okay, i understand that nyc and chicago are much older cities than toronto, but the chicago skyline has remained relatively unchanged in the last decade, while toronto went into a boom.
Click to expand...

Chicago's skyline unchanged in the last 10 years!!! You must get there sometime to observe the massive extension of their skyline toward the south side, with completions Toronto could only dream of in the Gold coast (the supertall Trump tower at 423 metres - imagine that Toronto, I wish - Park Tower, Aqua, Blue Cross Blue Shield, 300 N. La Salle, and the Legacy at Millennium Park all at 250m; the Elysian, One Museum Park, 111 South Wacker, the Hyatt, 340 on the park all over 200m, with One North waker @ 197. I will not go on with towers less than 200 metres. All of the above towers were constructed between 2000 and 2010, with most being completed toward the latter part of the decade, which of course brought on the bubble, and popped, with future construction plans dramatically scaled back.

True, Toronto is affected perhaps more dramatically than Chicago every time it builds a skyscraper, but the 2000s boom brought big change to Chicago nonetheless, with heights unseen here. Plus, our boom continues, so I believe the real divergences will emerge in this decade, especially by 2015.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, roof vs roof, the Trump tower is only 60 metres taller than FCP. 423 metres is the height to the tip of the spire, which I am still hesitant to include as part of a building's true height. Perhaps Brookfield should've clad FCP's antennae so it would considered to be a 355 metre tall building instead of 296.
 
agoraflaneur said:
Chicago's skyline unchanged in the last 10 years!!! You must get there sometime to observe the massive extension of their skyline toward the south side, with completions Toronto could only dream of in the Gold coast (the supertall Trump tower at 423 metres - imagine that Toronto, I wish - Park Tower, Aqua, Blue Cross Blue Shield, 300 N. La Salle, and the Legacy at Millennium Park all at 250m; the Elysian, One Museum Park, 111 South Wacker, the Hyatt, 340 on the park all over 200m, with One North waker @ 197. I will not go on with towers less than 200 metres. All of the above towers were constructed between 2000 and 2010, with most being completed toward the latter part of the decade, which of course brought on the bubble, and popped, with future construction plans dramatically scaled back.

True, Toronto is affected perhaps more dramatically than Chicago every time it builds a skyscraper, but the 2000s boom brought big change to Chicago nonetheless, with heights unseen here. Plus, our boom continues, so I believe the real divergences will emerge in this decade, especially by 2015.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of trump Chicago making a big impact on chicagos skyline, that was a big change, however, the skyline As a whole hasn't changed dramatically even with towers like aqua, legacy, etc... The skyline is definitely different than 10 years ago, but not as much as torontos
Don't worry, I was in Chicago in summer 2010
In Toronto since the areas away from the cbd are relatively low lying, 150m towers plus make really significant changes and in fact change the entire skyline. especially bigger towers like one Bloor, aura, four seasons, etc. Want proof? Just look at Traynors renders!

Torontos skyline definitely has changed as a whole way more than Chicago or ny, I'm not saying it's better but definitely sees more change even without a supertall..
Best skylines in the world are hong kong, Chicago, and new York (in no particular order)
 
Last edited:
Chicago's core skyline has changed alot more than Torontos. Maybe once Traynor's future renderings become reality you will have something but that's still a ways to go.
 
Last edited:
Taken last Friday, excavation has progressed, a ramp is now forming onto St. Mary Street.

5607358091_3423d6bafc_b.jpg
 
maestro said:
Chicago's core skyline has changed alot more than Torontos. Maybe once Traynor's future renderings become reality you will have something but that's still a ways to go.
Click to expand...

well.. for me, off the top of my head, toronto's skyline changed quite a bit with ROCP, Murano, Bay Adelaide, Casa, Uptown, RBC centre, Ritz carlton, Maple Leaf square, success tower, etc.... all those towers really have changed things as they can really be seen from a distance.

the only reason why i say the impact of chicago 10 years ago vs it is today is lesser than toronto 10 years ago compared to toronto today, is cause there skyline is already so tall/built up, it's harder for 1 tower to make a difference on their skyline (even if its 150m) than it is on ours... for example, in this view below, Aqua can't really be seen, nor can it be seen well from the north (john hancock area)

here, trump, legacy, and that new building right to Aon centre make an impact, but nothing extremely skyline changing

800px-Chicago_sunrise_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
A skyline consists of two things: landmarks and filler. Both are important in defining a good skyline.

