HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Toronto

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2016, 1:16 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,339
53? Is Toronto having a bad year again?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2016, 1:55 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 14,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicubs111 View Post
well this is the "Skyscraperpage" so buildings over 400ft (used to be over 500ft) are technically what we care about..but regardless chicago still has a significant larger stock of buildings at these ranges (probaly 60 to 70 more buildings chicago has even with underconstruction) and the buildings are in a more compact location... Toronto can claim to the title of 15 to 30 story if they want though ..
That's your opinion that people only care about 400ft to 500ft buildings on skyscraperpage. No one is denying that Chicago currently has more tall buildings or that development patterns have led to a larger core with taller buildings in Chicago. So, what exactly is the point of your post? You think it will always be this way? It's speculation on 30 years from now.

Really, I expect more from a Cubs fan.
__________________
53 built and 26 under construction for a total of 79 towers over 150 metres.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2016, 1:58 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 14,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
LOL way to drag up an old thread with your bitter insecurities. You've obviously never travelled to Toronto otherwise you would know that every statement you made is so far from reality.

Hey what's your murder count this year? I love Chicago and go there from time to time but the second you leave the core the segregation and racism in your city is mind boggling.

Defend Chicago all you want troll but it's pretty pathetic that there are two cities that are comparable in size have such different living standards. You'll never find anywhere in Toronto as run down or sketchy as huge swaths of Chicago.

Current murder counts btw.
Chicago: 571
Toronto: 53
Murder counts have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
__________________
53 built and 26 under construction for a total of 79 towers over 150 metres.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2016, 2:17 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
That's your opinion that people only care about 400ft to 500ft buildings on skyscraperpage. No one is denying that Chicago currently has more tall buildings or that development patterns have led to a larger core with taller buildings in Chicago. So, what exactly is the point of your post? You think it will always be this way? It's speculation on 30 years from now.

Really, I expect more from a Cubs fan.
umm whats the title of this thread say?...im simply stating my opinion on the side of Toronto not coming close to Chicago because despite a similar city population and people from Toronto claiming they have so many more skyscrapers than Chicago (depends on your definition of skyscraper) that just by going to both cities and and getting the feel of them you know Chicago has a much bigger and urban feel than Toronto (and yes the number skyscrapers confined to a denser area is one such attribute that contributes to that urban feel) .. So 30 years from now I guess we can all return back here and discuss again if thats your point...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2016, 2:25 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicubs111 View Post
im simply stating my opinion on the side of Toronto not coming close to Chicago because despite a similar city population]
They don't have a similar population though? Toronto's somewhere in the 7 million ball park (maybe a little more) while Chicago is up close to 10 million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2016, 2:35 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 14,914
Maybe you should read some posts instead of just concerning yourself with the title. Toronto isn't close now but, it will take less than a decade to pass Chicago in both 400 footers and 500 footers should current trends continue for that long. (as unlikely as that would be)

You've obviously explored the database and seen Toronto has recently embraced 400 plus foot towers and no longer are an exception to 12 to 30 storey towers. That's a big deal for as large an apartment market Toronto is.
__________________
53 built and 26 under construction for a total of 79 towers over 150 metres.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2016, 6:04 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Riverside/Sunshine Coast
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
Murder counts have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
First of all I'm not the one who brought them up. And second they have everything to do with the topic of this thread as do so many other posts that have been made about random comparisons of the two cities. Your highly dogmatic views of everybody's opinions on SSP continues to make me laugh.

LOL at you and your god complex on ssp.
__________________
I'm insidious! LOL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2016, 6:18 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Riverside/Sunshine Coast
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
They don't have a similar population though? Toronto's somewhere in the 7 million ball park (maybe a little more) while Chicago is up close to 10 million.

The difference though is Metro Chicago's footprint is over 28,000sqkm, Toronto's is only 5,900 sq km. To be fair we would need to include the Golden Horseshoe that Toronto is the centre of roughly 32,000sq with close to 9 million people. That number should surpass Chicago's easily in a few years. The growth in the Golden Horseshoe verses Chicagoland is not even comparable.
__________________
I'm insidious! LOL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2016, 10:07 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 14,914
God complex?

