Building Boom Set to Vault Toronto Past Chicago in Skyscraper Rankings

[memph]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Agree on all points. Those shorter towers 100m-200m contribute a lot to a skyline even if its not what the eye is drawn to. When you don't have them cities look incomplete or even pretentious (built to impress rather than to satisfy a need/demand). North America tends to be a pragmatic place so we don't get skyscrapers built to satisfy someone's ego.... for the most part.

I've wondered about the NYC figures in the SSP data base too. Perhaps someone from there can chime in as to whether they are up to date. I've heard Chinese/Indian forum members mention that their data is way off but not any mention about problems with the US data. I'd like to know too.

There's a lot of low profile 10-20 storey buildings in NYC that are missing, especially recent completions, U/C and proposed that people haven't gotten around to adding.

Ex this building and the one U/C next to it aren't in the database.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.84007...7i16384!8i8192
Neither is the 15 storey building behind it that was completed 1-2 years ago based off streetview.
Nor this 12 storey recent completion
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.83836...7i16384!8i8192

Neither are these three buildings a little ways down the road
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.83387...7i16384!8i8192

Nor this 19 storey building a little ways up the road
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.84294...7i16384!8i8192

So eight missing highrises just from one small neighbourhood in the Bronx. And that's just the ones that were completed or well under way by the time google maps updated its satellite/aerial images, there's probably more missing that are in the proposal stages or early stages of construction (so you can't tell if they'll become highrises yet just from streetview).

I don't think New York's database is missing any 100m+ buildings that were built over 10 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some proposals missing.

[isaidso]

Below is a rendering of the emerging Yorkville cluster 3 km (~2 miles) north of the much larger CBD. It depicts built, under construction, and proposed. The tallest building shown will be the city's new tallest
and is under construction. A taller building was just proposed to the left of it but not shown. It's the gold coloured building in the 2nd rendering. The 3rd rendering depicts the CBD cluster 3 km (~2 miles) to the south. Even just counting what exists there today I wouldn't classify it as small. It certainly won't be in 5-7 years.


Yorkville

Full-resolution version here: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5599e488_o.jpg





Central Business District

Full resolution here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/157625...30387/sizes/o/

[memph]

Originally Posted by isaidso

A lot of people use the 'City of Toronto' boundaries (like you did) and then draw conclusions that don't accurately represent reality. Toronto is a very young city and was still in the process of spreading out across the countryside until very recently. The overwhelming majority of growth occurred beyond City of Toronto boundaries up until about 7-10 years ago.

In the 1980s/1990s tons of growth went to North York. North York was its own city with its own mayor, police force, fire department, etc. In 1998, 6 adjacent municipalities (North York included) amalgamated to form the new 'City of Toronto'. The population went from 600,000 to 2.5 million with the stroke of a pen. Even with these expanded boundaries, most growth still occurred outside city boundaries in places like Mississauga (home to Pearson airport), Vaughan, Brampton, Oshawa, etc. None of this growth will show up in City of Toronto population growth data.

Using 'city' boundaries makes sense in some instances and not in others. Technically you could say that Toronto added 500,000 people in 30 years but in reality 'Toronto' has added 3 million people since 1990, or roughly 100,000 annually. In recent years, that number has bumped up to about 120,000-130,000 annually. It's important to understand what data represents and what it doesn't.

So you say New York City added 800,000/decade for 7 decades, or roughly 80,000 annually? The GTA (Greater Toronto Area) has been adding 1,000,000/decade for 4 decades, or roughly 100,000 annually. One is city data the other isn't so it's problematic. That said, GTA growth is Toronto growth. I'd argue that my NYC 1870-1940 analogy holds. You've just been looking at the wrong data.

I think he used that 500k figure to show that Toronto hasn't been building much high density like New York was, because when New York was booming it wasn't building Brampton style subdivisions and the recent growth in New York has (obviously) all been infill.

However, the City of Toronto is growing significantly faster than that now. 500k in 30 years is 17k/year. The last 3 years' population estimates (July 2016 to July 2019) are 45k, 77k and 46k respectively. I think the 77k increase from July 2017 to July 2018 was an anomaly but the 45k/year will probably be typical going forward.

The GTA will most likely grow at a fairly predictable and constant rate, since there's little risk of Toronto being displaced from the #1 city in the country for immigrants and with the way the policy around immigration targets works, the immigration rates will be pretty constant. Toronto has also been capturing a pretty constantly high percentage of the GTA's overall growth, and I think that will also stay true going forward with the way Downtown Toronto is dominating job growth, the central city road/highway network being at capacity, the Green Belt, and the GO train network struggling to keep up with demand from the outer suburbs.

