Future Canadian Skylines

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Even in Tokyo, arguably the world's largest urban centre, the tallest towers (excluding the two observation towers) are only around 250 meters. And that is a city of 35 million people.

And that is probably why Tokyo feels so massive. It's just low to midrises seemingly forever.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by dleung

Most people can agree that Vancouver's skyline is too much of a tabletop, and can use more buildings around 500'-700'. The ones who say that Vancouver should build a 1200-footer, or claim with a straight face that certain proposals there should be several times taller, tend to be from Toronto. Knowing this forum, I suspect they want for Vancouver what the CN tower did to Toronto's skyline in terms of size perception.

I do think towers in the 500 to maybe 800 foot range would do the most in terms of making the skyline more interesting. And I LAO wouldn't straight up advocate for a 1000 foot tower, but I don't think it would ruin the skyline either. In the absence of 500-800 foot towers I guess it probably would though.

What I think is more the issue is that Vancouver is now missing an iconic building that defines the skyline. Calgary has the Calgary Tower, Toronto has the CN tower, NY has the empire state building, etc. Vancouver used to have the Harbour Centre as the defining building, but now, so many buildings have been built up to a similar height around it that it barely stands out any more.
I think any city needs to have a distinct building in the silhouette of the skyline.
It doesn't necessarily need to be that tall, just distinct looking and tall enough to stand out amongst the other buildings. Which in Vancouver's case is probably now around at least 700 feet.

[Metro-One]

Exactly, all Vancouver needs is a couple 700 to 750 foot towers and at the most one 800 foot tower and the skyline would be complete IMO.

That being said, Vancouver has indeed become far taller since 2000.

10 tallest in 2000 complete:

1. 144.8
2. 139.6 (170.1 to spire)
3. 138.4
4. 137.8
5. 137.2
6. 127.1
7. 121.9
8. 121.5
9. 116.4
10. 115.8

The 10 tallest complete today.

1. 196.9 (200.9 with spire)
2. 157.6
3. 149.8 (157.7 with spire)
4. 149
5. 144.8
6. 141.1
7. 139.6
8. 139.6 (170.1 with spire)
9. 138.4
10. 137.8

Now, today including towers u/c and serious proposals (no visions, towers that have already been approved)

1. 196.9 (200.9 with spire)
2. 188
3. 167.6
4. 157.6
5. 152 (listed as 150 on diagrams but 152 is the new approved height)
6. 149.8 (157.7 with spire)
7. 149
8. 144.8
9. 143.3
10. 141.1

So #1 from 2000 will have dropped to #8 when all current u/c and approved proposed towers are complete. (only regarding completed it is now #5)

Not that bad

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

You would actually dislike the majority of Japanese cities then. The vast majority of towers here are between 15 and 25 stories.

You conveniently chose to zero in on just one ingredient of a metropolis that is appealing to me and ignored the long list of others: extreme density, streets packed like sardines, massive extensive subway system, tons of large museums and galleries, many millions of residents, sensory overload of smells/noises/lights, and hundreds of other things.

So in your mind because Tokyo lacks one of these things, I won't like it? That makes zero sense.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Even in Tokyo, arguably the world's largest urban centre, the tallest towers (excluding the two observation towers) are only around 250 meters. And that is a city of 35 million people.

It's also in the most active earthquake zone on the planet.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

If there were lots of 1200 foot towers being built, there likely wouldn't be as many total towers... And that could arguably make downtown Vancouver feel less urban.

Well the truth of it all is that Vancouver too small a city for me. Toronto is too, but I want to live in Canada. Put another 10 million people on the current footprint of the Toronto CMA and I'd be happy as a peach.

Vancouver has some wonderful qualities, but hustle and bustle isn't currently one of it's draws.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by isaidso

You conveniently chose to zero in on just one ingredient of a metropolis that is appealing to me and ignored the long list of others: extreme density, streets packed like sardines, massive extensive subway system, tons of large museums and galleries, many millions of residents, sensory overload of smells/noises/lights, and hundreds of other things.

