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.
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.
As someone from the Boston area, I agree with you.
I think that view from the Charles is nice, and shows the length of Boston's skyline (which many don't realize as they only see skyline views from the Harbor).
But, Boston's skyline is middle-of-the-road in my opinion. Not bad, but not inspiring. Not large, but not small. It is Boston's water features and core neighborhoods of brownstones and bow fronts that make the view.
So it’s all in the framing? I’m waiting for someone to explain why they find Vancouver’s skyline rather than ignoring all the buildings and ogling at everything around then.
I thought I did a pretty good job explaining what’s nice about Boston’s in my last post. Can anyone do the same for Vancouver?
The natural setting of Vancouver is stunning. The buildings are almost uniformly hideous. Boston, on the other hand, has a somewhat less impressive (though still pleasing) outlook, but far more attractive buildings. So it depends on which direction you're looking!
So it’s all in the framing? I’m waiting for someone to explain why they find Vancouver’s skyline rather than ignoring all the buildings and ogling at everything around then.
I thought I did a pretty good job explaining what’s nice about Boston’s in my last post. Can anyone do the same for Vancouver?
I like Vancouver's building vernacular visually from a distance. Point towers with decks, windows, and the inner chaos behind them.
Closer up, many have either 1960s auto-dominated bases or more recent townhouse bases, neither being urban enough. I wish it was more like a six-story wall plus all the same towers.
From a functional standpoint it would be nice if the buildings could be thicker so they'd have more units. And districts that are too residential-dominant can be quiet much of the day.
So it’s all in the framing? I’m waiting for someone to explain why they find Vancouver’s skyline rather than ignoring all the buildings and ogling at everything around then.
I thought I did a pretty good job explaining what’s nice about Boston’s in my last post. Can anyone do the same for Vancouver?
As I've said before, many of these building, you don't see as part of the skyline unless you use a drone.
There is a lot more variation in Vancouver's buildings than some here want to give credit for. I'm assuming these people don't really know Vancouver well, or have never been, and yes, are judging it just from its skyline, so I can't blame them. Now if this were a comparison of all aspects of a city then the conversation would be different.This has been done on CD already, I believe.
I can understand why some find Vancouver's skyline mediocre compared to say, Toronto, but we are comparing it to Boston.
I like Vancouver's building vernacular visually from a distance. Point towers with decks, windows, and the inner chaos behind them.
Closer up, many have either 1960s auto-dominated bases or more recent townhouse bases, neither being urban enough. I wish it was more like a six-story wall plus all the same towers.
From a functional standpoint it would be nice if the buildings could be thicker so they'd have more units. And districts that are too residential-dominant can be quiet much of the day.
Very few " thick " buildings downtown. Has to do views and and light.
Residential single family home neighbourhoods are very quiet most of the time, but in Vancouver, outside of downtown, most are only a few blocks area from a shopping street with transit. In other words, still quite walkable.
Downtown, the older residential neighbourhood the West End, with a mix of building types from the last 100 years, is quieter west of Denman Street, as it's abuts Stanley Park. However the west end is very vibrant being crisscrossed with shopping streets of Denman, Robson and Davie.
Newer Neighbourhoods like Yaletown, have been purposely built to have shops at the base of the towers that are on streets that lend themselves to that. This keeps the streets busy.
Some nice buildings there, but I didn't notice them in the skyline views.
I'm guilty as well for posting photos of buildings not in the skyline in response to some here. This thread has veered to comparing buildings, rather than skylines.
Vancouver is the prettier place to look at from afar. I think that's beyond question. But I would say the same thing if the cityscape was erased from the landscape. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Vancouver's cityscape actually detracts from the surroundings (whereas Seattle adds to similarly beautiful Puget Sound). It would be prettier to me without the cluster of mostly generic and unremarkable buildings.
Boston's sort of the opposite. Without the Boston skyline, Boston doesn't really stand out aesthetically. And while Boston's skyline isn't among the best relative to its peers, it's a significantly more aesthetically appealing collection of buildings when compared to Vancouver. It's "stumpy," but there's more verticality and variation among the spine of towers vs. Vancouver and it is the most aesthetically pleasing thing to view in the area. I can't say the same about Vancouver.
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.
