What city skylines do you think underperform for their population?

[whiteford]

Originally Posted by Roquentin

Quebec City, maybe Saskatoon

Saskatoon has a exciting skyline for its population and it kicks the shit out of most cities in north America that are near anywhere its size or much much larger. it even holds its own right here in good ol skyline crazy canada. dont kid yourself. go check it out for your self, then make your judgement. its huge for a city of 230,000.

[haljackey]

My opinion by provinces:

BC:
-Victoria. A little more height would be great!

Alberta: none.

Sask: none.

Manitoba:
-Winnipeg would look more iconic with a couple taller modern buildings.

Ontario:
-Thunder Bay could improve as it is essentially the capital of Nothern Ontario and the end port of the St. Lawrence Seaway (Great Lakes).
-Windsor could bulk up a bit to contrast Detroit. The casino adds some much needed height though.
-London has decent height but needs more density. More buildings around the 100m mark would be cool.
-K/W/C/G/Whatever needs a CBD. Individual downtowns don't seem to cut it.
-Hamilton needs some modernization of it's skyline
-Sudbury could use some more bulk. As the gateway to Northern Ontario (Highway 400 will end here), it would impress travelers to the north and promote growth in the north.
-Kingston needs to grow out of its historic funk and modernize.

Quebec:
-Quebec City has great historic appeal. If historical elements are incorporated into new buildings, it would create a really impressive skyline!

New Brunswick:
-None.

Nova Scotia:
-Halifax is essentially the metropolis of eastern/Maritime Canada. With that kind of regional importance, I would like to see a more significant skyline in that city. Add a couple 100m towers.. a 150m tower would revolutionize the whole region's image!

PEI:
-Charlottetown can grow a bit to show the country that this little province is still a force to be reckoned with.

Newfoundland:
-St. John's could use some further growth. Some tall, modern buildings could help show off the province's newfound oil wealth and that it is no longer a 'have not' province.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Compare Halifax to London: both cities have similar populations yet London has a more impressive skyline even though it isn't nearly as important location-wise.

The question of which skyline is more impressive is subjective but here's the diagram on SSP: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=53256219

It is possible that the diagrams are incomplete but London seems to have 6 or 7 office buildings over 50 m whereas Halifax has 18 or so. I have only briefly been to London a few times but I found it to be a pretty average city. I prefer Halifax's skyline because it has more of a mix of old and new and much denser clusters of buildings. The largest office and residential buildings in London look like 70s/80s office park or slab type developments that are not very attractive. Halifax's tallest building is also a relatively unattractive 1970s building. I don't think Halifax's skyline would be improved by adding more of those.

Note that Halifax has a larger skyline than the cropped "downtown" version that is frequently shown:


Source

Across the water, Dartmouth also has a small skyline. You can see both Halifax and Dartmouth skylines from the waterfronts or if you're on a boat or the bridges. In my opinion the large suspension bridges and harbour also add a lot to the skyline.


Source

[roccerfeller]

underperformers?

hmm, I think Halifax could use a few more towers, as could Winnipeg...

I don't know too much about the smaller cities, but those two immediately jumped to my mind

I also agree with other posters saying Edmonton is totally fine where it is...not an underperformer at all...I think Edmonton has an awesome skyline, I love it...only when you compare it to Calgary (which is an overperformer for a city its size) does it seem lacking...but that's not how it should be judged...as another poster mentioned, Edmonton's workforce population is more spread out and that certainly plays a role, not to mention the airport restriction probably limited certain towers from maximizing their size.

[MTLskyline]

One city I've not seen mentioned yet is Sherbrooke.

The city of Sherbrooke is 150K and about 200K in the metro area. I don't even think that they have one single high rise. (mind you they have some nice older buildings and the natural area in which they are located is quite nice)

Originally Posted by le calmar

Here is a good pic of Sherbrooke's "skyline". There are few buildings over 10 stories though, it's not a city about highrises.

[trueviking]

edmonton is only an underperformer compared to its steroid induced brother....compared to any other city of 1m people on the continent it is quite impressive.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Even though I'm a loyal Monctonian, I would have to admit that Moncton is a definite underperformer.

The CMA is nearly 140,000 and yet we only have one building which is 20 stories (and an ugly one to boot). The city is defined by sprawl and, while the downtown area is quite acceptable at the street level, the skyline is pretty pitiful.

Things may change in the future as the city continues to grow at a fairly robust pace, and the downtown is starting to show signs of renewed vigour but it will remain a challenge to promote a proper image for the city on a forum such as this.

I completely agree with you.
It's painful.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by haljackey

New Brunswick:
-None.

Nova Scotia:
-Halifax is essentially the metropolis of eastern/Maritime Canada. With that kind of regional importance, I would like to see a more significant skyline in that city. Add a couple 100m towers.. a 150m tower would revolutionize the whole region's image!

You've never been to New Brunswick?

Height in Halifax is out of context in its downtown. There are Citadel Hill rampart height restrictions, which have influenced the creation of the city's low-lying skyline. There are groups in Halifax to protect the Citadel and its view of the harbour. So as far as height goes, the downtown will remain within its current range -- but the density is currently improving!

Height could crop up in Dartmouth, perhaps, or the northern part of the Halifax peninsula.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Please explain the Edmonton reference. Curious.

On second consideration, Edmonton doesn't deserve to be there. It's more accurate that Calgary over achieves and that Edmonton looks tiny by comparison despite both metros being literally the same size.

[Symz]

I don't think Edmonton looks small at all, it's just Calgary is growing at a mutants pace.

I would have to agree when someone said Yellowknife's skyline punches above it's weight.

