Future Canadian Skylines

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I don't mind Toronto trying to battle New York in the skyline realm but I sure as hell hope they don't bring that mentality down to it's street level urban form.

NYC is a great place but people often it say, despite it's crowds, that it is impersonal. This is because it is a high-rise city but only a high-rise city like every single Chinese city. In short there are no houses of 1 or 2 story older buildings that help give a city it's warmth. Tall buildings can add urbanity, vibrancy, and density but they can never add intimacy or a human scale. Vancouver also lacks this intimacy and despite being a much smaller city and yet densely populated, the downtown has a distinct sterility.

This is what gives Toronto's downtown a distinct series of communities that ease in their connectivity and intimate in the midst of endless skyscrapers.

New York is a great city but it's the last one Toronto should be looking as a model for it's street level development.

I was just talking about Yorkville being like Midtown to the Financial District/Downtown... Yonge-Eglinton will be like the Harlaam/Bronx ..got these little nodes going on.

Because of places to grow/ avenues planning its unlikely, that single family or low rise homes outside high rise districts will be demolished to make more towers.

[ssiguy]

That's a great thing as downtown Vancouver destroyed nearly every house in the blind pursuit of density at any cost. There are probably only 20 SFH left in the entire downtown.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That's a great thing as downtown Vancouver destroyed nearly every house in the blind pursuit of density at any cost. There are probably only 20 SFH left in the entire downtown.

Well it's downtown. Why would you want there to be SFH there?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That's a great thing as downtown Vancouver destroyed nearly every house in the blind pursuit of density at any cost. There are probably only 20 SFH left in the entire downtown.

The downtown is relative small so it makes sense. There's probably fewer than 20 SFH in downtown Calgary too.

[ssiguy]

It's not only a lack of SFH but also row housing.

Apartment/condos add people but precious little else. I just don't agree with this notion that in order to move into the future you have to decimate your past.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It's not only a lack of SFH but also row housing.

Apartment/condos add people but precious little else. I just don't agree with this notion that in order to move into the future you have to decimate your past.

What does rowhousing add other than significant fewer people compared with towers? More Nimbys maybe? Condo and apartment towers can easily be pushed into having ground level retail, something rowhousing can't really match.

As for moving forward without decimating the past, you can chose to move your downtown somewhere else and preserve the old one (as Vancouver, Ottawa, and Montreal have all done to varying degrees), or move the buildings out of the downtown. London only has a few scattered remnants of the Roman wall around the city out of what was originally a whole community. Eventually a growing city will tear down basically anything but the most important landmarks. It's just what happens. Cities are organic growing and changing things and all parts are impermanent. Preservation of large chunks of a city over long periods is pretty universally a sign of stagnation and decay in a city (like Rome, which fell from a million people to ~30 000 around the time of the Black Death, it didn't recover again until the 1800s).

[caltrane74]

Historic/Heritage/Iconic buildings are protected by the city. You have nothing to worry about.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Beedok

What does rowhousing add other than significant fewer people compared with towers? More Nimbys maybe? Condo and apartment towers can easily be pushed into having ground level retail, something rowhousing can't really match.

As for moving forward without decimating the past, you can chose to move your downtown somewhere else and preserve the old one (as Vancouver, Ottawa, and Montreal have all done to varying degrees), or move the buildings out of the downtown. London only has a few scattered remnants of the Roman wall around the city out of what was originally a whole community. Eventually a growing city will tear down basically anything but the most important landmarks. It's just what happens. Cities are organic growing and changing things and all parts are impermanent. Preservation of large chunks of a city over long periods is pretty universally a sign of stagnation and decay in a city (like Rome, which fell from a million people to ~30 000 around the time of the Black Death, it didn't recover again until the 1800s).

Variety of ownership and styles is always good. You don't need towers or high density developments to have vibrant commercial areas within walking distance of those rowhouses either. It would be downright awful if the massive downtown area as defined by the city of Toronto was just condo and apartment towers.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Variety of ownership and styles is always good. You don't need towers or high density developments to have vibrant commercial areas within walking distance of those rowhouses either. It would be downright awful if the massive downtown area as defined by the city of Toronto was just condo and apartment towers.