I also think new technologies and societal changes aren't going to hurt. If driverless cars end up happening (I'm still skeptical), I think the biggest effect in Toronto will be to eliminate the need for off-street parking for infill projects. In addition to being an extra cost for developers, it's also a significant aesthetic obstacle for small scale infill with a driveway/garage having to take up a high percentage of the street frontage for redevelopments of narrow lots (especially when there aren't alleys, which much of inner Toronto lacks). I think NIMBY resistance will decrease if those aesthetic concerns go away, and overall demand for on-street parking will also likely decrease (losing "their" on-street spot is another concern for NIMBYs).

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by memph

There's a lot of low profile 10-20 storey buildings in NYC that are missing, especially recent completions, U/C and proposed that people haven't gotten around to adding.

Ex this building and the one U/C next to it aren't in the database.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.84007...7i16384!8i8192
Neither is the 15 storey building behind it that was completed 1-2 years ago based off streetview.
Nor this 12 storey recent completion
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.83836...7i16384!8i8192

Neither are these three buildings a little ways down the road
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.83387...7i16384!8i8192

Nor this 19 storey building a little ways up the road
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.84294...7i16384!8i8192

So eight missing highrises just from one small neighbourhood in the Bronx. And that's just the ones that were completed or well under way by the time google maps updated its satellite/aerial images, there's probably more missing that are in the proposal stages or early stages of construction (so you can't tell if they'll become highrises yet just from streetview).

I don't think New York's database is missing any 100m+ buildings that were built over 10 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some proposals missing.

Thx! I suspect once one goes below 100m a ton of buildings are missing in lots of cities. I did find the 100m+ U/C and proposal inventory for NYC to be suspiciously low.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Using 'city' boundaries makes sense in some instances and not in others. Technically you could say that Toronto added 500,000 people in 30 years but in reality 'Toronto' has added 3 million people since 1990, or roughly 100,000 annually. In recent years, that number has bumped up to about 120,000-130,000 annually. It's important to understand what data represents and what it doesn't.

That's also a bit misleading as it could just as well be said that the City of Toronto has grown by about 500,000 in the last 10 years. It was fairly stagnant for the previous 20 years preceding that (from 2.3 million in 1991 to 2.6 million in 2011 to 3+ million in 2020).

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by memph

I think he used that 500k figure to show that Toronto hasn't been building much high density like New York was, because when New York was booming it wasn't building Brampton style subdivisions and the recent growth in New York has (obviously) all been infill.

Sure but we're talking about different eras. Growth back then and growth in 1980 are going to look very different. The point wasn't what type of built form emerged but that both became major global magnets for investment and immigration. New York grew rapidly for a very long time and Toronto has now seen 4 decades of very rapid population growth ...and for many of the same reasons.

Originally Posted by memph

However, the City of Toronto is growing significantly faster than that now. 500k in 30 years is 17k/year. The last 3 years' population estimates (July 2016 to July 2019) are 45k, 77k and 46k respectively. I think the 77k increase from July 2017 to July 2018 was an anomaly but the 45k/year will probably be typical going forward.

Yes, I noticed that too. 10 years ago it was puzzling why most of the growth was still heading to the periphery despite urban planning policies encouraging intensification and discouraging sprawl. A re-balancing has now occurred.

Originally Posted by memph

The GTA will most likely grow at a fairly predictable and constant rate, since there's little risk of Toronto being displaced from the #1 city in the country for immigrants and with the way the policy around immigration targets works, the immigration rates will be pretty constant. Toronto has also been capturing a pretty constantly high percentage of the GTA's overall growth, and I think that will also stay true going forward with the way Downtown Toronto is dominating job growth, the central city road/highway network being at capacity, the Green Belt, and the GO train network struggling to keep up with demand from the outer suburbs.

I also think new technologies and societal changes aren't going to hurt. If driverless cars end up happening (I'm still skeptical), I think the biggest effect in Toronto will be to eliminate the need for off-street parking for infill projects. In addition to being an extra cost for developers, it's also a significant aesthetic obstacle for small scale infill with a driveway/garage having to take up a high percentage of the street frontage for redevelopments of narrow lots (especially when there aren't alleys, which much of inner Toronto lacks). I think NIMBY resistance will decrease if those aesthetic concerns go away, and overall demand for on-street parking will also likely decrease (losing "their" on-street spot is another concern for NIMBYs).

