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

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by Beedok

It doesn't change that Chicago has a way worse sprawl issue. Chicago's urban area has only a little more than half the density of the GTHA. People were asking why Toronto is more sprawly, but it isn't. It's a newer build form, so things are different, but Chicago's developments of the same age are almost certainly worse if it has so much more sprawl and yet so much more historic density.

A city is made overall automatically better or worse by this, but when people say a city has a trait is doesn't then it's worth trying to correct folks.

I can't make heads or tails out of what you have written here other than it's obvious you didn't read my previous posts. If you want to address some of the points I made please do.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by SallyVu

Toronto is indeed coming close to Chicago with so many condos coming up in downtown with in 10 years we will be right up ahead with skyscrapers. I live near The One Condo which is almost in completion, then there is another one going to the west https://theonecondosvip.ca/ which will be about 80 storeys I heard and then there is another application at every corner. So to me it seems we will surpass Chicago in due time.

Especially since there are no new towers going up in Chicago…

BTW three of these are office towers, two are mixed use and one is condo

CHICAGO | Vista Tower | 1,186 FT | 98 FLOORS

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

One Bennett Park | 836 FT | 68 FLOORS

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

One Grant Park (1200 S Indiana) | 893 FT | 80 FLOORS

Originally Posted by ithakas

110 N Wacker | 800 FT | 52 FLOORS

Originally Posted by BVictor1

150 North Riverside | 752 FT | 54 FLOORS AND
River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS

[isaidso]

Nice to see Chicago growing again.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by kolchak

I can't make heads or tails out of what you have written here other than it's obvious you didn't read my previous posts. If you want to address some of the points I made please do.

Sprawl is the amount of land gobbled up by a city, and a more sprawling has more land gobbled by lower densities. Chicago has more of that, so sprawls more than Toronto?

There was also mention of high-rises in the suburbs, but that's the opposite of sprawl?

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Nice to see Chicago growing again.

Downtown Chicago hadn't stopped growing. As I have already pointed out Downtown Chicago has grown at a steady pace for a long time. The population loss is not there but in the city on the South Side. I keep repeating this point - the people on the Toronto board seem to not really read the previous posts in the threads they comment in... Chicago's growth is not in decline where it matters for purposes of this discussion.

Downtown has added scores of new high rises and developments over the past 25 years.

"The population is booming in the central area and rising on the North and Northwest sides, as well as along the South Side lakefront... the city center now is growing faster than ever, having gained an estimated 42,423 people from 2010-15. But the population of the non-lakefront South Side is dropping even quicker, falling about 50,000 in the same period."
- Crain's

Toronto is growing faster than Chicago but its clear the differences in central city growth between the two cities is not as extreme as many people here have said.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by kolchak

Downtown Chicago has never stopped growing. As I have already pointed out Downtown Chicago has grown at a steady pace for a long time. The population loss is not there but in the city on the South Side. I keep repeating this point - the people on the Toronto board seem to not really read the previous posts in the threads they comment in... Chicago's growth is not in decline where it matters for purposes of this discussion.

Downtown has added scores of new high rises and developments over the past 25 years.

"The population is booming in the central area and rising on the North and Northwest sides, as well as along the South Side lakefront... the city center now is growing faster than ever, having gained an estimated 42,423 people from 2010-15. But the population of the non-lakefront South Side is dropping even quicker, falling about 50,000 in the same period."
- Crain's

Toronto is growing faster than Chicago but its clear the differences in central city growth between the two cities is not as extreme as many people here have said.

I found the conversation was getting a bit nasty so I skipped over a lot. I didn't mean to suggest that there was no growth in Chicago over the last 10 years. It was a commentary on the 'small' amount of 100m+ construction relative to the other big skylines around the world. Chicago wasn't keeping pace. Cities like Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Toronto, New York, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Manila, Bangkok, Chongqing, Mumbai, Melbourne, London and a number of others were outpacing Chicago construction.