Fine. Let the thread degenerate by your limitless defensiveness.
__________________
53 built and 26 under construction for a total of 79 towers over 150 metres.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2016, 12:34 AM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
The difference though is Metro Chicago's footprint is over 28,000sqkm, Toronto's is only 5,900 sq km. To be fair we would need to include the Golden Horseshoe that Toronto is the centre of roughly 32,000sq with close to 9 million people. That number should surpass Chicago's easily in a few years. The growth in the Golden Horseshoe verses Chicagoland is not even comparable.
Except american cities are massively sprawlier than Canadian ones. Just because two things are the same area doesn't mean they operate the same way. The LA CSA is close to the area of Belgium. Doesn't mean Brussels can claim the whole country as their metro. Same with, say Nuremberg vs. all of Bavaria (which is also about the area of the LA CSA too).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2016, 5:27 AM
Phil McAvity's Avatar
Phil McAvity Phil McAvity is offline
I put the F-U in FUN
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Defend Chicago all you want troll but it's pretty pathetic that there are two cities that are comparable in size have such different living standards.
comparable in size? The only population figure that really counts is metro population and Greater Chicago is almost twice the population of Greater Toronto and it has the skyline to prove it.
__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"-Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 4:09 AM
Waterlooson's Avatar
Waterlooson Waterlooson is offline
mañana is my busiest day
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Cabos&BC
Posts: 2,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McAvity View Post
comparable in size? The only population figure that really counts is metro population and Greater Chicago is almost twice the population of Greater Toronto and it has the skyline to prove it.
Actually, the US Census Bureau and Stats Canada use very different criteria to define a "metro area", so you are comparing apples to oranges. In the US the labor exchange ratio need only be 15% for adjacent cities to be lumped into one "metro".... whereas in Canada, the labor exchange ratio has to be at least 35% (other complicated rules can also apply).... So relative to US cities, Canadian metros can be way understated... You have to compare similar sized areas... Metro Chicago is 28,160 sq. Km., metro Toronto is said to be 5,906 sq. Km. It should be obvious that this is a ludicrous comparison. A more valid comparison would be to compare areas of similar size. That would be metro Chicago vs. The greater golden horseshoe with a current population of about 9.6 million and 31,562 sq. Km. So Chicago and environs essentially has the same population as Toronto and its environs.... Toronto is growing while metro Chicago lost over 6,000 people in 2015. Toronto will easily overtake Chicago in a few years, if it hasn't already.

Toronto has multiple skylines, while Chicago has only one. The Chicago skyline is more impressive that Toronto's core skyline, but collectively Toronto has far more high rises than Chicago... and according to emporis, Toronto even has more skyscrapers (499 vs 467).
When the Yonge St. subway line is extended to highway 7, Toronto's core skyline will likely end up stretching for 22 km.... this is far longer than Chicago's.... My bet is that in 20 years, Toronto's core skyline will be much more impressive than even Chicago's - which I love btw.
__________________
"The separatist option is not the bogeyman it used to be.... maybe I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country." Justin Trudeau - making his father turn in his grave.

Last edited by Waterlooson; Nov 2, 2016 at 4:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 12:49 PM
Waterlooson's Avatar
Waterlooson Waterlooson is offline
mañana is my busiest day
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Cabos&BC
Posts: 2,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
The difference though is Metro Chicago's footprint is over 28,000sqkm, Toronto's is only 5,900 sq km. To be fair we would need to include the Golden Horseshoe that Toronto is the centre of roughly 32,000sq with close to 9 million people. That number should surpass Chicago's easily in a few years. The growth in the Golden Horseshoe verses Chicagoland is not even comparable.
After reading through the latest data in "Places to Grow", the current estimate for the GGH puts the population at about 9.6 million. Even look at it from another perspective, the 2011 census put the GGH at 8.8 million, but that includes a roughly 4% undercount, plus 5 years of growth averaging around 110,000/yr.... For a population of 9.7 million.... In a few more years, the GGH will be over 10 million, while metro Chicago is losing population.
__________________
"The separatist option is not the bogeyman it used to be.... maybe I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country." Justin Trudeau - making his father turn in his grave.