Besides COVID-19, the big question mark for continued rapid growth is housing prices. Last year, KW and London were the 2 fastest growing CMAs in Canada. They have a lot going for them but growth was significantly boosted by priced out Torontonians re-locating there. I don't think many people have noticed because the population increase figures masked how many people Toronto lost to other places in Canada.

Agree about off street parking but on street parking will change too. As the central city intensifies, I suspect many streets will narrow to one lane in each direction. There will be no stopping permitted and obviously no parking. On streets that are 2 lanes in each direction, on street parking will disappear altogether. Minor residential streets may become one way and one lane with parking permitted on one side of the street only. All in all, we're moving to a pedestrian focused downtown. Most downtown people don't drive any way. They walk or bike everywhere. I have a car in underground parking but only take it out once in a blue moon when I'm bored and want to go to Yorkdale, the Bluffs, or some other periphery place.

I'm intrigued as to how Yonge will change once its built out from Queens Quay to Bloor. I'd like to see one lane in each direction, no grade separation between sidewalk and road, and no difference in the paving stones used. They could install bollards that disappear into the ground if the street needs to transform for events like the Gay Pride Parade.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That's also a bit misleading as it could just as well be said that the City of Toronto has grown by about 500,000 in the last 10 years. It was fairly stagnant for the previous 20 years preceding that (from 2.3 million in 1991 to 2.6 million in 2011 to 3+ million in 2020).

In needs to be taken in the context that Toronto is in a very different stage of its evolution. North American cities typically grow out before they start intensifying. That's precisely what's happened here. When the city grew out, the majority of growth wasn't within the political boundary of the City of Toronto. Just looking at city boundary doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you want to analyze the growth of Toronto. It's why metro population is what counts. That too has its problems but it's a far better catchment area to use.

For all we know the current political boundary of the City of Toronto won't stay as is. We could see another round of 'amalgamation' a few decades from now. Using city boundaries make little sense in some cases. The City of London (England) is technically 2.9 sq km with 9,401 people as of 2016. That's an extreme case but the point stands.

[memph]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Sure but we're talking about different eras. Growth back then and growth in 1980 are going to look very different. The point wasn't what type of built form emerged but that both became major global magnets for investment and immigration. New York grew rapidly for a very long time and Toronto has now seen 4 decades of very rapid population growth ...and for many of the same reasons.



Yes, I noticed that too. 10 years ago it was puzzling why most of the growth was still heading to the periphery despite urban planning policies encouraging intensification and discouraging sprawl. A re-balancing has now occurred.



Besides COVID-19, the big question mark for continued rapid growth is housing prices. Last year, KW and London were the 2 fastest growing CMAs in Canada. They have a lot going for them but growth was significantly boosted by priced out Torontonians re-locating there. I don't think many people have noticed because the population increase figures masked how many people Toronto lost to other places in Canada.

Agree about off street parking but on street parking will change too. As the central city intensifies, I suspect many streets will narrow to one lane in each direction. There will be no stopping permitted and obviously no parking. On streets that are 2 lanes in each direction, on street parking will disappear altogether. Minor residential streets may become one way and one lane with parking permitted on one side of the street only. All in all, we're moving to a pedestrian focused downtown. Most downtown people don't drive any way. They walk or bike everywhere. I have a car in underground parking but only take it out once in a blue moon when I'm bored and want to go to Yorkdale, the Bluffs, or some other periphery place.

I'm intrigued as to how Yonge will change once its built out from Queens Quay to Bloor. I'd like to see one lane in each direction, no grade separation between sidewalk and road, and no difference in the paving stones used. They could install bollards that disappear into the ground if the street needs to transform for events like the Gay Pride Parade.

Toronto definitely does stand out for the steady growth it experienced over the past several decades, but no Western city is growing as fast as cities like New York were during the industrial revolution (~1870-1930).

I do think it's important to point out though that Waterloo Region's growth is mostly driven by employment growth, not priced out Toronto commuters. Some of that is businesses being priced out of Toronto, but it's still worth pointing out that it's growing faster than other similar to lower cost areas that are closer to Toronto like Hamilton, Guelph-Wellington, Dufferin, Durham and Simcoe County. There might be a couple thousand people making the drive from Cambridge to Mississauga or taking the train from Kitchener to Toronto but Waterloo Region's % job growth from 2011 to 2016 was greater than the GTA's so I'd say it's mostly that.

