The Skyline discussion thread; Calgary, US, World; I ain't even care, just discuss

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Take away the telephoto lens and the crisp lighting, and this is usually the view of the LA skyline you get in real life.

The Library Tower is really nice, but as a skyline...I'm not really impressed for this size of city.

really lame for a downtown servicing 18 million people. However, given the industry and lifestyle in LA it makes sense. The vibrancy of LA is all throughout, not just concentrated in downtown. Stuff to do all over, great tourist areas, the ocean, boardwalk etc. That is why in places like New York, rich people want to live in the center in huge high-rises. In places like LA, the best areas to live are generally outside of the downtown core.

[Language]

Los Angeles has always intrigued me. For a city it's size, it's downtown skyline is definitely underwhelming, but for some reason, it still has this aura about it when you're driving up on it.

As another posted mentioned, judging the city by its downtown skyline isn't an accurate representation of its corporate head office base or bustling "centre", as LA has multiple CBD's and its density (even though it's a largely car oriented metropolis), is still very high.

This HUGE picture really shows how monster LA is.

Spoiler!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Never really thought about Pittsburgh until I visited. The view from PNC Park was amazing. They have some gorgeous buildings:



Really loved Pittsburgh. One of the most underrated cities in the US.

Pittsburgh is an underrated city. It's one of my favourite US cities.

[Erick Estrada]

LA doesn't have a big skyline because it's incredibly costly to build tall skyscrapers that can safely withstand all the earthquakes and position near the San Andreas fault line. End of story.

[JD]

Yet San Francisco has one of the best skylines around. San Diego's no slouch. There's more to it than just earthquakes. LA is America's best example of post-WW2 suburban sprawl.

[Old Yeller]

Yeah and it's not like it's stopped some Asian cities on the pacific rim from growing quite tall, although I'm sure it's a significant added expense.

That giant picture Language posted of LA is amazing, that sprawl is just so unbelievable.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Old Yeller

Yeah and it's not like it's stopped some Asian cities on the pacific rim from growing quite tall, although I'm sure it's a significant added expense.

That giant picture Language posted of LA is amazing, that sprawl is just so unbelievable.

Guys look it up it's easy. LA has extremely strict engineering standards that render such buildings cost prohibitive. You guys seriously think that big companies choose to avoid making big office towers in the country's 2nd largest city?

[Regulator75]

Seattle is a beauty too (pano's from 2008).


Black and White Seattle Pano by Witty Nickname, on ipernity


Seattle Panorama by Witty Nickname, on ipernity

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Guys look it up it's easy. LA has extremely strict engineering standards that render such buildings cost prohibitive. You guys seriously think that big companies choose to avoid making big office towers in the country's 2nd largest city?

If it's so easy, then why don't you post it? The only thing I can find is the Construction Cost Index (I don't even know what that is, to be honest) and LA is 8th highest in the US. It doesn't seem logical that this would be an issue in L.A. and not in San Fran or Seattle.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by psicodude

If it's so easy, then why don't you post it? The only thing I can find is the Construction Cost Index (I don't even know what that is, to be honest) and LA is 8th highest in the US. It doesn't seem logical that this would be an issue in L.A. and not in San Fran or Seattle.

Takes all of two seconds;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_Los_Angeles

Skyscrapers are difficult and expensive to construct in Los Angeles due to the city's high rate of earthquakes and position near the San Andreas fault line, as well as the resulting difficulty of adhering to the city's rigorous engineering standards. Nevertheless, a number of successful and iconic skyscrapers dot the downtown Los Angeles skyline

[SebC]

Originally Posted by JD

Yet San Francisco has one of the best skylines around. San Diego's no slouch. There's more to it than just earthquakes. LA is America's best example of post-WW2 suburban sprawl.

San Diego is super slouchy for it's population. LA's skyline is far better... the only thing San Diego's has going for it over LA's is that it's on the waterfront.

San Diego's tallest: 152m, 152m, 152m, 145m, 143m...
LA's tallest: 310m, 261m, 229m, 228m, 224m...

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Takes all of two seconds;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_Los_Angeles

I was looking for facts, not what some dude wrote on Wikipedia. I bet that standards are high everywhere in California.

