Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,747 posts, read 23,809,943 times
Reputation: 14660
I like Vancouver, but I never liked the architecture there. It's a bit of contemporary overkill for me. It's not so much the height as it's cool they preserve mountain views. There just aren't many towers that are distinctive or edgy. No crowns, spires, pinnacles, or any remarkable aesthetic. That said, I do like the new Vancouver House tower and Canada Place on the waterfront is nice. Where Vancouver shines is its parks, waterfront and beautiful setting by the mountains and the sea. So the skyline has its moments when you see it juxtaposed by the mountains and water and being so close to nature. It's just one of those places that particularly has to be viewed from the right angle to get the money shot in photos.
I do find it interesting that the nearby suburb Burnaby, BC is now competing with Vancouver on the skyline front and has looser height restrictions.
I'd kill for the historic stuff, but the skyline isn't very good, and that photo isn't helping.
I think we just value different things in a skyline.
Well, the historic stuff is nice. Especially the step-down from the skyscrapers to the brownstones.
However, the skyline also has a lot of variation in height and in styles. The Hancock tower is singularly gorgeous. Besides that, the newer One Dalton, Verizon Tower, State Street Tower, etc balance out the older towers like the Prudential Center, Federal Reserve, One Boston, etc.
Also, there’s the visual appeal of the curve in the skyline matching the curve of the river that the city is built along.
I could flip it and ask the same of Vancouver: without the mountains and the water, what is pretty about it? It’s just an undistinguishable mass of short, sometimes-glossy towers.
Well, the historic stuff is nice. Especially the step-down from the skyscrapers to the brownstones.
However, the skyline also has a lot of variation in height and in styles. The Hancock tower is singularly gorgeous. Besides that, the newer One Dalton, Verizon Tower, State Street Tower, etc balance out the older towers like the Prudential Center, Federal Reserve, One Boston, etc.
Also, there’s the visual appeal of the curve in the skyline matching the curve of the river that the city is built along.
I could flip it and ask the same of Vancouver: without the mountains and the water, what is pretty about it? It’s just an undistinguishable mass of short, sometimes-glossy towers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Vancouver, WA, is pretty hardcore: 