Last edited by Waterlooson; Nov 2, 2016 at 12:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 1:20 PM
Waterlooson's Avatar
Waterlooson Waterlooson is offline
mañana is my busiest day
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Cabos&BC
Posts: 2,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
Except american cities are massively sprawlier than Canadian ones. Just because two things are the same area doesn't mean they operate the same way. The LA CSA is close to the area of Belgium. Doesn't mean Brussels can claim the whole country as their metro. Same with, say Nuremberg vs. all of Bavaria (which is also about the area of the LA CSA too).

That's not a rule to go by since it's often not true, even if LA is a sprawling mess. Edmonton sprawls out as much or worse than any US city of comparable size that I can think of.... and I've been to almost all of them. On average US cities sprawl out only slightly more than Canadian cities.... the two are very similar actually, so your claim that "US cities are massively sprawlier than Canadian ones" certainly is not true.
If you study Google Earth, the cities of the Greater Golden Horseshoe sprawl out almost endlessly. There must be over 100 tiny hamlets and endless acreages separated by small farms interspersed among the cities in southern Ontario. This fact is why the concept of the "Greater Golden Horseshoe" got started in the first place.
__________________
"The separatist option is not the bogeyman it used to be.... maybe I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country." Justin Trudeau - making his father turn in his grave.

Last edited by Waterlooson; Nov 2, 2016 at 1:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 4:55 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,868
You seriously think Toronto and Edmonton are as sprawly as Atlanta, Detroit...?

US doesn't have only one definition of metropolitan area. People confuse CSA and MSA. MSAs in US are comparable to CMAs in Canada. CSAs are not. There is no way that that the entire GGH would be considered one MSA. That's ridiculous. But even entire GGH as a CSA would be unrealistic.

I'm not sure what "hamlets" has to do with sprawl. Sprawl by definition refers to urban areas, not rural areas. Isolated hamlets surrounded by farmland are not part of US definition of sprawl or urban areas either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 8:37 PM
Waterlooson's Avatar
Waterlooson Waterlooson is offline
mañana is my busiest day
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Cabos&BC
Posts: 2,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
You seriously think Toronto and Edmonton are as sprawly as Atlanta, Detroit...?

US doesn't have only one definition of metropolitan area. People confuse CSA and MSA. MSAs in US are comparable to CMAs in Canada. CSAs are not. There is no way that that the entire GGH would be considered one MSA. That's ridiculous. But even entire GGH as a CSA would be unrealistic.

I'm not sure what "hamlets" has to do with sprawl. Sprawl by definition refers to urban areas, not rural areas. Isolated hamlets surrounded by farmland are not part of US definition of sprawl or urban areas either.
For its size, metro Edmonton is easily the most sprawly of the four.... and that's why it has by far the lowest density at only 123 per sq. km.

For the reason I gave in my posts above, US MSAs are generally not comparable to CMAs in Canada....how can they be when the definitions are very different in the 2 countries. You can't compare the unemployment rates to the 2 countries either.... for the same reason.... the definitions are not the same.

You can drive 50 miles out from the nearest city in southern Ontario and suddenly come across a mansion. What is it doing there? It's people from the city deciding they wanted to be away from the hustle of the city.... But if not for the city, they wouldn't be there in the first place. The influence of the cities extend way out in southern Ontario, and that is why the government of Ontario came up with their "Places to Grow" policies for the "Greater Golden Horseshoe". They decided they had to stop the massive sprawl that was going on in the more rural areas. The hamlets I referred to are not as "isolated" as you may think.... Many are starting to boom... Why? People from the city are looking for less costly land.

"The Growth Plan introduced a variety of mechanisms for managing growth in the GGH region, including population and employment intensification targets, settlement area restrictions, and designated urban growth centres. The complementary Greenbelt Plan restricts development in more than 700,000 hectares of “protected countryside” surrounding the “inner ring” of built up area in the GGH. It includes areas previously covered in the Niagara Escarpment Plan, 2005 and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2002, as well as prime agricultural areas, natural heritage areas, and rural countryside areas, each with varying degrees of permissions for non-urban uses. The two plans work together—the former restricting areas where development can occur, and the latter dictating where and how growth shall occur in the GGH region."
__________________
"The separatist option is not the bogeyman it used to be.... maybe I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country." Justin Trudeau - making his father turn in his grave.

Last edited by Waterlooson; Nov 2, 2016 at 8:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 12:24 AM
koops65's Avatar
koops65 koops65 is offline
Intergalactic Barfly
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quarks Bar
Posts: 3,746
Two pix are worth 2000 words...

