I keep hearing "Toronto is coming close to Chicago" but I dont see it

[kolchak]

110 North Wacker Drive office tower - which will house the new Midwest headquarters of Bank of America among other tenants. 243M tall, it will have over 120,000 square meters of rentable space. They slipped the design of this this massive tower into a very small footprint between Wacker Drive and the river.

For comparison One Bloor, if built, will have 80,000 square meters of useable space.

This brings up a subject not yet touched upon here - the mass and size of the tall buildings in Chicago as compared to buildings of the same height in Toronto. Number of buildings alone doesn't determine the amount of high rise building space in a given city - the metric of high rise square footage above a certain determined height.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by kolchak

Toronto may already be in a bubble from what I have read. Most of the new towers going up there are condo - and that's a bad sign. Chicago is building office towers as well as mixed use, hotels and apartments and then lastly condos.

If Toronto starts building skyscrapers clustered around downtown that are for working and multi use, then thats a healthier market and adds more life to the city center than the typical Toronto North York condo. I think that is coming but likely down the pipeline some.

How are condos a bad sign? Hong Kong is probably like 90% residential for it's skyline. It just shows that one city is more open to
Also, condos add far more life than office towers? Office towers add people during the work hours, but condos add people on the evenings and weekends. On weekends office districts tend to be dead, but high density residential zones always have life due to stay at home spouses, retirees, authors, etc.

Originally Posted by kolchak

110 North Wacker Drive office tower - which will house the new Midwest headquarters of Bank of America among other tenants. 243M tall, it will have over 120,000 square meters of rentable space. They slipped the design of this this massive tower into a very small footprint between Wacker Drive and the river.

For comparison One Bloor, if built, will have 80,000 square meters of useable space.

This brings up a subject not yet touched upon here - the mass and size of the tall buildings in Chicago as compared to buildings of the same height in Toronto. Number of buildings alone doesn't determine the amount of high rise building space in a given city - the metric of high rise square footage above a certain determined height.

Toronto has a new office complex going up by Union Station set to over 270 000 square metres of space, with CIBC set to sit on most of that. They're not devoid of office growth.

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/04/...ay-park-centre

Still a fair way from catching up from Chicago, but it's not all skinny condo towers (even if I think those look cooler...).

[koops65]

Originally Posted by kolchak

"Hasn't slowed much..." - that sounds like a real estate agent's spin.

If Toronto has a market decline these proposals (and they are just that - proposals) will vanish like mist on a hot morning.

Toronto may already be in a bubble from what I have read. Most of the new towers going up there are condo - and that's a bad sign. Chicago is building office towers as well as mixed use, hotels and apartments and then lastly condos.

If Toronto starts building skyscrapers clustered around downtown that are for working and multi use, then thats a healthier market and adds more life to the city center than the typical Toronto North York condo. I think that is coming but likely down the pipeline some.

I'm NOT a real estate agent in any way, shape or form... what I am is a skyscraper nerd who has spent the last 15 or so years becoming deeply immersed in the Toronto (and to a far more limited extent, the World) skyscraper scene. This high rise construction boom Toronto is currently in has been going on now for over 10 years, most of it full-speed-ahead, with a few slower periods here and there. The vast majority of proposals over that time have now been built or are currently U/C. Nobody can predict the future, but it seems quite likely that many of the current batch of proposals (77 over 150 metres as of today) will end up getting built, provided things remain mostly as they have been for the last decade. That would essentially double the number of skyscrapers in Toronto... and it could all happen within 5 or 6 years...

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Seriously though Toronto should compare itself with American cities closer in size like Dallas, Miami, Philadelphia, etc. And other cities in the world, like Santiago, Madrid or Kuala Lumpur.

Disagree completely. A city's population gives it weight and critical mass but there are a ton of things that go into building a city's place and influence in the global pecking order.

There's a reason Toronto is viewed as being miles ahead of cities like Osaka, Guangzhou, and Dhaka despite being far smaller. Toronto may have the same population as Dallas, Miami, and Philly but it's miles ahead of those places too. In the US, Toronto's rivals are NYC, the Bay Area, LA, and Chicago. 10 years from now Washington will get added to the mix, Chicago will get dropped. Drawing conclusions solely on how many skyscrapers a city has is rather pointless. Toronto has 3 times as many as London, for example.

