News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

To me Toronto is building some interesting designs and particularly so with buildings under 20 stories.

The problem I have is the total monotony of blue-glass. You can't tell one building from another. Variety is the spice of life and the City needs to start expecting more from developers. It actually would cost almost nothing more in the scheme of things but colour breaks the monotony of high rises. This is one of the reasons everyone loves Picasso.......it's a breath of fresh air.
 
As for the Vancouver comment......

You have to remember that Vancouver has an odd antipathy for it's history. They have pulled down over 16,000 SFH in the last decade nearly all of which have just be replaced by other SFH that in no way resemble the neighbourhood.

The West End is a great area but it too it is a rebuild. The whole area up until 1950 was mostly tightly packed SFH homes with front porches, low rise apt and a lot of character. The entire area was flattened for apts but, unlike today, they spared the trees. Superstious Chinese find trees unlucky so usually tear them down.

The entire downtown peninsula probably has no more than 20 surviving SFH which have heritage protection after people realized that the entire downtown area would be left with no homes at all. They are, however, no more than show pieces.
 
Although not all may be skyscrapers, but the Corus/George Brown buildings, Aqualinea/vista, Monde, Daniel's Waterfront, the LCBO proposal, the 1 Yonge street proposal. I would've like to see much more public green space as per Chicago, vs cluttering the waterfront with buildings.

Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Commons are great, but so limited in scope.
 
tripwire said:
Although not all may be skyscrapers, but the Corus/George Brown buildings, Aqualinea/vista, Monde, Daniel's Waterfront, the LCBO proposal, the 1 Yonge street proposal. I would've like to see much more public green space as per Chicago, vs cluttering the waterfront with buildings.

Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Commons are great, but so limited in scope.
Click to expand...

I walked through the area yesterday. It is a massive improvement over what I saw 8 years ago, which was an appalling experience at the time (largely industrial with unpaved dusty roads. I was really shock as the downtown is walking distance). The trees along the boardwalk are fully grown and appear very lush and inviting. There are plenty of seating and a couple of restaurants, which were fully seated. There are also large green space between those buildings you mentioned. In general it is very pleasant, much more enjoyable than the waterfront between Bay and Simcoe - the more commercial stretch.

While I agree that having all these condos along the waterfront is not the best idea - I am always against them on the south side of QQ, what we have planned is not too bad either and has its advantage. Just remember Toronto is not Miami. And if there are no permanent residents there, the area would be a ghost town in at least 5 months of the year. Who the hell goes to Sugar Beach between Nov and April for example. Also I notice the layout of those condos are not like the monolithic eyesore Harbour Square condos, which block much of the view. I really hope that thing can be demolished someday.
 
I like the idea of a developed central waterfront that is mixed use with a bit of greenspace- more a neighbourhood than exclusively a recreational area and visitor showpiece. This makes more sense for a northern city, and there are extensive beaches and parkland just outside the core. For parkland Toronto also has the islands which are unique to the city. I do like the direction east bayfront is going- quite impressed so far.

Beyond some superficial similarities, Chicago and Toronto are very different cities.
 
I love Chicago and go there often but only in the summer. Winters can be brutal and all that park space around the city is pretty much unused.
So I agree with the previous posters, Chicago and Toronto are not Miami or Singapore. I prefer what is happening in Toronto because it makes the city accessible all year round as opposed to only 3 months.
They were building the river walk when I was there in July and it is beautiful, however, who is going to use it come October until April.
Besides, Chicago is bankrupt and they seem to put all their eggs in the same basket. They have been breaking records with the deadliest homicides this past summer. their population is going down and they keep on spending and spending.
 
I know the title of this thread is about Chicago, and skyscrapers, but since the last few posts have been about waterfronts: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mississauga-waterfront-development-1.3777699

New Mississauga waterfront will be 'much better' than Toronto's, says finance minister

Construction is kicking off in Mississauga to transform the city's waterfront into a 300-acre development and "green oasis" that will be in sharp contrast to Toronto's.

"We are intending to do something much better than Toronto," said Finance Minister Charles Sousa, who's also the local MPP.

"We want the people of Ontario, the people of Mississauga, the people of Toronto to come to south Mississauga and enjoy the waterfront."

[More at the link]
​
I'm excited to see what they do with it, and Mississauga is much closer to visit than Chicago!
 
kicked it in the sun said:
that difference in the percent of small business makes a city like chicago feel psychically different - your neighborhood feels more yours, your downtowns and high streets feel more yours, etc. and over years and decades, that feeling compounds and reinforces the integrity of neighborhoods in a way that is relatively rare in toronto, even in the annex or on the danforth. i have a broader theory about the link between this sort of investment in the community, a broader civic engagement and how that translates into the built form (i guess sort of jacobian) but it's enough here just to say that it's something that i see almost no consideration of in toronto, and it's something that would strike a chicagoan as obviously worth considering.
Click to expand...