Have you seen most cities with rowhousing? It's typically whole blocks built in the same style, if not whole neighbourhoods. The same with plenty of just dense working class neighbourhoods. Vancouver style condos offers a greater variety of architecture on a street than Montreal triplexes (relative quality is obviously in large part a personal choice of course, but you can't deny there's large chunks of Montreal that look like someone used a copy-paste tool in making the area).

As for making vibrant commercial areas, of course you can make those with rowhouses or even SFH, but the question was what highrises offered, and the answer was the ability to have more of that, and to be built on the vibrant commercial streets without putting a residential hole into the commercial fabric.

On the idea of having all downtown Toronto being highrises, if you guys keep wanting to talk about 'Manhattanisation' well that's your end result. Whether it's good or bad depends on choice. Some folks want a small quirky town. Some a medium sized city. Some a large, but not gigantic city. Others want their Tokyos or Hong Kongs.

[koops65]

I'd say Toronto is already well on the way to being gigantic... not in HK or Tokyo's league though.

[caltrane74]

That's the dream, but we need at least 2 more fully underground subway lines into downtown from High Park and the Danforth before we can even get to that size.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The downtown is relative small so it makes sense. There's probably fewer than 20 SFH in downtown Calgary too.

In downtown Calgary, I believe there is only one SFH still used as a residence. Any others have been converted into businesses.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Have you seen most cities with rowhousing? It's typically whole blocks built in the same style, if not whole neighbourhoods. The same with plenty of just dense working class neighbourhoods. Vancouver style condos offers a greater variety of architecture on a street than Montreal triplexes (relative quality is obviously in large part a personal choice of course, but you can't deny there's large chunks of Montreal that look like someone used a copy-paste tool in making the area).

And yet Montreal is approximately 37,000 times better-looking than Vancouver. It's more charming, has a better urban vibe, is visually engaging, delightful and interesting to the eye, etc. in ways that Vancouver isn't.

Because while the frontage along a given street in Vancouver might offer more spatial variety per se, the patterns generally tend to repeat street after street. Meaning that the four vistas from the intersection of Nelson and Gifford (https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.29044...8i6656!6m1!1e1), to pull a street view image out of a hat, are essentially the same as those from Chilco and Barclay (https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Van...207375!6m1!1e1), a couple blocks away. Meaning that your suggestion that the so-called architectural variety you see looking down a given street in Vancouver might be more interesting than the repetitive rowhousing in Montreal doesn't hold water, because you end up seeing repetitive patterns in Vancouver anyway.

Which brings us to urbanism 101, something you are blissfully ignorant of, though of course that doesn’t stop you from sharing your risible nonsense on this forum. Repetition is actually a good thing when done right. While variety is a factor in the degree of interest and engagement an urban street affords a resident or visitor, what's even more important is how buildings interact and engage with the street. A mostly unbroken street wall that isn’t obstructed from the sidewalk and has lots of doors and windows is going to suggest more potential for going in and out of buildings, which is psychologically more inviting and pleasing to the eye than streets with large gaps in between buildings, or where the buildings are set back from the sidewalk or have barriers. You also need some kind of ornamentation, which the Victorians did right, but we don’t. Completely flat, blank frontages are oppressive.

Which isn't to say that nobody could possibly prefer Vancouver streets to Montreal streets. We all have our personal preferences. But if you love cities, then obviously you're going to love what Montreal has to offer at street level a lot more than what you get in Vancouver.

Here’s some Google street view homework for you: https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.55363...7i13312!8i6656. Go forward for a block or two, and try to think about why the left side of the street is pleasant and inviting, while the right side isn't. At all.