Toronto should compare itself to other cosmopolitan global cities regardless of size because that's who Toronto is competing with for global capital and talent. That group includes smaller cities like Stockholm, Amsterdam, and Melbourne but much larger cities like New York, Paris, and Shanghai. The key determinant isn't size or present day clout but whether they're global or emerging global cities. Kuala Lumpur is the only city of the 6 you listed that's a direct rival. 10 years ago I would have included Madrid, but they've been losing ground ever since.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Hong Kong is probably like 90% residential for it's skyline.

-The number I researched was 72%

Originally Posted by Beedok

Toronto has a new office complex going up by Union Station set to over 270 000 square metres of space, with CIBC set to sit on most of that. They're not devoid of office growth.

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/04/...ay-park-centre

-That development is a positive sign for Toronto. As it draws in the surrounding area (and hopefully doesn’t block or shield it off) it should have a good effect. I wish the towers weren't enclosed by that huge mall-like space but that’s nitpicking a tad.

Originally Posted by Beedok

Office towers add people during the work hours, but condos add people on the evenings and weekends. On weekends office districts tend to be dead, but high density residential zones always have life due to stay at home spouses, retirees, authors, etc.

-Having office towers near and around any area increases the demand for services in the area. For example it makes it possible for more restaurants and small retail and services to survive and thrive in a given neighborhood. If a restaurant for example can depend on daytime weekday business to augment the dinner it can afford to be there. Look at Midtown Manhattan as a good example of this mixed use environment or central Paris. That varied vitality is the essence of a cosmopolitan urban city.

-It also causes actually more housing to be built nearby. Not less. The old “abandoned at night Financial District” model is fading fast with those areas becoming mixed use and residential mixed (with Theater, bars and nightlife.) Many of Chicago’s historic banking buildings in the LaSalle Street area have been transformed into chic boutique hotels, residential and mixed use while new office towers have sprung up over a braoder area of Downtown.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Disagree completely. A city's population gives it weight and critical mass but there are a ton of things that go into building a city's place and influence in the global pecking order.

There's a reason Toronto is viewed as being miles ahead of cities like Osaka, Guangzhou, and Dhaka despite being far smaller. Toronto may have the same population as Dallas, Miami, and Philly but it's miles ahead of those places too. In the US, Toronto's rivals are NYC, the Bay Area, LA, and Chicago. 10 years from now Washington will get added to the mix, Chicago will get dropped. Drawing conclusions solely on how many skyscrapers a city has is rather pointless. Toronto has 3 times as many as London, for example.

Toronto should compare itself to other cosmopolitan global cities regardless of size because that's who Toronto is competing with for global capital and talent. That group includes smaller cities like Stockholm, Amsterdam, and Melbourne but much larger cities like New York, Paris, and Shanghai. The key determinant isn't size or present day clout but whether they're global or emerging global cities. Kuala Lumpur is the only city of the 6 you listed that's a direct rival. 10 years ago I would have included Madrid, but they've been losing ground ever since.

In Europe and many other places Toronto isn't on the radar. It's just not a famous place. Perhaps its because of some of the lack of certain specific famous cultural institutions but I'm not sure. People I know there are much more aware of even Montreal for example. If anything Toronto is viewed more like a fast growing Asian city than a European capital.

[shappy]

The condescending tone in your posts is a bit much, no? They read like "versus thread" bait.

Originally Posted by kolchak

Mid rise and low rise density in the West Loop neighborhood. There is a lot of this in Chicago and it may be partially rebuilt but the new construction conforms to the footprint and usually with more units. It's just different than Toronto. Perhaps in the future Toronto will continue to outpace Chicago in terms of high rises and tall buildings but the central city in Chicago should also continue to grow. As I've said I would like to go back to Toronto someday to explore it again.


YoChicago

Are you referring to the newish looking building on the lower right? This kind of stuff (well, different architecture) is very popular here as well - you seem to be implying it's not.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by shappy

The condescending tone in your posts is a bit much, no? They read like "versus thread" bait.

