What city skylines do you think underperform for their population?

[Roquentin]

Originally Posted by whiteford

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.

Yikes.
I currently live in downtown Saskatoon, and I don't find it overly "exciting" skyline-wise. The skyline certainly doesn't reflect the quick growth of the city (most of which is suburban). As the city grows towards 300,000 over the next decade, the skyline will seem increasingly stunted. My hope is that projects around River Landing and the Warehouse District will improve things on that front. The downtown condo market will have to pick up for that to happen, though.

[Calebb]

This thread should be called "what city skylines do you think OVERPERFORM for their population". I honestly don't think a single skyline in Canada is "under performing". Not by North American standards anyway. Maybe if we're comparing these cities to ones in China?

[Symz]

Originally Posted by Calebb

This thread should be called "what city skylines do you think OVERPERFORM for their population". I honestly don't think a single skyline in Canada is "under performing". Not by North American standards anyway. Maybe if we're comparing these cities to ones in China?

What Canadian city skylines for cities under 500,000 didn't meet your expectations of what you thought when you first saw it?

[bolognium]

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.

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.

So you've only been to London briefly, yet you're comfortable labeling it an average city? I'm pretty sure your hometown pride is influencing your views.

I agree that the harbour and bridges really add a lot to the Halifax skyline. So as a whole, I'd tend to give the nod to Halifax having the better skyline. However, in a topic about skylines representing their respective city's populations, is it fair to take into account natural features like a harbour? Also, I think the actual built form of the two cities is a lot closer than you let on. I fail to see this mix of old and new that you claim Halifax boasts over London. Unless you're talking about mid-70s concrete mixed with mid-90s glass (a mix London also has).

Here's a picture I took a few months ago from one of the few natural vantage points in London. For comparison's sake, the taller Purdy's tower is the height of the blue and pink Talbot Centre buildings and Fenwick is the height of the TD tower just to the right of One London Place. Do you see how the height of buildings is really gobbled up by the rolling river valley and dense trees? In this picture there are a good dozen mid-rise buildings that are blocked by trees. There are also at least 5 high-rises blocked by other towers. If London's skyline was built right up to the shore of a harbour similar to Halifax I don't think we'd even be having this conversation.

(click for fullsize)


And just like London has nothing even remotely comparable to Halifax' harbour bridges, Halifax has nothing even remotely comparable to One London Place (yet).

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by bolognium

And just like London has nothing even remotely comparable to Halifax' harbour bridges, Halifax has nothing even remotely comparable to One London Place (yet).

Purdy's Warf is the same size but is(are) a much more dynamic building(s) then One London Place. The Halifax skyline has more variety and depth compared to London's spread out skyline. The two cities are not in the same league.

[bolognium]

See, that's what I was trying to get at with better vantage points from the harbour. Half of those buildings in your Halifax shot wouldn't even register in that London shot I posted. Your beautiful Dominion Public building would be nothing more than a flag pole if it were in my London pano. It's not that Halifax has more depth than London, it's just that you can actually see everything. I'd also wager the steep hills in downtown Halifax help to elevate its mid-rises making them seem more impressive than they really are.

And that bit about Purdy's Wharf being more "dynamic" is just silly. Both Purdy's and One London Place are great towers. I personally think OLP is more handsome, but I'll chalk that up to hometown bias.

Fun fact, OLP is 25m taller than Purdy's. Hardly the same height.

[someone123]

One London Place at 350,000 square feet is only about 2/3 the size of the Maritime Centre in Halifax, although it is taller. To be honest I don't think most people visiting the two cities separately would really notice that One London Place is 1/4 taller than Purdy's or 1801 Hollis. The most interesting feature of Purdy's is that it's built out onto the harbour and you can walk around the base on a walkway suspended over the water.

The Maritime Centre gives streets like Granville a heavily built up feel and contrasts with nearby heritage buildings in an interesting way:


Source

The "mix of old and new" stuff isn't really worth debating. Halifax's skyline includes stuff like the Citadel and Town Clock from 1802, early 19th century stone warehouse buildings, Pier 21, the Nova Scotian Hotel, Bank of NS HQ, Dominion Public Building, and so forth. I love the old buildings and don't care if they are shorter than newer ones. I like that we have offices in buildings like the beautiful art deco Bank of NS HQ on Hollis rather than in a taller but nondescript 1970s glass box.

One nice new building is the recently-renovated waterfront power station:


Source

I don't mind that Halifax got an interesting example of adaptive reuse that balances well with the historic red brick hotel next door. That probably could have been a bland concrete office tower somewhere with a taller roof height.

Here are some great photos from Harlington (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...83518&page=9):

[Andrewjm3D]

Fun fact - 25m is nothing to most people. Topology, location and views all are key factors when it comes to skylines. Halifax has a true skyline where I don't think most people even think London has one. London can't compete with Halifax. The Density, or diversity that it has to offer is very impressive for a city of it's size.