Vancouver has a skyline that is basically all "filler". Identical 25-40 storey glass boxes in the hundreds. Not a single one that stands out (at least when viewed from the south). Sao Paulo, Miami and other resort cities like Honolulu or Benidorm tend to have predominantly filler skylines.

Atlanta has a skyline that is basically all "landmarks". Eight to ten PoMo skyscrapers that nearly top 1,000 ft. all competing with each other surrounded by low-lying nothingness (usually trees and parking lots). Most American skylines are "landmark" skylines because they consist of a few corporate HQs and bank towers and little else.

The best skylines in the world have both: Chicago, New York and Hong Kong all have some really dramatic towers punctuating a skyline of hundreds of other decent-sized but relatively lookalike buildings.

Toronto has a pretty balanced skyline of landmarks and filler, but we were skewing a little toward being mostly a landmark skyline before 1999, and now we are skewing in the direction of being a little too filler-y. Toronto's appearance has probably benefited over the past ten years because our pre-boom skyline was basically the landmarks of the financial district and a thin trail of stocky brutalist government buildings to the north. Those days are gone, and I don't miss them a bit. On the other hand, if we continue building 40-50 storey boxes, we risk turning our skyline into a taller Vancouver. And, no, a 70 storey 1 Bloor West won't do much if it's a flat-top surrounded by a 65 storey tower across from Casa, a 55 storey U condo, a 55 storey Four Seasons, and whatever else they throw up around there. Something very tall with an unconventional shape is needed up here to redefine the skyline.
 
Hipster Duck said:
Toronto has a pretty balanced skyline of landmarks and filler, but we were skewing a little toward being mostly a landmark skyline before 1999, and now we are skewing in the direction of being a little too filler-y. Toronto's appearance has probably benefited over the past ten years because our pre-boom skyline was basically the landmarks of the financial district and a thin trail of stocky brutalist government buildings to the north. Those days are gone, and I don't miss them a bit. On the other hand, if we continue building 40-50 storey boxes, we risk turning our skyline into a taller Vancouver. And, no, a 70 storey 1 Bloor West won't do much if it's a flat-top surrounded by a 65 storey tower across from Casa, a 55 storey U condo, a 55 storey Four Seasons, and whatever else they throw up around there. Something very tall with an unconventional shape is needed up here to redefine the skyline.
Click to expand...

what you said about landmarks and fillers is true....
With toronto, we do have both, but i won't go as far as saying balanced (at least not yet).
What stands out the most (you can't argue this), in our skyline is the financial district... those buildings are ALL landmark. it's our mini los angeles within our own city... everything else is basically filler and puny in comparison... this will change though,
 
Hipster Duck said:
Toronto has a pretty balanced skyline of landmarks and filler, but we were skewing a little toward being mostly a landmark skyline before 1999, and now we are skewing in the direction of being a little too filler-y. Toronto's appearance has probably benefited over the past ten years because our pre-boom skyline was basically the landmarks of the financial district and a thin trail of stocky brutalist government buildings to the north. Those days are gone, and I don't miss them a bit. On the other hand, if we continue building 40-50 storey boxes, we risk turning our skyline into a taller Vancouver. And, no, a 70 storey 1 Bloor West won't do much if it's a flat-top surrounded by a 65 storey tower across from Casa, a 55 storey U condo, a 55 storey Four Seasons, and whatever else they throw up around there. Something very tall with an unconventional shape is needed up here to redefine the skyline.
Click to expand...

