What city skylines do you think underperform for their population?

[someone123]

Montreal has weird scale issues from certain perspectives that make it hard to tell how big its largest office towers are. In the photo above I think this might be true because there's a big gap between the short foreground buildings and the large buildings in behind. The scene might look equivalent if the big office towers were only 25 storeys tall or something but only a couple hundred metres away.

The mountain's also a bit farther back and taller than it looks (230 metres I think, and several kilometres from the water).

[Vercingetorix]

Stats are a funny thing. The Edmonton region had a net gain of 45,000 jobs created but it doesn't translate into population growth. Edmonton's population growth for the region will be just under 20k for 2011 and Calgary's just over 20k.

Edmonton's economy has actually had higher growth than Calgary's for 2009-2011, but less population growth in 2010 and 2011. Part of it is due to Calgary having stronger migration numbers, especially international wise, and also Calgary has a higher natural increase. The other thing that needs to be looked at is the type of jobs created. Many of the the ones created in Edmonton in the last two years have been temporary type jobs.

From reports and info I've seen, both cities are going to see big growth over the next 5 years

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

The really odd thing is Edmonton tends to be a few years behind Calgary when it comes to booming and behind Calgary when it comes to busting. The preliminary oil patch works starts up in Calgary and then it takes a year for that to translate to manufacturing in Edmonton, likewise when things cool down it takes a year or so for stuff to finish being built. This is clearly a departure form that trend, making it very interesting.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...106/story.html

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Vercingetorix

Stats are a funny thing. The Edmonton region had a net gain of 45,000 jobs created but it doesn't translate into population growth. Edmonton's population growth for the region will be just under 20k for 2011 and Calgary's just over 20k. Edmonton's economy has actually had higher growth than Calgary's for 2009-2011, but less population growth in 2010 and 2011. Part of it is due to Calgary having stronger migration numbers, especially international wise, and also Calgary has a higher natural increase. The other thing that needs to be looked at is the type of jobs created. Many of the the ones created in Edmonton in the last two years have been temporary type jobs.

From reports and info I've seen, both cities are going to see big growth over the next 5 years

But going back to my original point, no longer is Calgary outgrowing Edmonton by tens of Thousands a year...the gap has narrowed to a point where Calgary seeing larger growth than Edmonton year after year for the next decade like the last is not a forgone conclusion.

[Vercingetorix]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

But going back to my original point, no longer is Calgary outgrowing Edmonton by tens of Thousands a year...the gap has narrowed to a point where Calgary seeing larger growth than Edmonton year after year for the next decade like the last is not a forgone conclusion.

You're absolutely right. The next five years, if predictions hold should be the similar to the past five years with Calgary and Edmonton growing at similar paces and Calgary edging Edmonton, but not by a large amount.

Of course nobody can predict the future. My job involves predictions and forecasts, but it's not a perfect science.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

What is the actual height which defines a structure being a high rise over mid rise? If it's too high, St. John's could have none.

12 stories, or a minimum structural height of 35 meters, which means virtually all office buildings of 9 or 10 stories. That's the definition by SSP and Emporis.

St. John's has about 10 (with some others borderline), with another under construction, and three more proposed. So that's about one existing highrise per 10,000 population (city). By comparison, Vancouver has 732 highrises listed, so would have about one highrise per 800 people. If St. John's had a similar per capita ratio as Vancouver it would have about 125 highrises.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by goodthings

What did I miss?

Hyper Super Duper Extremely Way Too Much Legendary Beyond The Most Heavenly Overachievers Possible in the Entirety of the Universe:
- Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary

Overachievers:
- Halifax, Regina, Yellowknife, Niagara Falls

Just OK:
- Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Hamilton, Moncton, Victoria (can build more and/or taller to overachieve)
- Burnaby, Mississauga (can clump buildings together to overachieve)

There's this something that's a little uncomfortable:
- St. John's, Saint John, St. Catharines, Saguenay, Montreal, Kelowna, London

Underwhelming:
- Fort McMurray, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Surrey, Laval, Longueuil, Barrie, Kingston, Fredericton, Red Deer, Prince George, Lethbridge, Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres
- Whitehorse (I understand though since the airport is above them)
- Ottawa (I understand since no building should be taller than the Peace Tower)

Desperately needs to AT LEAST create:
- Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Peterborough, Kamloops
- Vaughan (coming soon), Markham, and many more suburban cities and large towns.
- Brampton (come on, your population is approaching Mississauga's and yet you have none to show)

I feel Victoria is pretty good for its size; density is pretty wild there and when youre in the city it feels larger

I think Winnipeg is slightly under. Only a few tall towers, it would be nice if it had some more density. Though this year will bring some new, welcomed developments to the city.

