U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2013, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,699 posts, read 8,520,070 times
Reputation: 4898

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
I haven't spent a lot of time there so I'm going by recent reports which refer to vancouver as one of the most traffic congested cities in North America. the cbc and vancouver sun I think are pretty credible sources. but true or not, I think it is still a fairly autocentric area. whether you can say that its one of the top 2 or 3 most congested cities in NA, alongside the likes of los angeles, may be a matter of opinion. I spent a weekend with friends hiking on trails on or near grouse mountain back in the 90s so my experience of the area is limited. we stayed in a hotel in downtown vancouver which looked to me like any other big city in north america I have ever been to, with lots of cars and lots of traffic. but again, I won't judge it from such limited experience so I'm going by what I read.

the nearby access to nature and related recreational activities seems fantastic and I did enjoy my time there so that's probably a major advantage in vancouver's favor over places like los angeles.
Oh, yeah, the city is now vastly different from how it was in the 90s. In the 90s it was fairly autocentric, I'd now feel confident saying it's one of the least autocentric metros in western North America (outside of Mexico).

Last edited by BIMBAM; 02-21-2013 at 06:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2013, 06:48 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
478 posts, read 1,009,455 times
Reputation: 522
So back to the original thread question.....I have a few.....yes, Vancouver, but also Seattle, San Francisco, Portland and Miami.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,773,473 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
have you ever sat in traffic in LA or San Diego? these are two of the most sprawled out areas in the world. and the traffic congestion there is beyond belief, speaking as a native of Socal which is considered by many to be the automobile-driving capital of the world.
Yes, LA and San Diego might be sprawled out compared to Kolkata, Karachi or Jakarta, but have you sat in traffic in those cities? It would make LA traffic look like a walk in the park. If you compare LA or Vancouver traffic to traffic elsewhere in Canada/USA, it would only make sense to compare how sprawled out they are by Canada/USA standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Western Colorado
11,122 posts, read 12,533,439 times
Reputation: 26289
On a clear winter day with snow on the San Gabriel Mountains as a backdrop, downtown Los Angeles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 09:12 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,276,738 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMBAM View Post


I'm personally not a huge fan of "clean" unornamented architecture, which is why I prefer ornately decorated pre-war architecture. I can appreciate a city like Vancouver (and in fact live there), but I find cities like Quebec more pleasing to the eye. It seems to me like the philosophy of Vancouverite architecture is that it's not supposed to draw ones eye to it because it doesn't want to distract you from the star of the show - nature.
sure. that's because once you go above a certain height it becomes cost-prohibitive to embellish the exterior of the building. pre-war architecture was usually around 4 or 5 stories high and it looked terrific because it was feasible to embellish the facade of the building. early architects realized buildings tend to look rather creepy and ominous when there's no facade and there's just a big blank flat wall staring at you from the street. the building then takes on the undesirable physical characteristics of a prison, or an army barracks or something like that.

but of course you can't do that with modern skyscraper because it is much too expensive to embellish such a tall structure, which is why they tend to be big plain-faced oversized eyesores.

Last edited by cisco kid; 02-22-2013 at 09:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2013, 03:45 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,728,391 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
sure. that's because once you go above a certain height it becomes cost-prohibitive to embellish the exterior of the building. pre-war architecture was usually around 4 or 5 stories high and it looked terrific because it was feasible to embellish the facade of the building. early architects realized buildings tend to look rather creepy and ominous when there's no facade and there's just a big blank flat wall staring at you from the street. the building then takes on the undesirable physical characteristics of a prison, or an army barracks or something like that.

but of course you can't do that with modern skyscraper because it is much too expensive to embellish such a tall structure, which is why they tend to be big plain-faced oversized eyesores.
One after another...

Post war architecture wasn't plain because of size. Nearly all post war architecture irredgardless of size adopted the spare lines and boxy shapes out of the Bauhaus movement. This has to do with the aesthetics and academic thought underpinning modernism that form should only follow function and that ornamentation was bourgeois. It had nothing to do with size. Pre war skyscrapers of enormous proportion were made with absolutely amazingly complex and interesting facades and pinnacles - I reference the Empire State Building and the Chrysler building as two great examples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2013, 08:41 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,276,738 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
One after another...

Post war architecture wasn't plain because of size. Nearly all post war architecture irredgardless of size adopted the spare lines and boxy shapes out of the Bauhaus movement. This has to do with the aesthetics and academic thought underpinning modernism that form should only follow function and that ornamentation was bourgeois. It had nothing to do with size. Pre war skyscrapers of enormous proportion were made with absolutely amazingly complex and interesting facades and pinnacles - I reference the Empire State Building and the Chrysler building as two great examples.
ehh. the empire state and chrysler buildings have interesting pinnacles, but the facades aren't embellished much if at all. the most interesting part of the building is on the very top hundreds of feet up. I don't know how much good it does to embellish only the top part when its so high off the ground where no one can see it.

you can enjoy it maybe when you're in a helicopter (an airplane flies too high to see much of anything) and if you fly close enough to make out the details but from the street you can't see anything without a pair of high-power binoculars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2013, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,773,473 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
ehh. the empire state and chrysler buildings have interesting pinnacles, but the facades aren't embellished much if at all. the most interesting part of the building is on the very top hundreds of feet up. I don't know how much good it does to embellish only the top part when its so high off the ground where no one can see it.

you can enjoy it maybe when you're in a helicopter (an airplane flies too high to see much of anything) and if you fly close enough to make out the details but from the street you can't see anything without a pair of high-power binoculars.
So why does it matter if most of a building has no embellishments if floors 5 to 50 are too high to tell? What if you had a building with lots of embellishment on the ground floor, and decreasing detail as you go further up?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2013, 08:53 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,158,629 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
ehh. the empire state and chrysler buildings have interesting pinnacles, but the facades aren't embellished much if at all. the most interesting part of the building is on the very top hundreds of feet up. I don't know how much good it does to embellish only the top part when its so high off the ground where no one can see it.
Here's what the Empire State Building looks like at ground level:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Empir...278.91,,0,6.63

Indistinguishable from any other building (most of the street is pre-war like the Empire State Building itself). On the left, if you couldn't tell. One can see the top once you get 10 blocks away. Due its height, the top is often visible in many spots in Manhattan. It makes a great compass.

Edit: Actually you can see almost the entire building half a block away:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Empir...6.41,,0,-25.87

One World Trade Center from a few blocks away:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nassa...18.48,,0,-22.5

(can't see the top because it's incomplete in the streetview, hmm when's the antenna coming up?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2013, 09:05 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,276,738 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
So why does it matter if most of a building has no embellishments if floors 5 to 50 are too high to tell?

that's my point. skyscrapers can't be fully embellished because they are too tall. their height makes it cost prohibitive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
What if you had a building with lots of embellishment on the ground floor, and decreasing detail as you go further up?
that might look kinda odd. it might be better than nothing though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top