The Toronto skyline has crossed a big threshold

[maru2501]

I'll have to get back up there. The toronto in my head is from the 80s. Impressive amount of construction. Agree the skyline needs the punch of some signature towers. Even at London Shard height

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Gresto

In the 500'+ metric, Toronto should pass Chicago in the next few years, unless there's a major market crash, which doesn't appear to be in the offing (there have been significant corrections, notably last year). Including proposals, the number of 500'+ buildings for TO is something like 175, though I believe that figure includes Mississauga (I might be wrong about that).
With regard to skyscrapers, Chicago does have a couple of things Toronto does not, which is better architecture - both of the glorious early-skyscraper-era sort and the present-day - and several supertalls under its belt.

There is 178 built + under construction + proposals over 150m in the City of Toronto and 14 in Mississauga

[Nite]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

^ I don’t know how big a factor Chinese money has had or is having on Canada’s housing market, but the price of housing in Toronto and Vancouver particularly is insane.

Every study on the matter says it's an insignificant effect in both Vancouver and Toronto. But that doesn't stop journalists from making a lot of noise about it and mischaracterizing those studies, the whole money-laundering articles are from journalists who don't understand what the studies are talking about.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if it's all about international immigration and population growth, then why has chicago built 50 new 500+ footers over the past 2 decades?

if it's all about transit expansion and planning, then why has chicago built 50 new 500+ footers over the past 2 decades?

if it's all about global capital seeking safe haven, then why has chicago built 50 new 500+ footers over the past 2 decades?



there's more to the story here than the overly simplistic hot takes being offered in this thread.

Everything about Chicago is weird to me, in the best way.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by maru2501

I'll have to get back up there. The toronto in my head is from the 80s. Impressive amount of construction. Agree the skyline needs the punch of some signature towers. Even at London Shard height

The One at 309m is under construction and is the same height as the Shard, but you wouldn't see it from the lake skyline as it's at Bloor and Yonge

[chicubs111]

I don't know...Toronto's buildings all look alike for most part..the architecture is not good and looks cheap (Miami'ish)...just building a ton of residential buildings with mediocre architecture is nothing to aim for... Chicago at least has some highlights in architecture during its building boom cycles (not including its art deco collection which are unmatched in north american by any city outside of NYC)...not saying there all winners but there is usually a handful of excellent designs. Does anyone have the stats comparing Chicago's office market size to Toronto?

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Elkhanan1

Visual aid for this discussion...This classic lake view will be changing dramatically in the next 2-5 years. The tallest towers are still to come. Also, the skyline stretches further along the lake than this pic captures and it goes on for miles and miles away from the lake, centred on Yonge St. Plus there are impressive and growing suburban clusters in Etobicoke and Mississauga.

i find it hard to show the size of Toronto Skyline in pictures but video does it better justice

Flying into Toronto's Island Airport from a couple of months ago
• Video Link

[softee]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

I don't know...Toronto's buildings all look alike for most part..the architecture is not good and looks cheap (Miami'ish)...just building a ton of residential buildings with mediocre architecture is nothing to aim for... Chicago at least has some highlights in architecture during its building boom cycles (not including its art deco collection which are unmatched in north american by any city outside of NYC)...not saying there all winners but there is usually a handful of excellent designs. Does anyone have the stats comparing Chicago's office market size to Toronto?

Lots of office towers on the rise in Toronto now, too.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

I don't know...Toronto's buildings all look alike for most part..the architecture is not good and looks cheap (Miami'ish)...just building a ton of residential buildings with mediocre architecture is nothing to aim for... Chicago at least has some highlights in architecture during its building boom cycles (not including its art deco collection which are unmatched in north american by any city outside of NYC)...not saying there all winners but there is usually a handful of excellent designs. Does anyone have the stats comparing Chicago's office market size to Toronto?

It's the condo equivalent of McMansions (McCondos?) and yeah it looks pretty cheap and generic. One of the truisms of architecture is that buildings with balconies never age well.

[Nouvellecosse]

McMansions are examples of people wanting a large and flashy place at all cost and willing to sacrifice things like quality and location in order to afford it. Condos in Toronto's context are examples of people willing to accept small and often much more modest places compared to suburban houses in order to live in a desirable location. The only similarity would be that people are making a trade off for one thing vs another, but that's the case with almost everything for people who aren't actually wealthy.