I haven't really noted a difference or lack of pride or civic engagement in one's neighbourhood overall among Torontonians compared to say Chicagoans.
Torontonians I've known from all over the city, both native-born and immigrant, have expressed local pride in the neighbourhoods and streets they've grown up in, and I've heard the "city of neighbourhoods" description quite a lot before --eg. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/columnists/2009/08/30/we_define_ourselves_by_our_neighbourhoods.html

kicked it in the sun said:
and my theory is that this eventually filters down into the built form. i'm not a genius who can tell you the extent to which the american-level of entrepreneurialism is distinct from a broader ethos that also means they have higher crime and the rest. but i can point you to immigrant communities that don't share native-born canadians' thinking in re such things.
Click to expand...

If that's the case and immigrant Torontonians are more likely to be innovators, risk-takers, and entrepreneurs, you'd expect many founders of businesses and start-ups among first generation Torontonians. I don't know if that's true, and I haven't seen any stats for whether immigrant Torontonians are different in creating/driving this kind of growth than the native-born, but in places like New York city, California etc. you do see immigrants overrepresented relative to their share of the population in that regard.

ssiguy2 said:
The entire area was flattened for apts but, unlike today, they spared the trees. Superstious Chinese find trees unlucky so usually tear them down.
Click to expand...

Really? Are these specific types of tree or trees in general?

I've never heard of any culture considering trees as a whole in and of themselves unlucky, though I know that symbolism of various trees and plants differ from culture to culture. I would have assumed that gardens, tree-lined streets, and greenery in otherwise man-made environments and settings are popular in cities the world over though.
 
Reviving this thread as it seemed the most apt place to post this article from Chicago Sun-times.

chicago.suntimes.com

Why Toronto is close to beating out Chicago as North America’s second city for skyscapers | Ed Zotti

The Canadian metropolis has become a major player on the world stage. In rankings of global urban significance, it vies with and sometimes surpasses Chicago.
chicago.suntimes.com chicago.suntimes.com

@interchange42; this thread title does not start with a capital letter! LOL

(for those wondering about the laugh; I enjoyed '42' earlier today, rightly giving some people on Twitter a hard time for not identifying a road correctly by way of not using proper spacing.)

'42' is a stickler for details! (and rightly so)
 
Northern Light said:
Reviving this thread as it seemed the most apt place to post this article from Chicago Sun-times.

chicago.suntimes.com

Why Toronto is close to beating out Chicago as North America’s second city for skyscapers | Ed Zotti

The Canadian metropolis has become a major player on the world stage. In rankings of global urban significance, it vies with and sometimes surpasses Chicago.
chicago.suntimes.com chicago.suntimes.com

@interchange42; this thread title does not start with a capital letter! LOL

(for those wondering about the laugh; I enjoyed '42' earlier today, rightly giving some people on Twitter a hard time for not identifying a road correctly by way of not using proper spacing.)

'42' is a stickler for details! (and rightly so)
Click to expand...
There are a lot more skyscrapers in Toronto the what the article indicates, just on Charles St East in 2 blocks there are 6 with 2 more under construction, i believe a skyscraper is defined as being 40 plus stories.
 
Chicago is a very sprawly city once you move west of the Chicago River and beyond the downtown core.

Makes for a very spectacular entry arriving on the highways because of that height difference IMO, and because of its big city bones (bigger CBD), looser building spacing, and wider streets, you also get more dramatic views of their largest skyscrapers- as compared to Toronto's CBD which is much smaller and is more tightly packed.
 
Last edited:
Towers (Built and U/C) ... Source - SSP diagrams

Toronto - https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=89767104

Chicago - https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=89767109

.................Toronto...Chicago
300M+..........2...............7
250M+..........8.............16
200M+.........33............35
150M+........103.........134
120M+........218.........238
100M+........373.........343

Towers 100M+ built per year:

................Toronto...Chicago
2019............17.............3
2018............14.............9
2017............12.............8
2016............21.............8
2015............23.............4
2014............14.............4
2013............14.............5
2012.............7..............5
2011............15.............1
2010............10............11
------------------------------------
Total...........147...........58

In the last 10 years Toronto has gained almost 3 times as many tall buildings as Chicago. At this rate it will take Toronto about 5-6 more years to equal Chicago's number of skyscrapers. Just doing the math, I'm not talking about quality here...
 
What is the most reliable source to see how many 150m+ and 100m+ skyscrapers there are in Toronto and GTA?

Is the best approach to just count the skyscraperpage diagram for Toronto (plus Vaughn and Mississauga for GTA)?

Maybe we could have a thread where we could keep the number of built and U/C accurate? Or maybe there is such a thread already?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top