[xy3]

I don't know where to put this, but I have to share it.

https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-...ld-vision-105-storey-wood-skyscraper-toronto/

This is the most Toronto render I have ever seen! Let's build literally the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere next to single family homes...

I love this image so much, I can't.

View attachment 431406

It's feasible to build this in the office park at west of Victoria Park around Consumers Road. No shadowing or logistic issues.

 

[Koops65]

* Wikipedia numbers *

Chicagoland - 28 120 km squared
Population - 9.6 million

GTA - 7 123 km squared (only 1/4 the size)
Population - 6.2 million (2/3 the population)

So, the GTA is more dense, but the greater Chicago area is bigger than the GTA in both size and population. It's still a good place to begin comparisons. I see no reason why the 905 shouldn't be included rather than excluded. It isn't Toronto's fault that Chicago doesn't build many high-rises beyond its downtown core.

In the GTA, those endless km's of sprawl are filled with tall buildings, in Chicagoland those endless miles of suburbia are filled with low-rises.

 

[Sunnyside]

* Wikipedia numbers *

Chicagoland - 28 120 km squared
Population - 9.6 million

GTA - 7 123 km squared (only 1/4 the size)
Population - 6.2 million (2/3 the population)

So, the GTA is more dense, but the greater Chicago area is bigger than the GTA in both size and population. It's still a good place to begin comparisons. I see no reason why the 905 shouldn't be included rather than excluded. It isn't Toronto's fault that Chicago doesn't build many high-rises beyond its downtown core.

In the GTA, those endless km's of sprawl are filled with tall buildings, in Chicagoland those endless miles of suburbia are filled with low-rises.

Because Wikipedia is finicky… I think the picture is even better; it is obscured by the use of the GTA if we consider a couple things:

1. Does this instance of the ‘GTA’ refer to the CMA, including entire, largely rural regional municipalities? I ask because I’ve scribbled on google maps and the GTHA’s built area is significantly less than 7123km squared (I recall it being around 3500 but I may do a quick re-measure in an edit to show this). When I looked at Chicagoland, it’s measure was in the 9-10,000 range.

2. The GTHA is a better fit for this question… Wikipedia doesn’t like to include it often, but it is more accurate at capturing the contiguous urban region. It doesn’t include entire upper-tier municipalities, so It more closely matches the built boundary. Also, Chicagoland includes Gary, which is perhaps more integrated than Hamilton but is a very close parallel.

Anyway, the effect of these measures allow you to better see the density disparity. Most of post-war GTHA is nearly as dense as prewar Chicago suburbs. Although not so when they were in their prime.

 

[Northern Light]

In respect of the above posts, I have argued and will argue once more than the apples to apples comparison at the largest level is Chicagoland vs Greater Goldenhorseshoe.

In the case of the latter, the geography is 31,561km2 and by the 2021 census has a population of 9.765M

Golden Horseshoe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mercenary]

Let's just keep the comparison to City of Toronto vs City of Chicago and leave the suburbs out of it

 

[afransen]

Let's just keep the comparison to City of Toronto vs City of Chicago and leave the suburbs out of it

City boundaries are kind of arbitrary. Should we limit London to just the City of London?

 

[SashaLemon]

City boundaries are kind of arbitrary. Should we limit London to just the City of London?

Yeah but nobody does that, that would make no sense at all. That would would be like limiting Rome to the Vatican City.

 

[Northern Light]

Yeah but nobody does that, that would make no sense at all. That would would be like limiting Rome to the Vatican City.

He was being sarcastic.

That was his point.

To say that strictly looking at a given 'line in the sand' or on the map can be grossly misleading.

 

[afransen]

When comparing cities, it makes more sense to delineate the boundaries of each city as a function of economic/commuting behaviour, and not arbitrarily defined jurisdictional boundaries. If an alien was looking through a telescope at earth and trying to analyze urban development patterns, would they compare Chicago and Toronto using municipal boundaries?

 

[SashaLemon]

I think how you define the city depends on the what city it is a lot. For Toronto I would just consider the legal boundary the city because it's already so large and the GTA beyond the lines is extremely suburban. Vancouver or Los Angeles however are cities that I would include other municipalities as "the city" because the city itself has not expanded and the other cities are quite urban.

 

[afransen]

I think how you define the city depends on the what city it is a lot. For Toronto I would just consider the legal boundary the city because it's already so large and the GTA beyond the lines is extremely suburban. Vancouver or Los Angeles however are cities that I would include other municipalities as "the city" because the city itself has not expanded and the other cities are quite urban.

This isn't terribly coherent. How can you make reasonable comparisons between cities? Why does it make sense to include the low density parts of Scarborough but not the denser parts of York and Peel?

 

[SashaLemon]

This isn't terribly coherent. How can you make reasonable comparisons between cities? Why does it make sense to include the low density parts of Scarborough but not the denser parts of York and Peel?

You can't.

 

[3Dementia]

Steppin' away from census , suburbs and other discussions for a minute, the 200 metre+ metric between the Cities of Toronto and Chicago is getting interesting, for me at least:

Toronto has 39* built and u/c 200 metre+ towers.

Tallest @ 328.4m unless SkyTower is approved @ 344.58 metres (*40 ... 'cause I always include CN Tower at 553.3 metres regardless of the audience ;-).


Chicago has 38 built and u/c 200 metre+ towers.

Tallest is Willis @ 442m* (*mind you I do take issue with the CTBUH antenna criteria here ;-).

If even a fraction of the nearly 6 dozen 200 metre proposed and approved towers in Toronto's pipeline get underway (projects like the FORMA super-tall are shoe-ins imo ;-) , this could get even more interesting.

Back to the regularly-scheduled programming.

 

[Koops65]

Excellent review of the 200 metre numbers! Let me add a few more to fill in the picture a little more:

100m+ buildings Built and U/C:

Toronto - 433 https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=102536824
Chicago - 348 https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=102536831

Toronto and its suburbs - 520 https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=102536836
Chicago and its suburbs - 350 https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=102536839

150m+ buildings Built and U/C:

Toronto - 125 https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=102536853
Chicago - 139 https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=102536862

Toronto and its suburbs - 150 https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=102536868
Chicago and its suburbs - 139 https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=102536875

So, Toronto is ahead with 100m+ buildings, by quite a large margin. In the 150m+ category, Chicago is still ahead by 14 buildings. With the suburbs added in, Toronto pulls ahead by 11 buildings. I don't know about Chicago, but Toronto has at least five 150 m+ buildings in site-prep and about to become construction sites. ( Sugar Wharf A, B and C, 36 Eglinton W and Natasha Residences) There are also 239 more buildings 150m+ proposed in Toronto and a further 127 in the suburbs, for a total of 366 potential more skyscrapers in the GTA...

 

[afransen]

There are also 239 more buildings 150m+ proposed in Toronto and a further 127 in the suburbs, for a total of 366 potential more skyscrapers in the GTA...

That is the shocking figure, really.