Why is that? Hmmm? Would you prefer that both sides of the street were like the left side, or the right side? Which kind of street would you prefer to take a walk along? If you say the right, that's fine, of course. It just means that you don't like cities or good urban design. Again, that's fine, but you have to wonder what you'd be doing on a forum like this, if that's the case.

[ssiguy]

I didn't mean to hi-jack the thread so we should get back on topic. I simply brought it up because someone made the comparison with NY and I just hope that Toronto doesn't become a NY.

Let's move on.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Have you seen most cities with rowhousing? It's typically whole blocks built in the same style, if not whole neighbourhoods. The same with plenty of just dense working class neighbourhoods. Vancouver style condos offers a greater variety of architecture on a street than Montreal triplexes (relative quality is obviously in large part a personal choice of course, but you can't deny there's large chunks of Montreal that look like someone used a copy-paste tool in making the area).

As for making vibrant commercial areas, of course you can make those with rowhouses or even SFH, but the question was what highrises offered, and the answer was the ability to have more of that, and to be built on the vibrant commercial streets without putting a residential hole into the commercial fabric.

On the idea of having all downtown Toronto being highrises, if you guys keep wanting to talk about 'Manhattanisation' well that's your end result. Whether it's good or bad depends on choice. Some folks want a small quirky town. Some a medium sized city. Some a large, but not gigantic city. Others want their Tokyos or Hong Kongs.

Vancouver has done a great job with variety, offering high-rise density along with row house style street level appeal and commercial often on the same street with high-rises set back from street level.


Richards & Davie street in Vancouver

One option Toronto has been doing with some of its more historic larger sized houses is move these houses with front yard up to street/sidewalk edge and then build high-rises in behind. It keeps some of the historical/human scale elements on the street and allows for options for more density in towers just behind and above.


Sherbourne & Shelby street in Toronto

[koops65]

Looking East at the future Entertainment District:
[IMG][/IMG]

Looking Northeast:
[IMG][/IMG]

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Have you seen most cities with rowhousing? It's typically whole blocks built in the same style, if not whole neighbourhoods. The same with plenty of just dense working class neighbourhoods. Vancouver style condos offers a greater variety of architecture on a street than Montreal triplexes (relative quality is obviously in large part a personal choice of course, but you can't deny there's large chunks of Montreal that look like someone used a copy-paste tool in making the area).

As for making vibrant commercial areas, of course you can make those with rowhouses or even SFH, but the question was what highrises offered, and the answer was the ability to have more of that, and to be built on the vibrant commercial streets without putting a residential hole into the commercial fabric.

On the idea of having all downtown Toronto being highrises, if you guys keep wanting to talk about 'Manhattanisation' well that's your end result. Whether it's good or bad depends on choice. Some folks want a small quirky town. Some a medium sized city. Some a large, but not gigantic city. Others want their Tokyos or Hong Kongs.

I thought I was clear about a neighbourhood offering a variety of ownership and housing types which includes apartment buildings is better than one that is limited to condo or rental apartments.

Since you brought it up, You can find rowhouses including modern adaptations that are as distinct as Vancouver's condo towers.

I'm not one to join the Manhattanization bandwagon as I don't particular find it very Manhattan. If we're talking solid 10 to 40 metre streetwalls of 100 year old masonry buildings built with sound urban practices than sure but, I would say what gets push here is more conducive to what is being built in Dubai. It's all about height, height and more height.

I'm perfectly fine with retail concentrated in walkable nodes with the rest being primarily residential. I don't need retail as part of every building. It's not very successful even within neighbourhoods of strictly towers. There are hundreds of examples of high rise developments that have left holes in the existing commercial fabric. Residential developers are not prone to build retail on their own.

[koops65]

Toronto skyline from the West:

[IMG][/IMG]

Downtown Aerial:

[IMG][/IMG]

From farther out:

[IMG][/IMG]

Yorkville:

[IMG][/IMG]

Looking Southwest:

[IMG][/IMG]

[caltrane74]

For as big as the skyline gets, we will never be satisfied.

It needs to be much, much bigger.

[odogfo]

Future of East Village