Are you referring to the newish looking building on the lower right? This kind of stuff (well, different architecture) is very popular here as well - you seem to be implying it's not.

That pic was to illustrate the cityscape - not any single building. There is just a lot of mid-rise low rise density in Chicago and some but a fair amount less in Toronto. I'm not implying it - I'm saying exactly that.

On the other hand my responses here are not meant to be any more or less condescending than the posts I am replying to. And while not a versus thread it is a comparison thread. If you read all my recent posts I believe I have tried to strike a balance in my comments. I lived in Europe for almost ten years and maintain a dual residency so I do have some knowledge there

When someone says that Toronto has passed Madrid and is poised to shortly join the ranks of Paris, NYC and Shanghai though, I do think that's ridiculous - for many reasons that are not really worth getting into here.

But I get it - stay on topic - this is a skyscraper thread and I don't want to steer the discourse here into a (IMO endless and boring exercise) City vs City thing.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Disagree completely. A city's population gives it weight and critical mass but there are a ton of things that go into building a city's place and influence in the global pecking order.

There's a reason Toronto is viewed as being miles ahead of cities like Osaka, Guangzhou, and Dhaka despite being far smaller. Toronto may have the same population as Dallas, Miami, and Philly but it's miles ahead of those places too. In the US, Toronto's rivals are NYC, the Bay Area, LA, and Chicago. 10 years from now Washington will get added to the mix, Chicago will get dropped. Drawing conclusions solely on how many skyscrapers a city has is rather pointless. Toronto has 3 times as many as London, for example.

Toronto should compare itself to other cosmopolitan global cities regardless of size because that's who Toronto is competing with for global capital and talent. That group includes smaller cities like Stockholm, Amsterdam, and Melbourne but much larger cities like New York, Paris, and Shanghai. The key determinant isn't size or present day clout but whether they're global or emerging global cities. Kuala Lumpur is the only city of the 6 you listed that's a direct rival. 10 years ago I would have included Madrid, but they've been losing ground ever since.

I suspect if you sampled the average human being Osaka would be massively more famous than Toronto. The 2nd city of one of Asia's two leading economies? Definitely ahead of the Largest city of a reasonably minor North American nation. Guangzhou probably wins too, most people in China have probably heard of it, while Toronto at best manages most people in the US and Canada with a smattering elsewhere (and most of 1.3 billion is a lot more than the few hundred million in the US).

Also the Bay Area is in Toronto's size range, and so one of the cities I would compare it to. As is Hong Kong, though that's sliding into the very upper limit of peers. But trying to take on Chicago in a number's game is a fool's errand.

Originally Posted by kolchak

-The number I researched was 72%

Okay, so I exaggerated a little, but Toronto's probably just playing catch up to that. Especially as Toronto has decades of sprawling to make up for.

Originally Posted by kolchak

-It also causes actually more housing to be built nearby. Not less. The old “abandoned at night Financial District” model is fading fast with those areas becoming mixed use and residential mixed (with Theater, bars and nightlife.) Many of Chicago’s historic banking buildings in the LaSalle Street area have been transformed into chic boutique hotels, residential and mixed use while new office towers have sprung up over a braoder area of Downtown.

Have you looked at where most of Toronto's condos are going up? They're clustering all around the downtown/financial district. They're the residential new towers filling up what used to be a massively commercial dominated zone. So what's happening is the exact thing you say you want to have happen, but you're complaining?

[shappy]

Originally Posted by kolchak

That pic was to illustrate the cityscape - not any single building. There is just a lot of mid-rise low rise density in Chicago and some but a fair amount less in Toronto. I'm not implying it - I'm saying exactly that.

On the other hand my responses here are not meant to be any more or less condescending than the posts I am replying to. And while not a versus thread it is a comparison thread. If you read all my recent posts I believe I have tried to strike a balance in my comments. I lived in Europe for almost ten years and maintain a dual residency so I do have some knowledge there

When someone says that Toronto has passed Madrid and is poised to shortly join the ranks of Paris, NYC and Shanghai though, I do think that's ridiculous - for many reasons that are not really worth getting into here.