Edmonton is excellent, and once Manulife II is built, it will be perfect for its size I think. The river valley really adds a lot to the skyline, imo.

Quebec City I feel doesn't need a skyline full of towers; the landscape itself is stunning. Ste Foy though is being developed well is it not? Will be the future "tower" centre of the city.

Ottawa I feel is what it is. Obviously it would be nice with taller towers (what city wouldn't, right? ), but the height restriction does make it seem very uniform and I find it is perfect for the city. It is quite dense and performs well imo.

Montreal just needs another iconic tower like Edmonton

And Missusauga, being essentially a suburb, is quite unreal imo.

But I'd agree with just about everything else.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Edmonton definitely had a good year for job growth, but most of this is just tied to upgraders etc northeast of the city and some new industrial parks. There hasn't even been a single condo/commercial tower break ground downtown for a couple of years.



The spread has gone down too from Nov 2010-2011 Edm gained 40,500 vs. Calgary 35,600 after Calgary had a really good month in November.

Calgary's becoming more recognized and earning a lot more positive attention than Edm. The city is forecasted to have the highest growth rates from 2012-2015. Downtown Calgary is gearing up for another boom right away too, so most definately Calgary will continue to grow faster population wise.

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/fs/Document...ew-2011-11.pdf

The Pearl
Organic Roots Building
Edmonton Clinic
Mayfair I
Centennial Plaza
Capital Boulevard
122 St/Jasper
North LRT

Not all of these are commercial or condo (some are institutional, recreational, retail, apartment) but they are all more urban minded projects going on in the past couple years. I know you don't like Edmonton (which makes me question you living in St. Albert), but please remove your ignorant bias and realize people are noticing Edmonton more and more, and it's not just tied to the industry in the northeast.

2012-13 should bring Mayfair II, Manulife II/The Arc, Century Park Phase II, Neon Sign Museum, First Jasper, Whyte/105th, Walterdale replacement, the Arena District, and maybe Cascadia to the shovels.

[Tone]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

Quebec City I feel doesn't need a skyline full of towers; the landscape itself is stunning. Ste Foy though is being developed well is it not? Will be the future "tower" centre of the city.

Heres 2 from this fall.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by ue

The Pearl
Organic Roots Building
Edmonton Clinic
Mayfair I
Centennial Plaza
Capital Boulevard
122 St/Jasper
North LRT

Not all of these are commercial or condo (some are institutional, recreational, retail, apartment) but they are all more urban minded projects going on in the past couple years. I know you don't like Edmonton (which makes me question you living in St. Albert), but please remove your ignorant bias and realize people are noticing Edmonton more and more, and it's not just tied to the industry in the northeast.

2012-13 should bring Mayfair II, Manulife II/The Arc, Century Park Phase II, Neon Sign Museum, First Jasper, Whyte/105th, Walterdale replacement, the Arena District, and maybe Cascadia to the shovels.

His ignorant post didn't deserve any acknowledgement. Ignore it like everybody else did.

[ErickMontreal]

Originally Posted by goodthings

What did I miss?