Google Earth satellite screenshots to the same scale: 200 km altitude

Toronto

[IMG][/IMG]

Chicago

[IMG][/IMG]

Clearly, Toronto is far more compact than Chicago is...
__________________
My Diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=52344624
A proud member of the former Airborne Regiment, 87-88
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 1:04 AM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,868
Just forget it, Koops. He isn't even talking about urban sprawl, he's talking about rural areas, lol.

If someone wants to believe that the entire GGH would be one MSA rather than a CSA by US standards, and that "massive sprawl" in the form of isolated hamlets and single mansions are replacing farms in one of most expensive housing markets in Canada, then more power to them. There's no use showing maps or images of the huge size of Chicagoland, or providing stats of urban density, or Toronto CMA having 3x transit ridership of Chicago MSA, or providing any other such evidence. People will believe whatever they want to believe, it's as simple as that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 4:08 AM
Waterlooson's Avatar
Waterlooson Waterlooson is offline
mañana is my busiest day
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Cabos&BC
Posts: 2,146
The Toronto image cuts off large areas of sprawl to the north (should go up to Barrie at least)....while the image for Chicago cuts off nothing of interest.... that kind of makes my point, doesn't it? Having said that, Toronto is more dense than Chicago, but that doesn't mean its environs aren't sprawly. Ontario felt it had to limit sprawl because it was a big problem so they introduced new legislation limiting where growth may occur in "Places to Grow". You can believe that this legislation was unnecessary if you want, while people in the know see otherwise.

More about Toronto's sprawl to the north: "Barrie has been designated an Urban Growth Centre by the Province of Ontario (Places to Grow Simcoe Area, 2009). Its population growth, largely due to its emergence as a bedroom community for Toronto, has given rise to the development of numerous subdivisions on the southern side of the city." Barrie is 90 km north of Toronto... yet it is a bedroom community for Toronto.... that's a lot of sprawl.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrie
__________________
"The separatist option is not the bogeyman it used to be.... maybe I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country." Justin Trudeau - making his father turn in his grave.

Last edited by Waterlooson; Nov 3, 2016 at 5:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 4:32 AM
Waterlooson's Avatar
Waterlooson Waterlooson is offline
mañana is my busiest day
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Cabos&BC
Posts: 2,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
Just forget it, Koops. He isn't even talking about urban sprawl, he's talking about rural areas, lol.
Yeah well the laugh is on you.... urban sprawl is about growth spreading into rural areas due to the influence of nearby large cities.... Do you think it is something else? I can recall when Toronto International Airport was on the outer edge of the city surrounded by farms... today it is not that far from the center... that's a lot of sprawl. Urban sprawl can be simply defined as the the uncontrolled expansion of urban areas into rural areas. The "Places to Grow" legislation will limit that to some extent... that was the whole point of the legislation... Toronto's sprawl was seen as a major problem by the people and government of Ontario.

Quote:
If someone wants to believe that the entire GGH would be one MSA rather than a CSA by US standards, and that "massive sprawl" in the form of isolated hamlets and single mansions are replacing farms in one of most expensive housing markets in Canada, then more power to them. There's no use showing maps or images of the huge size of Chicagoland, or providing stats of urban density, or Toronto CMA having 3x transit ridership of Chicago MSA, or providing any other such evidence. People will believe whatever they want to believe, it's as simple as that.
I will agree that the entire GGH would likely not be a MSA (more like a CSA indeed)... but it's MSA would be far larger than what Stats Canada states for its CMA.

The fact that Toronto's housing is expensive is part of what drives the sprawl. Toronto's TTC for the most part (street cars and subway) doesn't stretch out much beyond the core of the city. Those systems are very busy but quite small actually. Any city has buses. The core is dense, the outer suburbs are less so. I mean what's so dense about Newmarket? Demonstrating that city A is denser than city B, doesn't prove that city A isn't associated with a lot of sprawl especially when the size of its CMA is understated in the first place.
Sure, people will believe what they want.
__________________
"The separatist option is not the bogeyman it used to be.... maybe I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country." Justin Trudeau - making his father turn in his grave.

Last edited by Waterlooson; Nov 3, 2016 at 5:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Toronto
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:53 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.