Fun Fact - Purdy's Warf is unique to Halifax, One London has been done over and over again in slightly different forms around N.A.

[Vercingetorix]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

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.

I haven't seen that article about the jobs, but other indicators (bank reports for example) show that Calgary is still growing faster population wise, including significantly more in 2011. Banks can't give you the exact numbers but they can give surprisingly accurate estimates based on account movements and address changes.

Recent economic forecasts show Calgary to have similar or higher growth than Edmonton, so I would expect the population trend of the last 5 years to be the similar for the next five.

http://www.joconl.com/article/id43105

[Vertigo3000]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Over achieving city: Niagara Falls

Population :90k
Tallest skyline outside the top 4 cities in the country.

I know it's a resort city, but so are Wasaga Beach and Whistler and they don't have skylines.

Wasaga is on it's way, just wait.... a while.

[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)

[youngregina]

Originally Posted by goodthings

- Ottawa (I understand since no building should be taller than the Peace Tower)

Just a passing thought, which I thought would be pretty funny if it were to actually come to fruition. But, has anyone ever thought of making he peace tower taller.. so buildings could be built taller? Or would that just completely ruin the 'historicness' of the parliament...

[chrisallard5454]

I am sorry to London, but for a city with its growth and size it should have a much nicer skyline. And I personally do not like downtown London. Though Richmond is very lively, outside of that though, there is nothing really. Sorry. It could do so much better. Although, with two more condo's coming it could help. It needs to fill gaps rather than spread out like it is. It is making Winnipeg's mistakes. Why would they build a 15 story condo unit half way down Dundas. Build it right downtown, increase density. Does anyone know how tall that twin is going to be downtown?

[flar]

I don't really get people's comments on London. One London Place is a fantastic modern skyscraper that blows away anything in Halifax, Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec City, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina and possibly even Edmonton.

People also seem to forget that London is an old city. It has been in the top 10 largest cities in Canada since the 1850s. Having lived in London and explored Halifax thoroughly, they are comparable on historic architecture. I might even give the nod to London. Halifax is only marginally older and was quite small in the early 1800s.

London unquestionably has more tall buildings than Halifax, but the skyline lacks a good vantage point.

[bolognium]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I am sorry to London, but for a city with its growth and size it should have a much nicer skyline. And I personally do not like downtown London. Though Richmond is very lively, outside of that though, there is nothing really. Sorry. It could do so much better. Although, with two more condo's coming it could help. It needs to fill gaps rather than spread out like it is. It is making Winnipeg's mistakes. Why would they build a 15 story condo unit half way down Dundas. Build it right downtown, increase density. Does anyone know how tall that twin is going to be downtown?

London is filling gaps. The condo downtown is part of the Renaissance complex, which is built on a surface lot. The twin will be the same height as phase 1 at just over 93m. And the buildings on Dundas that you're referring to are situated in Old East Village, only a 15 minute walk from the core (they are around 80m). That area desperately needs intensification and all of us in the London Local agree it's a fantastic development for Old East.

--------------------------

All of my posts in this thread have been in defense of city's skylines as opposed to attacking other cities. By reading my posts, it should be apparent that I actually like Halifax' skyline, more than my hometown's. There's no need for snarky comments like "not in the same league."

It's just the thought of a skyline "punching above its weight" that seems stupid to me, since there are so many other factors which have an equal impact (good/bad vantage points, mountainous backdrop, stunning water features). As has been pointed out by someone123 and I, the Halifax harbour has a huge impact on the skyline. The harbour makes the skyline more visually impressive, yet it really doesn't have anything to do with Halifax' population. Again, having the buildings built right up to the water allows historic low and mid-rises to be showcased. London also has its fair share of art deco mid-rises, historic churches and Victorian wholesale warehouses. Yet none of these are seen in our skyline because of our natural topography. Just for the sake of discussion, can you imagine what Halifax would look like in London's position at the bottom of a treed river valley like in the panorama that I posted? Half of its buildings would be hidden from view by rolling lands and trees. Would you be so quick to say "not in the same league" even though all of the same buildings are present, just obscured from view? Would Halifax cease to be an overachiever just because of a change in location? The density and variety would still be there, but half of it would not be seen. See what I'm trying to get at?

It's just annoying that London's buildings have to be taller and more prominent than Halifax' to be seen as equally impressive. As I pointed out in my panorama, the taller Purdy's tower and 1801 Hollis are equal to the pink and blue Talbot Centre towers. That should give you guys a fair idea of just how tall London's core buildings are. A good third of the Talbot Centre towers are visually eaten up by trees and rolling valley lands. The depth and density of Halifax that you guys say London is lacking is actually there, it's just hidden from view. I tried to explain this point further when referencing your Dominion Public building. In Halifax' skyline it is very striking, but if it were in London it would hardly peak above the tree line.

All of this comes back to my original post about how I don't care for this thread's premise. Some cities just have an easier time punching above their weight.


Edit: Totally agree with you, flar. Nice post.

[Chadillaccc]

Halifax is so far out of London's league. This entire discussion is proposterous.