Activity in Chicago is ramping up now. That's my perception of things any way.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I found the conversation was getting a bit nasty so I skipped over a lot. I didn't mean to suggest that there was no growth in Chicago over the last 10 years. It was a commentary on the 'small' amount of 100m+ construction relative to the other big skylines around the world. Chicago wasn't keeping pace. Cities like Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Toronto, New York, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Manila, Bangkok, Chongqing, Mumbai, Melbourne, London and a number of others were outpacing Chicago construction.

Activity in Chicago is ramping up now. That's my perception of things any way.

Apologies. I didn't mean to say that you specifically hadn't read my previous posts. I enjoy healthy debate and try not to post before I've had my morning coffee ;-)

The rapid population growth of Toronto and the high rise boom there is undeniable. Chicago still built in that period, but Toronto built way more 100 meter buildings outside of downtown. The statistical difference does narrow when it comes to taller buildings (Today, including buildings under construction and the CN Tower, Chicago still has 15 buildings over 250 meters and Toronto 7.)

COMPLETED NEW TOWER CONSTRUCTION:

100 meters or more 2007 to 2017 159 in Toronto
76 in Chicago

200 meters or more 2007 to 2017 11 in Chicago
15 in Toronto

250 meters or more 2 in Chicago
3 in Toronto

300 meters or more 1 in Chicago
0 in Toronto

[Doady]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's lowrise. (well, midrise too) It's not lowrise sprawl. Those low to moderate density tower in park(ing lot) apartment communities around Toronto are sprawlier. Typically they are set far back in the middle of the property with a long circular driveway up to the main entrance. Retail is also typically set far back from the boulevard with parking space in between.

I don't see the point of comparing Chicago's pre-war inner city neighbourhoods to the post-war suburbia of Toronto. Toronto's pre-war neighbhourhoods are comparable to Chicago's. But the post-war suburbs of Toronto are certainly much denser, more pedestrian friendly, and far more transit-dependent than those of Chicago. It's not even close.

System    Pop'n15   Boardings15   Per Capita  
TTC       2.8M      859,920,200   307
CTA       3.5M      515,964,000   147
MiWay     0.75M     53,300,000    71
Brampton  0.56M     31,100,000    56
YRT       1.1M      30,131,400    27
Pace      4.8M      37,414,500    8

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by Doady

I don't see the point of comparing Chicago's pre-war inner city neighbourhoods to the post-war suburbia of Toronto. Toronto's pre-war neighbhourhoods are comparable to Chicago's. But the post-war suburbs of Toronto are certainly much denser, more pedestrian friendly, and far more transit-dependent than those of Chicago. It's not even close.

System    Pop'n15   Boardings15   Per Capita  
TTC       2.8M      859,920,200   307
CTA       3.5M      515,964,000   147
MiWay     0.75M     53,300,000    71
Brampton  0.56M     31,100,000    56
YRT       1.1M      30,131,400    27
Pace      4.8M      37,414,500    8

Why didn't you include Chicago's Metra Rail system?

Also have you ever heard of Evanston? Oak Park etc...

Your stereotype of Chicago suburbs is just that. There are hundreds of them and they run the gammet.

Also Toronto has FAR fewer pre war neighborhoods than Chicago

[kolchak]

View from Downtown Evanston ...

- Carl Larson Photography

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by kolchak

Apologies. I didn't mean to say that you specifically hadn't read my previous posts. I enjoy healthy debate and try not to post before I've had my morning coffee ;-)

No worries.

Originally Posted by kolchak

The rapid population growth of Toronto and the high rise boom there is undeniable. Chicago still built in that period, but Toronto built way more 100 meter buildings outside of downtown. The statistical difference does narrow when it comes to taller buildings (Today, including buildings under construction and the CN Tower, Chicago still has 15 buildings over 250 meters and Toronto 7.)