It makes sense, though, that building a mid-rise in an earthquake zone would be much cheaper than a high-rise. L.A. high-rise growth was probably stunted by lack of anti-earthquake technology 40 years ago and a love affair with sprawl. Land is always cheaper in the burbs and the city obviously had no issues with it.

[Magnum PEI]

Downtown Manhattan in the 40s and 50s was the best. Then they started building big glass rectangles that clash with the older styles.
Same kind of thing is happening in Calgary. I prefered the skyline pre-Bow and 8th Ave (which is clearly a penis. It even has a head and frenulum). It was mostly 70s and 80s buildings. Now it kind of looks like an Asian city with a bunch of unique glass buildings that don't complement each other.
Look at Shanghai- it's the skyline version of the Homer car from The Simpsons.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Takes all of two seconds;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_Los_Angeles

It costs just as much to build in San Francisco as it does in LA, but LA has room to sprawl whereas S.F. had no choice but to build up.

[Hack&Lube]

America is the way it is for the specific reason that they bought into the highway/decentralized model in the 50s and white-flight and suburbanization has really desolated most of their central areas.

For many of them, they can only hope for a few larger companies to have a handful of buildings in their downtowns and a stadium to draw people back into the core from their suburban desolation.

Calgary is a bit different because we didn't boom until the 70's when that phase of urban planning was no-longer so much in vogue. Our downtown is cool but the 70s boom didn't allow for enough residential (and the resulting shops to service that hypothetical population) so it's still desolate after 5PM and on weekends.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

America is the way it is for the specific reason that they bought into the highway/decentralized model in the 50s and white-flight and suburbanization has really desolated most of their central areas.

For many of them, they can only hope for a few larger companies to have a handful of buildings in their downtowns and a stadium to draw people back into the core from their suburban desolation.

Calgary is a bit different because we didn't boom until the 70's when that phase of urban planning was no-longer so much in vogue. Our downtown is cool but the 70s boom didn't allow for enough residential (and the resulting shops to service that hypothetical population) so it's still desolate after 5PM and on weekends.

Part of the reason that Calgarians think that the downtown is desolate after 5 pm or on weekends, is because for some reason Calgarians think that their neighborhoods should be small, so 17th avenue isn't considered downtown.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Downtown Manhattan in the 40s and 50s was the best. Then they started building big glass rectangles that clash with the older styles.
Same kind of thing is happening in Calgary. I prefered the skyline pre-Bow and 8th Ave (which is clearly a penis. It even has a head and frenulum). It was mostly 70s and 80s buildings. Now it kind of looks like an Asian city with a bunch of unique glass buildings that don't complement each other.
Look at Shanghai- it's the skyline version of the Homer car from The Simpsons.

You have to be literally the only person on earth with that opinion on downtown skylines. You be all joking, right?

[Table 5]

Stupid Bow trying to live in the present instead of the 70s. Why couldn't you be a square concrete bunker like every other building?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by flameswin

You have to be literally the only person on earth with that opinion on downtown skylines. You be all joking, right?

I agree with some parts of what he said, disagree on the others.

- EAP ugly: No, I love EAP.
- Calgary better without the Bow: Maybe, the Bow is too wide for its height and too tall for its location. But the Bow might be good filler () once the East Village gets built up and Brookfield Place brings the height back towards the centre.
- 40s-50s New York was awesome: Yes. Metlife building, in particular, was a step back. Old World Trade Centre was pretty awesome though, and some of New York's newer skyscrapers are pretty cool too (Bank of America tower, Hearst Tower).
- The "variety of glass boxes" skylines are pretty uninteresting: Yeah, need colour/texture variety too. To me, Moscow, Doha, and Tokyo suffer from this to different extents.
- Shanghai skyline sucks: No way, Shanghai works because the whole thing is new. It doesn't have a Metlife clashing with an Empire State because it doesn't have any Metlifes or Empire States. It just has new stuff.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Stupid Bow trying to live in the present instead of the 70s. Why couldn't you be a square concrete bunker like every other building?

lol, yeah I long for the old days of Calgary's skyline.