So in your mind because Tokyo lacks one of these things, I won't like it? That makes zero sense.



It's also in the most active earthquake zone on the planet.

Well, this was your original post:

Originally Posted by isaidso

And that's why I'll likely never live in Vancouver. I want to live in a big bustling city that celebrates the built form, not one that prioritizes views of nature. If my priority is to stare at mountains, I'd move to Whistler. If Vancouver was busy, dense, tall, noisy, and energetic like Hong Kong I'd be tempted to move there one day. Btw, 600 ft isn't all that tall these days; try 1200 ft.

Seems to me that the primary focus there was building height! Yes, you quickly threw in a few other descriptions in there, ones I honestly feel that Vancouver does fairly well at, especially when regarding its population. Downtown Vancouver does feel busy (and yes, I have been in many cities around the world) and it is dense, and it is also relatively tall on the world scene. This forum tends to focus on the mega cities and those building skyscraper (for obvious reasons) but there are many many cities that have skylines considerably smaller than Vancouver's. So again, your original post did seem to zero in on height.

If Hong Kong density, noise, and energy is what you need, then Toronto also does not meet your criteria. Toronto energy / density levels are far more akin to Vancouver than Hong Kong. The tower height, I will give Toronto that, no denying it is Canada's vertical city.

Also, the earthquake aspect is not the main reason behind Japan's lower building heights, it is actually a shadowing regulation. Here, it is believed that all people have a right to sunlight. This is the main force behind the lower buildings.

[dleung]

^^But when it comes to skyscraper fanboys, if you tell them you can achieve the same density and better pedestrian realm without creating dark windy urban canyons, they'd squirm and fight it because it is antithesis to their simplistic visions of "big city feel"

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Seems to me that the primary focus there was building height! Yes, you quickly threw in a few other descriptions in there, ones I honestly feel that Vancouver does fairly well at, especially when regarding its population.

Good grief. Do you really think a person bases where they choose to live/their urban preferences based on one arbitrary measure? Furthermore, it's a little absurd to expect me to list off my whole list of pre-requisites every time. Surely there needs to be an assumption that people form their opinions over decades of thought and life experience.

I also said in the post you quoted that I want to live in a big bustling city that celebrates the built form, not one that prioritizes views of nature; that I like dense, tall, noisy, and energetic places. Why on earth would you conclude from even that simple sentence that all I care about is height?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If Hong Kong density, noise, and energy is what you need, then Toronto also does not meet your criteria.

Yes, you have a knack for stating the obvious.

Like it clearly says in my post above, Toronto is far too small for my liking as well, but I WANT TO LIVE IN CANADA. Toronto is the closest I'm going to get in this country. It's rapidly going in the right direction so I've chosen to lay down roots in that city. I'm hoping it will get close to where I want by 2030.

Jeesh!

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Good grief. Do you really think a person bases where they choose to live/their urban preferences based on one arbitrary measure? Furthermore, it's a little absurd to expect me to list off my whole list of pre-requisites every time. Surely there needs to be an assumption that people form their opinions over decades of thought and life experience.

I also said in the post you quoted that I want to live in a big bustling city that celebrates the built form, not one that prioritizes views of nature; that I like dense, tall, noisy, and energetic places. Why on earth would you conclude from even that simple sentence that all I care about is height?

Probably because that was your focal point in your original post (before your second post existed, which did elaborate more). And this is a thread about skylines. And yes, there are people on this forum who seem to base way too much weight on the height of towers in rating a city.

Also, the only part of the urban built form in Vancouver that is manipulated due to the mountain views is the height of towers, many other urban aspects in Vancouver do celebrate the urban realm quite well. So again, in your original post it did seem that you equated tower height quite heavily with the quality of the urban realm. Again, your original quote. All the bold parts are to do with tower height. Just seems to take the lions share of the argument. And again, this was before your other points were made.

