market that's due for a hard landing - dang things are going up like weeds all over the place. Even then, the amount of people projected to move into the GTA over the next several years ensures that real estate will continue to be a very dear commodity for most of us.