Canadian Urban Canyons

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Ghastly? I honestly don't see what's even wrong with it. It may not be an exceptional landmark-quality masterpiece, but it seems nice enough to me.

That you don't see anything wrong with it speaks to my previous point.

[Nouvellecosse]

Unless I'm mis-interpreting you, your point was that Canadians accept poor design as being good enough since they have low standards. I don't think it's poor but tolerable design, I think it's nice. In other words, I'm not "settling" for something because I don't think architecture has to be very good to be acceptable, I just have a different opinion/taste than you.

You seem to be insinuating that it's objectively bad design, but the only thing you've cited as justification is that you don't like the colour of the bricks.

[Doady]

Cities are comprised of diverse range of buildings from many different designs and styles and materials. The idea that one brick building, that almost completely hidden in a sea of steel and glass structures, is somehow representative of the buildings in that photo or all of Halifax or even all of Canada, is just completely nonsensical.

[kool maudit]

When I look at new construction here I do not find it appreciably nicer that what you might see in major Canadian cities. It is true, however, that Danish builders do not go as low as Canadian ones do; you would never see something like this, for instance:



But when you look at the greenfield areas of Copenhagen, they don't look that outstanding to me. Nordhavn is a new area built over former port lands, similar to CityPlace/SouthCore:



Consistent, but truly nothing special. Canada can and does exceed this not infrequently.

Sydhavn is similar:



It has an orderliness to it, but you can find this in Griffintown et cetera. It's nothing too exciting.

Malmo's western harbour is a bit better in terms of planning but the individual buildings are nothing special:



There is a bit of a gap in terms of things like street furniture, bike lanes, and the like, admittedly. But the Scandinavian countries are also richer places than Canada, with per capita GDP almost US $10,000 higher in Denmark than Canada.

[kool maudit]

I am more excited about some of the new projects in Toronto, particularly the 'bubble' one on King West, than I am about anything here.

[Acajack]

Some are better than others, but one thing I find about North American cities is that vehicular infrastructure (signage, signals, markings, etc.) is often over-bearing and garish even in denser inner city areas. In many cases you have the exact same stuff they use for 6-8 lane suburban boulevards lined with strip malls and auto dealerships, which they squeeze as best they can into dense inner city settings.

In most of Europe things are more harmonious and the insertion of the vehicular component to an inner city street is often more discreet and even secondary.

In North America too often a street is still seen as primarily for motor vehicles and the presence of other users is tolerated. In Europe it's the other way
around.

I will add a few caveats:

- Cities north of the Baltics often have some North American-ish traits to how motor vehicles are "welcomed" in their downtowns, but it's still usually not as over-bearing.

- In the more enlightened North American cities major efforts have been made in order to foster a more harmonious coexistence but these are often in conflict with evolving safety standards - especially those that take into account an ageing motorist population.

[Nouvellecosse]

One thing that really stands out to me in this discussion is that some people seem to miss a really key aspect of architecture which is that unlike many other types of art, context is of huge importance. Architecture is not a pure art of course; it's a mixture of art and function. While context is important to all art, for most art that context consists largely of culture and history. With architecture, its these combined with physical context - how it relates to, and interacts with, its surrounding landscape and/or cityscape - and economic context. Realistically if you have two completely identical buildings in two completely different contexts it's going to be next to impossible that it will be equally appropriate for both. So the idea that if a building is (or would be) completely unsuited to context A (such as France) it therefore shouldn't be accepted in context B (such as NS) is not only fallacious, it's practically the antithesis of good design principles.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Some are better than others, but one thing I find about North American cities is that vehicular infrastructure (signage, signals, markings, etc.) is often over-bearing and garish even in denser inner city areas. In many cases you have the exact same stuff they use for 6-8 lane suburban boulevards lined with strip malls and auto dealerships, which they squeeze as best they can into dense inner city settings.

That's a very good observation, and one that I'd agree with.

Ironically, the one area where it would benefit to have large eye-catching signage readable to a passing motorist - directional signs to destinations - is where North America does a very poor job.

Consider how directional signage for motorists in an urban environment in Europe is often superior to one found in an exurban environment in North America.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Some are better than others, but one thing I find about North American cities is that vehicular infrastructure (signage, signals, markings, etc.) is often over-bearing and garish even in denser inner city areas. In many cases you have the exact same stuff they use for 6-8 lane suburban boulevards lined with strip malls and auto dealerships, which they squeeze as best they can into dense inner city settings.

In most of Europe things are more harmonious and the insertion of the vehicular component to an inner city street is often more discreet and even secondary.

In North America too often a street is still seen as primarily for motor vehicles and the presence of other users is tolerated. In Europe it's the other way
around.

I will add a few caveats:

- Cities north of the Baltics often have some North American-ish traits to how motor vehicles are "welcomed" in their downtowns, but it's still usually not as over-bearing.

- In the more enlightened North American cities major efforts have been made in order to foster a more harmonious coexistence but these are often in conflict with evolving safety standards - especially those that take into account an ageing motorist population.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Engineering street standards are taken as rigid requirements, but these same standards that are intended to move traffic more efficiently and all that can lead to some pretty terrible urban design and pedestrian experiences.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Engineering street standards are taken as rigid requirements, but these same standards that are intended to move traffic more efficiently and all that can lead to some pretty terrible urban design and pedestrian experiences.

It is important though to make a distinction between the infrastructure that exists and how new stuff is being built. The pendulum has swung back a lot from the 1960's-70's extreme when planners aspired to make everything car friendly.

A corollary to this is that some of the difference might just come down to relative ages of different cities. Calgary for example is almost all post-1970 development.