Originally Posted by isaidso

And that's why I'll likely never live in Vancouver. I want to live in a big bustling city that celebrates the built form, not one that prioritizes views of nature. If my priority is to stare at mountains, I'd move to Whistler. If Vancouver was busy, dense, tall, noisy, and energetic like Hong Kong I'd be tempted to move there one day. Btw, 600 ft isn't all that tall these days; try 1200 ft.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also, the only part of the urban built form in Vancouver that is manipulated due to the mountain views is the height of towers, many other urban aspects in Vancouver do celebrate the urban realm quite well. So again, in your original post it did seem that you equated tower height quite heavily with the quality of the urban realm.

I think Vancouver has found a pretty good balance between building up as an impressive city, while also taking into account the area's natural beauty.

Hong Kong is certainly impressive as far as massive numbers of high rises crammed into a small area, but as a result, the focus has been taken completely off the geography of the area (it's actually a really scenic area, but you can't see a whole lot of it).
Celebrating only the built form makes a city just like every other city out there. There has to be features that really distinguish it.


That... And call me crazy, but I like how laid back Vancouver is for its size.

[Coldrsx]

Something like this by late 2017 or so... not bad for the middle of downtown Edmonton.



Encore - green box

(http://encoretower.com/images/encore_rendering.jpg)

Fox I and II - 2 boxes background

(http://threefifty.ca/sites/default/f...fox-towers.jpg)

Ultima Condo - red box right

(http://imganuncios.mitula.net/ultima...0797108001.jpg)

[Chadillaccc]

I love Encore and Ultimate. I am worried that Fox Towers could end up just a more boxy version of Icon, which isn't a good thing.

[Coldrsx]

They are improved from a 4 sided perspective, but will be ok. Podium is fantastic IMO.

[Dirt_Devil]

Is it me or this Ultima project in Edmonton makes me think of it as a smaller version of Montreal's L'avenue condo project?

[Chadillaccc]

Just you, for sure.

[Layton's Brylcreem]

Is it me or is Montreal's l'avenue an angular version of Toronto's L Tower?

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

I think Vancouver has found a pretty good balance between building up as an impressive city, while also taking into account the area's natural beauty.

Hong Kong is certainly impressive as far as massive numbers of high rises crammed into a small area, but as a result, the focus has been taken completely off the geography of the area (it's actually a really scenic area, but you can't see a whole lot of it).
Celebrating only the built form makes a city just like every other city out there. There has to be features that really distinguish it.


That... And call me crazy, but I like how laid back Vancouver is for its size.

I hope it stays that way. Unfortunately, increasing urbanity is being presented as a false dichotomy to a local population that isn't sophisticated enough to realize that a quaint environment doesn't necessarily preclude density and quality public realm, so every project is always a fight to get built, which adds cost and takes resources away from good design, allowing some sub-par examples to slip through the cracks, which in turn reinforces nimby fears, and then you see editorials from long-timers who lament the loss of that special something circa 1980, while threatening to leave for smaller cities. I wish those types stayed.

[TallBob]

Love Encore and Ultimat condos for Edmonton!

[Innsertnamehere]

Update!

The model became a bit neglected over the school year and now that it is summer I am hoping to be able to do a bit of catch up and make some further improvements. Over the last few weeks I have added most of the missing buildings, updated construction status for the buildings, removed some stale or cancelled projects, and made some design modifications. There are still a few smaller buildings missing here and there and a few modifications and design changes that still need to occur however.

Overall skyline of the ever changing future Toronto:



50 at Wellesley station and its surroundings:



The two big new office proposals across the street from each other (notice the removal of Oxford Place)



Added a bunch to my previously rather sparse NYCC model, I'm still missing a bit as well. Info is tough to come by for so many of the projects in this area..



Y+E has a bunch of previously missing smaller proposals added, and E condos has finally shifted to construction:



Bloor Yorkville gets ever denser with the addition of Cumberland Terrace:



The east end of the city: I want to make the most modifications to the model on this side soon. Update the East Bayfront which is missing some things and otherwise rather sparse and incorrect, and get a proper model setup of Regent Park. These are particularly difficult to do because of the outdated satellite imagery, A lot is guesstimating dimensions and street locations.