COMPLETED NEW TOWER CONSTRUCTION:

100 meters or more 2007 to 2017 159 in Toronto
76 in Chicago

200 meters or more 2007 to 2017 11 in Chicago
15 in Toronto

250 meters or more 2 in Chicago
3 in Toronto

300 meters or more 1 in Chicago
0 in Toronto

Nice list. Would most of Chicago's construction listed above be towards the end of that 10 year period? I admit to not following Chicago too much 2007-2012 but assumed it was because there wasn't a lot getting built. The sub-prime hit the US hard while Canada was well insulated from it.

I do have a question regarding Metra. Can you take it as far as Milwaukee and South Bend? Btw, our version of Metra would be GO Transit. I believe Metra has slightly higher passenger numbers throughout its system although GO looks like it will shoot ahead. GO is a few years into a massive 10 year expansion/upgrade. Passenger volumes are expected to more than double.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by kolchak

Why didn't you include Chicago's Metra Rail system?

Also have you ever heard of Evanston? Oak Park etc...

Your stereotype of Chicago suburbs is just that. There are hundreds of them and they run the gammet.

Also Toronto has FAR fewer pre war neighborhoods than Chicago

I didn't include GO Transit either. I don't why I should have either. Commuter rail ridership is based on car ownership and parking. It is not limited by sprawl.

I think the ridership numbers I posted said all that's need to be said about Toronto's or Chicago's sprawl. Mississauga's bus system (MiWay) has higher total ridership than the entire Pace Suburban Bus system. TTC mostly serves post-war suburbia too. But Scarborough isn't exactly Naperville.

Evanston and Oak Park are nice places, but they are historic downtowns. They are pre-war neighbourhoods. Toronto has Old Oakville, Port Credit, etc. Pre-war Chicago is 3 times larger than Toronto (3 million vs. 1 million people), but the overall urban area is also almost twice as large (8 million vs. 5 million).

But yes, in a way, Toronto is basically the Los Angeles of the North. Toronto is more like a Sun Belt city in terms of the timing of its growth. It has denser suburbs like a Sun Belt city. But it lacks the low-rise/mid-rise density of older cities like Chicago or NYC or Montreal. Toronto seems more polarized between single family houses and high-rise apartments, very little in-between. It's kind of boring actually.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by Doady

I didn't include GO Transit either. I don't why I should have either. Commuter rail ridership is based on car ownership and parking. .

Good discussion.

I was actually referring to the Metra trains that service the city. I probably wasn't clear on it.

There is no doubt that the public transit resources in Toronto are far superior to Chicago. Canada funds public transit. We just don't do a good job of that here in the U.S.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by isaidso

No worries.



Nice list. Would most of Chicago's construction listed above be towards the end of that 10 year period? I admit to not following Chicago too much 2007-2012 but assumed it was because there wasn't a lot getting built. The sub-prime hit the US hard while Canada was well insulated from it.

I do have a question regarding Metra. Can you take it as far as Milwaukee and South Bend? Btw, our version of Metra would be GO Transit. I believe Metra has slightly higher passenger numbers throughout its system although GO looks like it will shoot ahead. GO is a few years into a massive 10 year expansion/upgrade. Passenger volumes are expected to more than double.

Actually a lot of those taller buildings went up 2008-9. They were tail end projects of the boom before. Taller construction is really just now ramping up in Chicago.

In regards to Metra, its doesn't go as far as you might think. We just don't have an inter urban rail system here. But I was actually referring to the city Metra service.. i think I just wasn't very clear.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by kolchak

Good discussion.

I was actually referring to the Metra trains that service the city. I probably wasn't clear on it.

There is no doubt that the public transit resources in Toronto are far superior to Chicago. Canada funds public transit. We just don't do a good job of that here in the U.S.

I think it might actually be the opposite. TTC has 70% farebox recovery ratio, GO Transit is 78%. Compare that to 42% and 55% for CTA and Metra respectively. The USA subsidizes transit more.

Canadian systems are more reliant on fare revenue. The fares are much higher in Canada compared to the US. For example, Pace bus fare is $1.75. Here in Mississauga bus fare is $3.50. CTA fare is $2.00 or $2.25, while TTC fare is $3.25.