In that picture on the last page there used to be tall curved street lights that were identical to what you'd see along a suburban arterial, and they mostly illuminated the road surface. Recently they were replaced by more pedestrian-friendly lighting. The cross street (which is nearly useless for vehicle traffic) was also overhauled to make it more pedestrian oriented and the whole thing now officially functions like a crosswalk. That is how infrastructure in that area will be built in 2019 and onward.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is important though to make a distinction between the infrastructure that exists and how new stuff is being built. The pendulum has swung back a lot from the 1960's-70's extreme when planners aspired to make everything car friendly.

A corollary to this is that some of the difference might just come down to relative ages of different cities. Calgary for example is almost all post-1970 development.

In that picture on the last page there used to be tall curved street lights that were identical to what you'd see along a suburban arterial, and they mostly illuminated the road surface. Recently they were replaced by more pedestrian-friendly lighting. The cross street (which is nearly useless for vehicle traffic) was also overhauled to make it more pedestrian oriented and the whole thing now officially functions like a crosswalk. That is how infrastructure in that area will be built in 2019 and onward.

I'm thinking more about the strict road hierarchy and the treatment of arterial streets as if they were highways, with development facing away from them and as few street connections to them as possible. A lot of Toronto streets can be used as examples. Streets like Yonge and Bathurst gradually become less integrated with their surrounding development and street networks as you move north. It's an imperfect relationship because Toronto obviously didn't only start at the lake and sprawl north, but you know what I mean.

[kool maudit]

In some cases, though, the overbearing nature of North American signage and street accoutrements, in situations of extreme clutter, goes a long way towards that 'big American city' feeling.

I am thinking here of places like Yonge or York at the Gardiner. Big green highway signs, stacked infrastructure, more often that not some arrangement of flashing or otherwise haphazard construction signs... it's not Vienna but it's very much our own aesthetic.

The same extreme utilitarian elements that make our cities banal at their fringes give them an imposing quality at the core.







They wouldn't do this in Scandinavia but it's something. The expressway into Stockholm is somehow kind of wan by comparison.

[kool maudit]

This kind of careless, mid-20th piling of infrastructure is becoming an endangered species. I actually enjoyed my first sight of the Slussen area of Stockholm but Norman Foster is making it into something more subtle and, yes, functional now.





A few of those metro trains shuddering in over a rush hour jam and a Canadian boy can almost feel at home.

I'll miss the Turcot too.



These are forlorn sauropods in the wild now. They make no sense, really, but it's a sight.

[kool maudit]

Oh, and the canyons around here are pitiful but it's kind of like that singing dog/amazing he does it at all kind of thing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

That's a very good observation, and one that I'd agree with.

Ironically, the one area where it would benefit to have large eye-catching signage readable to a passing motorist - directional signs to destinations - is where North America does a very poor job.

Consider how directional signage for motorists in an urban environment in Europe is often superior to one found in an exurban environment in North America.

When we try to be very explicitly informative, we usually end up with something like this:

https://mapio.net/pic/p-20401069/

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

In some cases, though, the overbearing nature of North American signage and street accoutrements, in situations of extreme clutter, goes a long way towards that 'big American city' feeling.

I am thinking here of places like Yonge or York at the Gardiner. Big green highway signs, stacked infrastructure, more often that not some arrangement of flashing or otherwise haphazard construction signs... it's not Vienna but it's very much our own aesthetic.

The same extreme utilitarian elements that make our cities banal at their fringes give them an imposing quality at the core.







They wouldn't do this in Scandinavia but it's something. The expressway into Stockholm is somehow kind of wan by comparison.

I find that North Americans who haven't travelled off the continent often use this metric (superhighways) as how they define a truly big city. (That and impressive skyscraper skylines too - which haven't always been a feature of some of the world's great metropolii, and have only fairly recently begun to modestly appear in some of them.)

I swear to God I once had an argument with a guy who maintained that Appleton, Wisconsin (a city of 75,000 with a metro of 200,000) was clearly a bigger city than Ottawa. He based his assessment solely on the Interstate infrastructure in Appleton.

[kool maudit]

I guess if you drive around in your car a lot, the big highways become kind of what grand avenues were to 19th century pedestrians.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I guess if you drive around in your car a lot, the big highways become kind of what grand avenues were to 19th century pedestrians.

(Probably) guilty as charged. I never got off the continent as a kid, though I quickly did as soon as became a young adult and had the funds to do so on my own.

[niwell]

You get a bit of the feeling in Toronto and Montreal, but highway infrastructure in the US is just on another level. I can easily see why someone may assume somewhere south of the border is larger than Ottawa based on the number of interstates.

I was in Portland earlier this fall and actually did some driving, which is something that is usually avoided on vacation. Walking around at street level it was clear that Portland isn't a huge city, certainly much less so than I'm used to. Driving on the other hand... It's admittedly partly due to topography, but some of the highway junctions near downtown were just on another level. Driving through you'd think it's a much bigger city than say, Vancouver.

https://goo.gl/maps/cUeB5fi8wXF2

https://goo.gl/maps/gotepbZyxUB2

https://goo.gl/maps/q1wyFL4NvGk

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

You get a bit of the feeling in Toronto and Montreal, but highway infrastructure in the US is just on another level. I can easily see why someone may assume somewhere south of the border is larger than Ottawa based on the number of interstates.

I've heard this about Syracuse NY in the past as well. Though not so much lately as Ottawa's gotten noticeably bigger and the highway infrastructure and skyline have expanded somewhat so there is a wider, more obvious gap between the two.

But in the past the highways in Syracuse, its huge mall (still bigger than anything in Ottawa AFAIK), and domed stadium made it at least feel like it was in Ottawa's league. (It's actually smaller than Quebec City.)