But I get it - stay on topic - this is a skyscraper thread and I don't want to steer the discourse here into a (IMO endless and boring exercise) City vs City thing.

Again ...

So Chicago has low and mid rise density - I don't think anyone has implied it doesn't. So what?

I've lived in Europe as well, do my anecdotes trump yours?

Despite some of the boosterism, pretty sure it wasn't implied that Toronto will be joining the ranks of Paris, NYC, or Shanghai. Just that it should be comparing itself to those cities to compete for capital and talent.

[kolchak]

[QUOTE=shappy;7793009]Again ...

So Chicago has low and mid rise density - I don't think anyone has implied it doesn't. So what?[/QUOTE

Ealier in this thread we were comparing density pattetns between the two cities and were looking at the differences. Both cities have statistically the same density so myself and other forumers were looking at why. This is where the discussion of low/mid rise density came up. That was the context of my post.
The other reason for my post had to do with the differences in build form between the two cities. It was a rather detailed lengthy and enjoyable discussion. Sorry you skipped it..

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by shappy

Again ...
So Chicago has low and mid rise density - I don't think anyone has implied it doesn't. So what?

Ealier in this thread we were comparing density pattetns between the two cities and were looking at the differences. Both cities have statistically the same density so myself and other forumers were looking at why. This is where the discussion of low/mid rise density came up. That was the context of my post.
The other reason for my post had to do with the differences in build form between the two cities. Sorry you skipped it..

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolchak View Post
-It also causes actually more housing to be built nearby. Not less. The old “abandoned at night Financial District” model is fading fast with those areas becoming mixed use and residential mixed (with Theater, bars and nightlife.) Many of Chicago’s historic banking buildings in the LaSalle Street area have been transformed into chic boutique hotels, residential and mixed use while new office towers have sprung up over a braoder area of Downtown.


Have you looked at where most of Toronto's condos are going up? They're clustering all around the downtown/financial district. They're the residential new towers filling up what used to be a massively commercial dominated zone. So what's happening is the exact thing you say you want to have happen, but you're complaining?

Umm...well if you looked I was talking about office tower construction in Downtown Chicago and the changing nature of the old financial district and its redevelopment in response to the previous post about new office tower construction. The comment had nothing to do with Toronto's condos.

Please read the thread carefully before commenting next time :-)

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by kolchak

Umm...well if you looked I was talking about office tower construction in Downtown Chicago and the changing nature of the old financial district and its redevelopment in response to the previous post about new office tower construction. The comment had nothing to do with Toronto's condos.

Please read the thread carefully before commenting next time :-)

You stated that office towers were better for building neighbourhoods than condo towers, but then stated that one of the good things office towers bring is condo towers. I was pointing out that Toronto already has many office towers, so it's at the stage of those pre-existing office towers bringing condos. Toronto's financial district is also evolving.

[softee]

Originally Posted by kolchak

"Hasn't slowed much..." - that sounds like a real estate agent's spin.

If Toronto has a market decline these proposals (and they are just that - proposals) will vanish like mist on a hot morning.

Toronto may already be in a bubble from what I have read. Most of the new towers going up there are condo - and that's a bad sign. Chicago is building office towers as well as mixed use, hotels and apartments and then lastly condos.

If Toronto starts building skyscrapers clustered around downtown that are for working and multi use, then thats a healthier market and adds more life to the city center than the typical Toronto North York condo. I think that is coming but likely down the pipeline some.

There have been many millions of square feet of new office construction in Toronto's core over the last 5 years, although most of the new office buildings have been in the 30 to 45 storey range, so they don't really stand out much on the skyline. Toronto has the lowest downtown office vacancy rate in North America so there's a demand for new office construction.

The last 200 metre+ office tower built was the Bay Adelaide Centre which was completed in 2009, but now the first phase of the Bay Park Centre (780 ft. or 238 metres) is set to start construction with the second phase (868 ft. or 265 metres) following suit. Another new 32 storey (158 metre) office tower is also set to start construction and is being built entirely on spec. Several more large office towers are approved and will hopefully secure tenants in the near future so that they may too begin construction.