Chicago actually has way more public transit infrastructure than Toronto. Compare the size of the L system to the TTC subway. It's not even close. And that's before considering Metra as you mentioned, which has more dedicated infrastructure so it is able to provide way more train service than GO Transit.

I think it is because of Toronto's built form that the transit ridership is so high compared to Chicago. Because obviously it doesn't have much to do with government funding or infrastructure.

[kolchak]

Wow. That's remarkable. According to the numbers I saw Toronto's subsidy is among the lowest in North America.

I think the economic growth in Toronto has definitely boosted ridership along with shaping its nodal (I love this word lol) style density.

One of the things that Chicago has thankfully less and less of lately is the reverse commute effect. Workers in the 90s and 00s moved to downtown and maintained jobs in the corporate headquarters located out in the burbs. Many of those companies are now locating downtown to access the competitive market for hiring newer educated workers.

What the urban boom that began in the late 80s did is paradoxical. It brought people to the central city to live but those people to a large degree still relied on their cars to get to work in the suburbs. This no doubt led to a decrease in transit use that is just now reversing.

The new office towers going up in Downtown Chicago lately are also having a very nice density effect in the central core - buildung tall towers in tight spots.

[kolchak]

150 North Riverside, River Point and neighbors.

Nick Uliviery Photography

[Doady]

The way the river goes through downtown Chicago like that is really incredible. The lakefront and riverfront is Toronto's weakness compared to Chicago, probably more than anything else.

I'm still annoyed they voted to rebuild the Gardiner Expressway. Toronto's waterfront will never match Chicago's. Never.

Originally Posted by kolchak

Wow. That's remarkable. According to the numbers I saw Toronto's subsidy is among the lowest in North America.

I think the economic growth in Toronto has definitely boosted ridership along with shaping its nodal (I love this word lol) style density.

CTA is getting $838 million USD in operating subsidies this year, while TTC (non-paratransit) is getting a measly $481 million CAD. So if you consider 1 USD is worth about 1.33 CAD, the TTC gets less than half the government funding that CTA gets, despite serving almost twice as many riders. Funding for TTC operations was actually cut this year (from $494M in 2016). So yeah don't be envious of Toronto or the rest of Canada.

One of the things that Chicago has thankfully less and less of lately is the reverse commute effect. Workers in the 90s and 00s moved to downtown and maintained jobs in the corporate headquarters located out in the burbs. Many of those companies are now locating downtown to access the competitive market for hiring newer educated workers.

What the uurban boom that began in the late 80s did is paradoxical. It brought people to the centeal city to live but those people to a large degree still relied on their cars to get to work in the suburbs. This no doubt led to a decrease in transit use that is just now reversing.

I think ultimately people should live close to where they work. It enables them to walk, bike, and take transit. Reduced distances is the whole point of higher density, and it's the key getting people out of the car. Chicago shouldn't become a bedroom community, but its suburbs shouldn't be bedroom communities either. And it seems like suburban transit ridership is the main problem of Chicago, especially when compared to Toronto.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Doady

I'm still annoyed they voted to rebuild the Gardiner Expressway. Toronto's waterfront will never match Chicago's. Never.

Chicago has the lake shore drive though? That looks worse than the Gardiner?

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Chicago has the lake shore drive though? That looks worse than the Gardiner?

Nah, Lake Shore Dr is a boulevard in downtown Chicago. Overly wide but it's not as much of a blight as the Gardiner.

Chicago seems to have more attention to its waterfront. The way the buildings are lined up, and amount of public space along the lake (contiguous, not interrupted by private space such as condos).

I thought Toronto waterfront is more cohesive than the rest of the GTA but Chicago's waterfront is just on another level. Looking at Chicago closely, I think Toronto made some mistakes with its waterfront.

Look at South Michigan Ave beside Grant Park and compare that to Queens Quay. Toronto's waterfront seems more like an afterthought compared to Chicago's. Toronto never had such vision.