Hyper Super Duper Extremely Way Too Much Legendary Beyond The Most Heavenly Overachievers Possible in the Entirety of the Universe:
- Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary

Overachievers:
- Halifax, Regina, Yellowknife, Niagara Falls

Just OK:
- Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Hamilton, Moncton, Victoria (can build more and/or taller to overachieve)
- Burnaby, Mississauga (can clump buildings together to overachieve)

There's this something that's a little uncomfortable:
- St. John's, Saint John, St. Catharines, Saguenay, Montreal, Kelowna, London

Underwhelming:
- Fort McMurray, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Surrey, Laval, Longueuil, Barrie, Kingston, Fredericton, Red Deer, Prince George, Lethbridge, Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres
- Whitehorse (I understand though since the airport is above them)
- Ottawa (I understand since no building should be taller than the Peace Tower)

Desperately needs to AT LEAST create:
- Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Peterborough, Kamloops
- Vaughan (coming soon), Markham, and many more suburban cities and large towns.
- Brampton (come on, your population is approaching Mississauga's and yet you have none to show)

No offense but I would have put Saint John ahead on Moncton in that regard, if there is one thing that put Saint John ahead of Moncton is it.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by ue

The Pearl
Organic Roots Building
Edmonton Clinic
Mayfair I
Centennial Plaza
Capital Boulevard
122 St/Jasper
North LRT

Ok, the Pearl may have been the only exception, but even that one is pushing 2 years since ground breaking. Mayfair is simply fugly and that one must of started a good 3 years ago.

So in other words I was pretty much right in saying downtown Edmonton has not seen a single condo/office tower break ground in the last couple of years. Obviously, things are improving but as usual it's a slow process in E-town. I'm sure the apparent social problems and crazy amounts of murders happening in the inner city are also big turn offs for people deciding where to purchase.

[Symz]

Don't feel bad, there hasn't been a residential tower built in Windsor's core in over 35 years. Talk about a drought.

[ue]

Mayfair started in 2010, after the Pearl, IIRC.

[MrChills]

Originally Posted by Symz

Don't feel bad, there hasn't been a residential tower built in Windsor's core in over 35 years. Talk about a drought.

It's really been that long? I lived in Windsor seven years ago, but worked in Detroit.. I had a condo in Victoria Park Place (which at the time was the tallest building in the city - I believe the new Casino tower took that place?), and that was my thing to point out from Detroit to co-workers.. look, see over there, that's where I live, in the tallest building in town

[Symz]

Originally Posted by MrChills

It's really been that long? I lived in Windsor seven years ago, but worked in Detroit.. I had a condo in Victoria Park Place (which at the time was the tallest building in the city - I believe the new Casino tower took that place?), and that was my thing to point out from Detroit to co-workers.. look, see over there, that's where I live, in the tallest building in town

Yup, it has been that long. There have been other buildings, mostly condos built in the city, just not downtown. The closest one that is pretty close to downtown, but not in the the downtown core is

The Portofino 17 stories, located several blocks out of the core going more towards the university.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Ok, the Pearl may have been the only exception, but even that one is pushing 2 years since ground breaking. Mayfair is simply fugly and that one must of started a good 3 years ago.

So in other words I was pretty much right in saying downtown Edmonton has not seen a single condo/office tower break ground in the last couple of years. Obviously, things are improving but as usual it's a slow process in E-town. I'm sure the apparent social problems and crazy amounts of murders happening in the inner city are also big turn offs for people deciding where to purchase.

I think the Edmontonians gave more convincing arguments than this. Part of the reason the job growth is large in the Edmonton metro area is because the jobs are more stable, overall, than say what is in Calgary. I can attest to this; I know lots of people who have moved to Calgary then moved to Edmonton or to Saskatchewan due to job stability.

When I was considering investing in property downtown Edmonton, I wasn't aware of the "crazy" amounts of murders happening in the area. In fact, they were pretty safe areas west of the core and across the valley in the U of A area.

"Obviously" things are improving, you say. Might I ask, why are you in St. Albert if your signature is a subliminal middle finger to Edmonton? Don't say its because of a job...

And sorry Edmontonians, I might be feeding the troll, but I live in Winnipeg. I know what its like to have the subliminal finger. Its stupid, ignorant, and based with a point of view that seems to be dipped in 'Machoism" most of the time...I mean, lets all ignore the strides Edmonton has taken, right?

[youngregina]

I still think Regina outperforms when factoring in it's current population. I feel Saskatoon will be yet another underperforming centre as their population increases without the construction of larger buildings. However, Saskatoon as far as street life and urban feel go, far outweigh that of Regina. Hopefully, Regina will realize the importance of its younger generation and provide the framework for us to build our own culture with, alongside the awesome developments that have taken our small city by storm.