[softee]

Originally Posted by kolchak

That pic was to illustrate the cityscape - not any single building. There is just a lot of mid-rise low rise density in Chicago and some but a fair amount less in Toronto. I'm not implying it - I'm saying exactly that.

The areas surrounding downtown Toronto's hi-rise core also consist of similar areas of low and mid-rise density. Streets extending outward to the East and West from the core such as Queen, King, Front, College, Dundas, Richmond, Adelaide, Bloor and North-South cross streets such as Spadina, Bathurst and Ossington are full of a mix of historic low-rise commercial density and newer mid-rise residential density.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by Beedok

You stated that office towers were better for building neighbourhoods than condo towers, but then stated that one of the good things office towers bring is condo towers. I was pointing out that Toronto already has many office towers, so it's at the stage of those pre-existing office towers bringing condos. Toronto's financial district is also evolving.

Good grief you can't even keep track of your own conversation.
How about I repost the exchange and you can re-read it:

Originally Posted by Beedok -

Office towers add people during the work hours, but condos add people on the evenings and weekends. On weekends office districts tend to be dead, but high density residential zones always have life due to stay at home spouses, retirees, authors, etc.

My reply -

Having office towers near and around any area increases the demand for services in the area. For example it makes it possible for more restaurants and small retail and services to survive and thrive in a given neighborhood. If a restaurant for example can depend on daytime weekday business to augment the dinner it can afford to be there. Look at Midtown Manhattan as a good example of this mixed use environment or central Paris. That varied vitality is the essence of a cosmopolitan urban city.

-It also causes actually more housing to be built nearby. Not less. The old “abandoned at night Financial District” model is fading fast with those areas becoming mixed use and residential mixed (with Theater, bars and nightlife.) Many of Chicago’s historic banking buildings in the LaSalle Street area have been transformed into chic boutique hotels, residential and mixed use while new office towers have sprung up over a braoder area of Downtown.

[kolchak]

The numbers I put forth clearly show the differences between the two cities. This chart shows how Chicago's top 100 buildings are taller and bigger than Toronto's. The numbers show that Toronto has way more high rises - under 75M. We have digested the metrics of the population density as it relates to mid/low - rise vs high - rise.
That's what the thread was about. The rest is devolving into City vs City crap. Here are my diagrams and numbers again. Its been lively. peace out



At no point is the equivalently ranked building (44 to 44 for example) in Toronto taller than its counterpart in Chicago (roof or highest occupied floor used as height measure.)
Toronto/Chicago tallest 15


Toronto/Chicago 16-30


Toronto/Chicago 31-45


Toronto/Chicago 46-60


Toronto/Chicago 61-75


Toronto/Chicago 76-92

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by kolchak

Good grief you can't even keep track of your own conversation.
How about I repost the exchange and you can re-read it:

Originally Posted by Beedok -

Office towers add people during the work hours, but condos add people on the evenings and weekends. On weekends office districts tend to be dead, but high density residential zones always have life due to stay at home spouses, retirees, authors, etc.

My reply -

Having office towers near and around any area increases the demand for services in the area. For example it makes it possible for more restaurants and small retail and services to survive and thrive in a given neighborhood. If a restaurant for example can depend on daytime weekday business to augment the dinner it can afford to be there. Look at Midtown Manhattan as a good example of this mixed use environment or central Paris. That varied vitality is the essence of a cosmopolitan urban city.

-It also causes actually more housing to be built nearby. Not less. The old “abandoned at night Financial District” model is fading fast with those areas becoming mixed use and residential mixed (with Theater, bars and nightlife.) Many of Chicago’s historic banking buildings in the LaSalle Street area have been transformed into chic boutique hotels, residential and mixed use while new office towers have sprung up over a braoder area of Downtown.

I've followed my half of the conversation perfectly. Yours is the the half that seems to change.

You say Offices are better than condos for neighbourhood life and so Toronto is being bad building condos. I point out that Condos are what give you life after work ours. You then argue that office towers lead to condos and therefore more life. I then reply 'yes, and that's why Toronto is building condos... and points out I was right to say condos are what bring in the life'. Then you say I can't follow the conversation???

Can someone else confirm I'm not losing my mind?

[koops65]

You're right... Kolchak did say that, and Toronto is doing that...