[Highinthesky]

Originally Posted by someone123

The question of which skyline is more impressive is subjective but here's the diagram on SSP: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=53256219

It is possible that the diagrams are incomplete but London seems to have 6 or 7 office buildings over 50 m whereas Halifax has 18 or so. I have only briefly been to London a few times but I found it to be a pretty average city. I prefer Halifax's skyline because it has more of a mix of old and new and much denser clusters of buildings. The largest office and residential buildings in London look like 70s/80s office park or slab type developments that are not very attractive. Halifax's tallest building is also a relatively unattractive 1970s building. I don't think Halifax's skyline would be improved by adding more of those.

Note that Halifax has a larger skyline than the cropped "downtown" version that is frequently shown:


Source

Across the water, Dartmouth also has a small skyline. You can see both Halifax and Dartmouth skylines from the waterfronts or if you're on a boat or the bridges. In my opinion the large suspension bridges and harbour also add a lot to the skyline.


Source

Did you look at your own diagram before making your comment? One the first page alone there are 25 buildings over 50 meters and 14 of the 25 are in London leaving 11 for Halifax and of those 11 five are smokes stakes or bridge pillars.

This is hardly conducive to your point.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Highinthesky

Did you look at your own diagram before making your comment? One the first page alone there are 25 buildings over 50 meters and 14 of the 25 are in London leaving 11 for Halifax and of those 11 five are smokes stakes or bridge pillars.

This is hardly conducive to your point.

As I said the London buildings are mostly unattractive concrete slab residential buildings, and on subsequent pages the ratios are reversed. The bridges are an interesting part of the skyline in Halifax.

My point is simply that I don't think it's a given that London has a more impressive skyline, although my post wasn't singularly tailored to convincing people of that. I posted the pictures and diagram link mostly for context.

[Deepstar]

Originally Posted by feepa

Calgary Metro Population (2006): 1.076 M
Edmonton Metro Population (2006) 1.034 M

Care to explain where you derived the 200,000 mark from? (I believe Edmonton has closed the gap some more in the last 5 years)

Edmonton has still lost ground to Calgary over the last 5 years, just not as fast as before.

[Coldrsx]

^I'd argue that every city in NA has lost ground to Cal in the past 5 years other maybe NYC.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^I'd argue that every city in NA has lost ground to Cal in the past 5 years other maybe NYC.

Or Phoenix, which was the fastest growing city in North America before the burst. I think Calgary was second fastest. Though Phoenix doesn't have a stellar skyline at all, its pretty weak for a city of ~5 million. It was more about sprawl, spas, hotels, airport expansion, and a large freeway system.

But while there is a lot of good for growing fast, it is not the long term ideal growth curve. Boom & Bust cycles are more common, and for people who are in the working world there, it can be tough. I know people who move to Edmonton or Saskatchewan from Calgary for more certain stability alone.

We all have a double edged sword to speak of; every city in Canada can lay positive and negatives to their names. People are different, so we will all prefer certain positives over certain negatives.

[Chinook Arch]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Edmonton has still lost ground to Calgary over the last 5 years, just not as fast as before.

Edmonton has lost a little bit of ground to Calgary (population wise) over the last 5 or so years, but not much, If I recall it's kept a close pace.

As far as the original subject of skylines, Edmonton's skyline is actually above normal for its population. Compare it other cities with similar or larger populations (Buffalo, SLC, Louisville, San Antonio etc.. ) and it's got a much larger skyline.


Edit: just for kicks I looked up the population growth of Edm and Cgy over the last five years, and it is indeed what I thought, pretty close, with Calgary having a slight edge.

Calgary
1076
1242
+166K

Edmonton
1034
1176
+142K

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm

[Chinook Arch]

Rapid growth doesn't make any difference in the end. Most cities in NA or around the world for that matter go through rapid growth stages at some point or multiple points, and end up just fine. Yes, rapid growth normally can't be sustained forever, but in the end it has no long term effect on a city, cities adjust and evolve as time goes on. The number of people who move to another city for 'stability' is minute and negligible at best.

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

But while there is a lot of good for growing fast, it is not the long term ideal growth curve. Boom & Bust cycles are more common, and for people who are in the working world there, it can be tough. I know people who move to Edmonton or Saskatchewan from Calgary for more certain stability alone.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by someone123

As I said the London buildings are mostly unattractive concrete slab residential buildings, and on subsequent pages the ratios are reversed. The bridges are an interesting part of the skyline in Halifax.

My point is simply that I don't think it's a given that London has a more impressive skyline, although my post wasn't singularly tailored to convincing people of that. I posted the pictures and diagram link mostly for context.

I actually think that London's skyline is more modern that Halifax's, and more impressive, considering Halifax is the main centre of commerce in the Maritimes, and London is one of many Southern Ontario cities. Plus smokestacks and bridges don't really count much when it comes to skylines.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Chinook Arch

Edmonton has lost a little bit of ground to Calgary (population wise) over the last 5 or so years, but not much, If I recall it's kept a close pace.

As far as the original subject of skylines, Edmonton's skyline is actually above normal for its population. Compare it other cities with similar or larger populations (Buffalo, SLC, Louisville, San Antonio etc.. ) and it's got a much larger skyline.


Edit: just for kicks I looked up the population growth of Edm and Cgy over the last five years, and it is indeed what I thought, pretty close, with Calgary having a slight edge.

Calgary
1076
1242
+166K

Edmonton
1034
1176
+142K

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm

Where as the previous five years was probably 100K or so difference in Calgary's favor.

Then there was some article out this year saying how Edmonton has created just under 50K jobs in the past year and Calgary a fraction of that. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if over the next couple of years we see higher growth numbers in Edmonton.

[DizzyEdge]

Isn't Edmonton affected by the airport thought?