On another note, I too feel that Montreal is lacking a balanced weight to its skyline. Toronto just rips other cities to shreds along with Calgary. Edmonton, while 'unfairly' compared to Calgary still should be able to punch above like its sister city. It is a gorgeous city nonetheless and I agree Edmonton's skyline is a hard one to capture.

Canada's cities generally do outperform those of their counterparts to the south, as they always have. One reason I think Regina's skyline is so prominent is because we are surrounded by such vastness, but instead of spreading out to ridiculous proportions, we have kept a fairly good balance as far as density goes. Also, we have been able to keep most companies downtown, (with a workforce of roughly 30 000) rather than support office parks. We don't have centralized office parks, just randomly scattered offices in niche areas in the city.

just food for thought.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

By global standards, I don't see how Montreal could at all be seen as having an under-performing skyline for a city of 4 million.

Its the same size as Detroit, Phoenix, Melbourne, Naples, Brasilia, Berlin, Cape Town, Athens, Medellin, Casablanca, and a whole bunch more. And I'd say Montreal has a better skyline than all of those, though perhaps size-wise comparable to some of the South American and Chinese cities in that range.

Most Canadian cities are definitely "overachievers" in this regard.

You really think MTL has a better skyline than Melbourne?


http://www.flickr.com/photos/gaviq/6...n/photostream/


by Dimethyltryptamine on SSC

Obviously we're all entitled to our opinions and I can respect that but I'm not personally seeing it. In fact, I would even consider cities like Seattle and Minneapolis to be ahead of MTL. But obviously it will look better if you compare it to European and African cities.

[davidivivid]

Quebec City's skyline indeed is underwhelming when factoring its population. In fact, the main skyline hasn't changed much since the mid-70's, when huge chunks of the upper-town were torned down to make way for hotels and government buildings, including the magnificent () Complexe G. That being said, the skyline seems unusually small for many important reasons.

First of all, a multitude of buildings have been classified as historical heritage and hence cannot be demolished. Also, after the mistakes made in the 70's, the government imposed draconian height restrictions and up until recently, it still bowed to nimbys pressure groups. These groups still hold some sway but much less so than a few years ago.

The second reason is the interesting topography of the city. The upper town, where the highest buildings are standing, is situated on a cliff which is significantly higher than the lower town. There are indeed highrises in the lower-town as well as a very high population density. However, this lesser known (and visited) area of the historic downtown is thus completely dwarfed by and isolated from the buildings situated near parlement hill on higher grounds. Hence, the downtown area is bigger and denser than it might appear if one was to look solely at the usual pictures of the upper-town skyline.

On the first picture, you can observe an aerial view of the upper-town. It is difficult to see but everything situated to the left of the National Bank tower (center of the pic) is built on a somewhat steep slope leading to the cliff at the left. The second picture shows the lower-town.




The Pur hotel at the center of the pic is 18-story high.


http://francisvachon.photoshelter.co...000gGQe2dJdSR0


The third picture gives a sense of the discrepancy between the lower and upper-town.


Quartier St-Roch par davidivivid, sur Flickr


Quartier St-Roch par davidivivid, sur Flickr



Finally, the emergence of a second economic center has had an impact on developments and hence the skyline of the historic downtown area. There are many reasons why this newer district is attracting highrises instead of the old city. First of all: height regulations.

The second reason is the presence of the bridges next to the Ste-Foy district. Many big Montreal corporations have offices in Quebec City and there is a lot of going back and forth between the two cities. By having its offices in Ste-Foy instead of Quebec (which is farther and finding parking can be difficult), companies save time and money. Anyway, that is what I've been told.

Finally, the Ste-Foy district will always attract a lot of people because Quebec City's main hospital and shopping center are situated there...

That being said, the old town still attracts some investments (Insurance company headquarters, condos) but no where near what you will see in newer part of town. You can clearly see Ste-Foy in the background and it will be even more visible once the 29-story tower is completed:



Quebec city from above - Québec vu du ciel par www.digitaldirect.ca, sur Flickr

[MolsonExport]

Little-known fact: The G in Complexe G stands for Gross.

An ugly monster in an otherwise beautiful city. Rather like tour Montparnasse in Paris (although the latter has great views from atop)