Well said!!! Exactly the kind of unconventional landmark tower we need for the remaining corner of Yonge and Bloor (or a closely neighbouring site) to balance that cluster of buildings on the skyline. I was trying to make a different, but related point in another thread (post # 134 in http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?13179-Near-Future-Renders/page9) that my concern with the Tall Buildings study is that it doesn't leave any room for the opportunity for just such a landmark tower at or near that intersection. In this particular case, I think the Tall Building study is going to needlessly hold us back from obtaining the kind of well balanced skyline of landmark/filler as you described, and will probably do exactly the opposite...encourage more filler type projects.
 
okay. i understand that boxes can be dull and all, but it doesn't mean that everything new that goes up HAS to be a non-box.

if we have too many non-box towers bunched together, that can lead to a mess... just imagine a city filled with L towers or ritz carltons, that would be disastrous.
The whole "slanted roof thing" is getting really over used in this city already. Ritz, l tower, Canada tower, 1bloor,and even aura (if it counts) have slanted roofs. i respect them for not being full boxes, but sometimes if you try too hard not to be a box, it can fail. and honestly, it's hard getting fresh new ideas for buildings lately since a lot of it has already been done. but we do get those odd cases like Absolute world, which, ironically has to be in Mississauga. lol.

nonetheless, i will admit that U condos are nearly as boxy as it gets. and i wish both towers were positioned right up against bay street (or something that doesn't leave holes.. like a smaller building in front of the bay street lining tower).
 
Well said Hipster Duck!

And steveve, it doesn't mean that the towers would be either sloped roof or box, but even a supertall with a few setbacks would make it more of a landmark than making a slightly taller FCP or One Bloor.. Take the Burj Khalifa or Trump Chicago for example, or going back even the Sears Tower. Setbacks, iconic, tall.
Hell, I hate cheater spires but if the roof is over 1000 feet I don't consider it as much of a cheater anyways. Spires can make a pretty good building great. Imagine the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building without the spire, or One World Trade Center (I refuse to call it the "Freedom Tower" because that's stupid).

IMO Toronto's first supertall should be something different, something iconic and interesting. Bring on a supertall with setbacks and a spire!
 
Here are a couple examples of what I have in the back of my head when I'm talking about a well designed and unique building in the area of Yonge and Bloor.

Shard: London
Bishopsgate Tower: London
Shanghai Tower: (not that tall however :), but a wonderfully organic design)
Hermitage Plaza: Paris http://www.archicentral.com/tag/hermitage-plaza/
Tour Phare: Paris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_Phare

When you approach Bloor and the heart of the city from the north (or even from either direction on Bloor), there's hardly an iconic building that sais 'welcome to the city!'..unlike what you get when you approach the core. This is what I think we need, a tower of approximately 1000 to 1200 feet, maybe tapered to a point at its pinnacle, and perhaps one that serves multiple purposes too: office, residential, commercial and observational.

Staunchly conservative cities like Paris and London are beginning to embrace the notion of the landmark tower in parts of town where tall landmark buildings were never before considered to be appropriate or even worthy. Paris is particularly noteworthy because almost nothing in the La Defence business district was built with landmark status in mind, and many Parisians would have probably hesitated to build anything remotely interesting to rival the Eiffel Tower.

Times are changing and I believe we need to look at our skyline holistically, and not over regulate to the point where we completely forget to think about potential future landmark sites. There are maybe about a handful of sites that I think we should approach with a very open mind with respect to their future redevelopment, and the Yonge/Bloor area tops my list at this point in time. As it stands, the Tall Buildings study would only allow that kind of thinking in the core, where I think we can agree is exactly the place we don't need many more landmarks.
 
Last edited:
The_Architect said:
Well said Hipster Duck!

And steveve, it doesn't mean that the towers would be either sloped roof or box, but even a supertall with a few setbacks would make it more of a landmark than making a slightly taller FCP or One Bloor.. Take the Burj Khalifa or Trump Chicago for example, or going back even the Sears Tower. Setbacks, iconic, tall.
Hell, I hate cheater spires but if the roof is over 1000 feet I don't consider it as much of a cheater anyways. Spires can make a pretty good building great. Imagine the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building without the spire, or One World Trade Center (I refuse to call it the "Freedom Tower" because that's stupid).

IMO Toronto's first supertall should be something different, something iconic and interesting. Bring on a supertall with setbacks and a spire!
Click to expand...

i'm just confused with the term "box tower".... Bay adelaide IS a box, i think everyone can agree on that one.... but people also call Trump Toronto a box for some reason?

like you said, i'm fine with spires so long as the buildings roof is over 1000ft. cause using a spire to get past the 1000ft mark ain't count,
and yeah, for toronto's first supertall, i wouldn't mind seeing a trump chicago or wtc2 or something like that, though less fat of course,
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top