Halifax is a far more dynamic, friendly city. As well, its downtown is FAR more dense and has much nicer buildings, even though OLP is nicer than most in Halifax, it is still only one nice building in the entire city. Halifax has culture, character, activities, and fun. I grew up in and near London and it most certainly does not have culture and is definitely not dynamic by any means.

The skyline debate is no debate at all. Height doesn't matter especially when considering how dense Halifax's skyline is... and what's more, Halifax's skyline is going to grow markedly over the next decade or two because of new business spinoffs due to the ship-building contract. London has absolutely no such prospects for growth, not even a proposal for LRT.

[Chadillaccc]

ooops, sorry Bolognium... didn't read ur previous post before I posted mine. I take back the rude tone of my post and the "league" thing.

[caltrane74]

Height and quantity of buildings is an objective measure. If you are judging a skyline on those measures solely, then you have to go with London. Whether people in London are assholes, with no culture makes to bearing on its skyline ranking. Just looking at the numbers and yes, One London Place is an amazing skyscraper on its own, and to be honest it's still hard for me to understand how London got such an great tower to begin with.

[toaster]

Originally Posted by haljackey

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).

-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.

Most of Northern Ontarians would disagree with you about Thunder Bay being the "capital" of Northern Ontario. Timmins, North Bay, and the Sault identify much more with Sudbury than Thunder Bay, and NE Ontario is more populous than NW. Anyway, I agree that Sudbury's skyline needs improvement.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by bolognium

London is filling gaps. The condo downtown is part of the Renaissance complex, which is built on a surface lot. The twin will be the same height as phase 1 at just over 93m. And the buildings on Dundas that you're referring to are situated in Old East Village, only a 15 minute walk from the core (they are around 80m). That area desperately needs intensification and all of us in the London Local agree it's a fantastic development for Old East.

--------------------------

All of my posts in this thread have been in defense of city's skylines as opposed to attacking other cities. By reading my posts, it should be apparent that I actually like Halifax' skyline, more than my hometown's. There's no need for snarky comments like "not in the same league."

It's just the thought of a skyline "punching above its weight" that seems stupid to me, since there are so many other factors which have an equal impact (good/bad vantage points, mountainous backdrop, stunning water features). As has been pointed out by someone123 and I, the Halifax harbour has a huge impact on the skyline. The harbour makes the skyline more visually impressive, yet it really doesn't have anything to do with Halifax' population. Again, having the buildings built right up to the water allows historic low and mid-rises to be showcased. London also has its fair share of art deco mid-rises, historic churches and Victorian wholesale warehouses. Yet none of these are seen in our skyline because of our natural topography. Just for the sake of discussion, can you imagine what Halifax would look like in London's position at the bottom of a treed river valley like in the panorama that I posted? Half of its buildings would be hidden from view by rolling lands and trees. Would you be so quick to say "not in the same league" even though all of the same buildings are present, just obscured from view? Would Halifax cease to be an overachiever just because of a change in location? The density and variety would still be there, but half of it would not be seen. See what I'm trying to get at?

It's just annoying that London's buildings have to be taller and more prominent than Halifax' to be seen as equally impressive. As I pointed out in my panorama, the taller Purdy's tower and 1801 Hollis are equal to the pink and blue Talbot Centre towers. That should give you guys a fair idea of just how tall London's core buildings are. A good third of the Talbot Centre towers are visually eaten up by trees and rolling valley lands. The depth and density of Halifax that you guys say London is lacking is actually there, it's just hidden from view. I tried to explain this point further when referencing your Dominion Public building. In Halifax' skyline it is very striking, but if it were in London it would hardly peak above the tree line.

All of this comes back to my original post about how I don't care for this thread's premise. Some cities just have an easier time punching above their weight.


Edit: Totally agree with you, flar. Nice post.

I am not saying London doesn't have some things going for it. In terms of the Old East Village building it was more of a question than anything, as I have driven past it multiple times and wondered "why there". As I said, Richmond is its best aspect. I personally don't think the downtown is that fascinating. But then again why would it be? It is a city of 350 000. It has its perks and it is moving, but my point was just that for the amount of growth the city has, I would expect there to be more going on downtown.

I actually live right outside of London (Ingersoll) and have for the past 8 years so my opinion isn't of an ignorant bias, it is just that; an opinion. And I have seen every vantage point there is for the skyline, and you're right there are certain places where there are some pretty decent views (For Example heading North on Commisioner's just past Southdale).

Another thing that kills it for me, is Farhi. Why is his name on everything? It makes me feel like I am living in Dubai. It wouldn't bother me if I hadn't met him personally and known that he is really a rude, snobbish individual.


And on the earlier post on One London Place; Beautiful building. Horrible location. It doesn't fit in with the skyline at all in my opinion. It sticks out like a sore thumb. But than again I also think that the CN Tower punches out in an odd way, so take that with a grain of salt. I would, however take Portage and Main over One London Place any day.