[C.]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Jacksonville's skyline, though small, is gorgeous, especially at night. Toronto, though tall, strikes me as bland in a number of ways and too much like a number of places.

And by the way, I'm quite aware I get laughed at and berated for that opinion by the majority. It almost makes it more fun. If Toronto gets a little more colorful, I might change my opinion.

Image from dapimaging.com

Image from vantagevenus.com

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ chicago has transit, but no recent significant transit expansions.
and transit ridership in chicago has fallen over the last 2 decades, so by doady's theory, chicago shouldn't be building any skyscrapers at all, but it is building them, shitloads of them in fact.

I don't think transit has much to do with highrise construction, at least in 2019, in the North American context. Chicago highrises aren't concentrated around transit hubs.

But transit is indirectly relevant in that it makes Chicago's core possible, and the desirability of the core feeds housing demand.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by The North One

Obviously when I say tower I mean skyscraper.

And lets be honest here the CN tower is no beauty made with nice materials, it's an ugly concrete mast.

Toronto needs something like the John Hancock Center.

I find that a tower like Scotia Plaza looks as good as the John Hancock.

Looked it up and the John Hancock wouldn't really tower over Scotia. I though the difference would be much greater.

Perhaps it's that Scotia is buried in the middle of other towers, whereas the Hancock is more of a focal point of the skyline.

[suburbanite]

Toronto's office core is extremely dense and compact and even the 300m First Canadian Place gets lost in the crowd from many angles now. Toronto's new office builds are all high-quality for the most part, but the square footage is spread out across numerous ~200m towers as opposed to one or two supertalls as that's what fundamentally makes sense in this market.

Chicago's core covers that much more ground and allows the Sears Tower, Trump, and Hancock to each be the focal point of their respective areas.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Looked it up and the John Hancock wouldn't really tower over Scotia. I though the difference would be much greater.

the height difference looks fairly significant to my eye, especially with hancock's antenna's extending up to 1,500'. those sticks don't count in the official height measurement according to the CTBUH's "rules", but from a strictly visual perspective, they do draw the eye ever upward into the sky, as does the tower's tapering form.



as for which is the "nicer" building, scotia plaza is a handsome enough tower, but JHC is one of the world's great skyscrapers, one of the most sublime examples of its era.

as nice as it is, i wouldn't put scotia plaza in that same category. and i don't think many architectural historians would either.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

McMansions are examples of people wanting a large and flashy place at all cost and willing to sacrifice things like quality and location in order to afford it. Condos in Toronto's context are examples of people willing to accept small and often much more modest places compared to suburban houses in order to live in a desirable location. The only similarity would be that people are making a trade off for one thing vs another, but that's the case with almost everything for people who aren't actually wealthy.

They're like McMansions in the sense that they are cookie cutter designs that you pick out of a catalog.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Nite

i find it hard to show the size of Toronto Skyline in pictures but video does it better justice

Flying into Toronto's Island Airport from a couple of months ago
• Video Link

Jesus.

I wish Chicago had the depth from the lake that Toronto has and Toronto had the stretched out skyline on the lake as Chicago has. It would be a match made in heaven.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by maru2501

I'll have to get back up there. The toronto in my head is from the 80s. Impressive amount of construction. Agree the skyline needs the punch of some signature towers. Even at London Shard height

The shard is basically a 250 meter building with a hat. Toronto needs a 400+, something like Sears or WTC.

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Jesus.

I wish Chicago had the depth from the lake that Toronto has and Toronto had the stretched out skyline on the lake as Chicago has. It would be a match made in heaven.

I have been to Toronto and have always been impressed with their skyline. But I would say its not New York or Chicago impressive, and for some reason I don't feel it ever will be. Its something unique about the N.Y and Chicago skylines beyond their numbers, that is hard to describe but you know it when you see it.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by skysoar

I have been to Toronto and have always been impressed with their skyline. But I would say its not New York or Chicago impressive, and for some reason I don't feel it ever will be. Its something unique about the N.Y and Chicago skylines beyond their numbers, that is hard to describe but you know it when you see it.

They are mature skylines with buildings from different eras and architectural styles. You really can't compare them. It's like the difference between being in a neighborhood of McMansions vs being in a neighborhood of century old custom homes.