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.
Having been to both, I can tell you that suburban Prague and suburban Quebec City are really different. Prague's suburbs were mostly built in Eastern Europe's communist era so they're what you'd expect, whereas Quebec was growing as a capitalist Canadian city with widespread automobile ownership. Not to say it looks like Houston, NA suburbs aren't truly homogenous the continent over. Here's what it looks like, but keep in mind there's plenty of urbanity outside of the old city walls before you hit this stuff.
Having been to both, I can tell you that suburban Prague and suburban Quebec City are really different. Prague's suburbs were mostly built in Eastern Europe's communist era so they're what you'd expect, whereas Quebec was growing as a capitalist Canadian city with widespread automobile ownership. Not to say it looks like Houston, NA suburbs aren't truly homogenous the continent over. Here's what it looks like, but keep in mind there's plenty of urbanity outside of the old city walls before you hit this stuff.
Yeah, I more meant that it's ho-hum than that it was full of Panelaks. I've mostly been in the western US, haven't been to the east coast much. Houston and Shreveport don't really rank that high for me. NYC is higher, but just not my thing although I've only really been in lower Manhattan.
Vancouver is the best looking to me. It looks new, clean, modern, inviting, and has mountains nearby. No other large city in North America comes close in terms of looks.
Vancouver is the best looking to me. It looks new, clean, modern, inviting, and has mountains nearby. No other large city in North America comes close in terms of looks.
my god. I haven't seen such a concentration of modern glass skyscrapers
since blade runner. though the water and mountains and are very nice.
my god. I haven't seen such a concentration of modern glass skyscrapers
since blade runner. though the water and mountains and are very nice.
Blade Runner? What an odd choice to compare it to. The place is so thoroughly non-threatening and inoffensive to be in physically that that's honestly the last thing that's ever come to mind for me. Blade Runner was all massive industrial inspired imposing architecture that blocked out the sun. This is all skinny point towers so as to let in lots of sunlight, and with a table top skyline because the NIMBYs don't want any views blocked by overly tall buildings. If anything, it's a little too sterile, and could use a bit of heaviness and grit!
Anyhow, if you think that's something, get a load of what its suburbs look like:
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. For the skyline, the buildings ar intentionally bland so you focus on the mountains and water. For architecture outside of downtown, the emphasis is always on whatever vegetation there is around, and gardens here abound. When there's ornament on a building, it's usually in the form of plant life or a very simple geomeric design that contrasts and compliments organic natural elements rather than trying to compete with or mimic them. Windows are wide and clear so you look outside.
I think that if we're talking about the beauty of cities, we should be looking at cities that try to be a beauty unto themselves, that try to be something new in the world rather than just drawing you eyes to what was already there and enhancing it through context. These are very different philosophies, however. One type of city draws you into it, the other wants you looking out.
Blade Runner? What an odd choice to compare it to. The place is so thoroughly non-threatening and inoffensive to be in physically that that's honestly the last thing that's ever come to mind for me. Blade Runner was all massive industrial inspired imposing architecture that blocked out the sun. This is all skinny point towers so as to let in lots of sunlight, and with a table top skyline because the NIMBYs don't want any views blocked by overly tall buildings. If anything, it's a little too sterile, and could use a bit of heaviness and grit!
vancouver looks industrial to me because of the height and all that glass which made me think of blade runner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMBAM
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. For the skyline, the buildings ar intentionally bland so you focus on the mountains and water. For architecture outside of downtown, the emphasis is always on whatever vegetation there is around, and gardens here abound. When there's ornament on a building, it's usually in the form of plant life or a very simple geomeric design that contrasts and compliments organic natural elements rather than trying to compete with or mimic them. Windows are wide and clear so you look outside.
in other words, the ugliness of the city itself is masked by the scenic natural surroundings is what you're saying. just pretend all those big ugly glass buildings aren't really there and keep your eyes focused at the beautiful pretty mountains in the background! well that's kinda hard to do when you have all these 40 to 50 story buildings blocking your view. they stick out like a sore thumb. it might be possible to pretend all those bland and sterile (as you concede that they are) glass office towers aren't there when you're looking at the skyline of the city from a distance or looking at a postcard of the skyline. but when you are living within the city itself, say in the downtown area, you can't see the mountains or trees or anything from there. you're stuck in the middle of all that ugliness and you can't escape it. you're neck deep in it so to speak. there's no natural scenery there. you're not in a forest of trees you're deep in the forest of glass, steel and concrete.
in other words, the ugliness of the city itself is masked by the scenic natural surroundings is what you're saying. just pretend all those big ugly glass buildings aren't really there and keep your eyes focused at the beautiful pretty mountains in the background! well that's kinda hard to do when you have all these 40 to 50 story buildings blocking your view. they stick out like a sore thumb. it might be possible to pretend all those bland and sterile (as you concede that they are) glass office towers aren't there when you're looking at the skyline of the city from a distance or looking at a postcard of the skyline. but when you are living within the city itself, say in the downtown area, you can't see the mountains or trees or anything from there. you're stuck in the middle of all that ugliness and you can't escape it. you're neck deep in it so to speak. there's no natural scenery there. you're not in a forest of trees you're deep in the forest of glass, steel and concrete.
The city needed a downtown and density or it would have sprawled out over the natural surroundings and eaten up the province's limited agricultural land, something local people weren't willing to accept. As such, they embraced density as the only solution to all of the people moving there. Regardless, they've done their best to make downtown living as livable as possible. Half of the peninsula is preserved old forest that people can go and visit, home to bald eagles and herons, and the streets are designed to terminate with view of water and mountains as much as possible, like so:
It's not like living in the country, but it's as close to nature as any downtown dweller ever got, with extensive wilderness only a twenty minute bus ride away. I'm not askin you to love it or choose to live there, I'm just explaining it for what it is. People also have views of nature from their homes, which most of those towers are. The vast majority of the towers are condo towers, not offices.
my god. I haven't seen such a concentration of modern glass skyscrapers
since blade runner. though the water and mountains and are very nice.
Lol at the Blade Runner comparison. Vancouver is about as far from dystopian as you can get. It's by far the best model for a beautiful thriving urban city in North American and one of the most pleasant cities to be in you can possible go to. The people who live in Vancouver are the luckiest people in North America.
I always thought Portland Oregon was the best match between scenery and pleasant living.
I did also until I lived there for 7 years. Definitely learned that visiting and living someplace, are definitely different experiences. Otherwise I agree the scenery can be beautiful from the West Hills to Mt Hood to the East of Portland.
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.