The more obvious exurban destinations for GTA commuters are places like Bradford, Tottenham, Orangeville, Aliston and Shelburne and most of those are commuting to GTA suburbs rather than downtown (except Bradford thanks to GO).

[Maldive]

The renders posted by isaidso were done by Stephen Velasco. More of his great Sketch-Up renders are at the link below.
https://www.stephenvelasco.com/

Stephen kindly allowed me to desecrated his “all in one” Waterfront to Bloor render, with my supertall stars and 90% zoom on a screenshot… featuring many notable downtown talls. Other tall clusters live north of Bloor of course.

SUPERTALL LEGEND
Magenta stars: under construction (The One, Pinnacle 2* - *perhaps pre-construction is more accurate - partial podium only)
Green stars: approved (Mirvish+Gehry x 2)
Red stars: proposed (CommerceCourt 3, 1200 Bay, Oxford/Pelli)
Yellow stars: honourable mention- just missed by a metre or two (built: BMO@298m, approved: Sugar Wharf B@299m, *YSL (*u/c at 299m, but on-hold/developer collapse-just a big hole)

Notable Cheater: The Hub proposal @ 304m (258m + 46m spire with a curious box - possibly world’s highest urban bird sanctuary)



Koops65 SSP -The Hub



P.S. I personally love Chicago’s “skyline on a big lake”. If Toronto is ever blessed with a 400 metre icon, I will personally bring a pail, shovel and seedlings to gift the only possible improvement to Chi-town’s waterfront.




http://www.canoetaxi.com/torontoislands

[memph]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Yes, I noticed that too. 10 years ago it was puzzling why most of the growth was still heading to the periphery despite urban planning policies encouraging intensification and discouraging sprawl. A re-balancing has now occurred.

It's not that puzzling. They still left a fair bit of greenfields open for sprawl, especially considering the sprawl is dense enough to fit quite a lot of new homes into a relatively small area. There still is quite a lot of land available for further sprawl in places like Caledon, Whitby, East Gwilimbury and Milton but there's only so much interest in commuting from Brooklyn in Whitby to Downtown Toronto. The recent job growth has been centered on Toronto and to a lesser extent more close in suburbs like Mississauga, Vaughan, Oakville and Markham.

The number of housing units in Toronto still increased by 67,000 from 2006 to 2011 which is pretty substantial, but the city was also dealing with declining household sizes in several neighbourhoods and a lot of those 67k units were 1 bedroom condos.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by isaidso

There was an analysis conducted by the University of Toronto suggesting that 'Toronto' could surpass Los Angeles in population by mid-century. Even predicting 15 years out is a stretch so the 30 year analysis is more of an academic exercise than anything else. It shows what's possible and when but should always be viewed as statistical analysis rather than a prediction. It's interesting nonetheless. Here's my own tabulation. The figure in parenthesis shows the population change over the previous year.


Population in 2019

Los Angeles MSA: 13,214,799 (-35,080)
Greater Toronto-Hamilton: 7,680,502 (+144,566)

31 X -35,080 = -1,087,480
31 X 144,566 = +4,481,546

Population in 2050 if population change remains constant

Los Angeles MSA: 12,127,319
Greater Toronto-Hamilton: 12,162,048

Well that would be embarrassing lol

One thing is certain, though: the main culprit of things not getting done on a large scale, at least in this part of the country (HOAs and Neighborhood Councils) will probably be on it’s way out by then. FWIW, the average homeowner in LA is 57, at least according to this website:

https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/...-in-top-metros

That’s obviously assuming millenials and Zers don’t want to sit on their properties the same way their parents did and let their equity skyrocket.

[nito]

Originally Posted by isaidso

In needs to be taken in the context that Toronto is in a very different stage of its evolution. North American cities typically grow out before they start intensifying. That's precisely what's happened here. When the city grew out, the majority of growth wasn't within the political boundary of the City of Toronto. Just looking at city boundary doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you want to analyze the growth of Toronto. It's why metro population is what counts. That too has its problems but it's a far better catchment area to use.

For all we know the current political boundary of the City of Toronto won't stay as is. We could see another round of 'amalgamation' a few decades from now. Using city boundaries make little sense in some cases. The City of London (England) is technically 2.9 sq km with 9,401 people as of 2016. That's an extreme case but the point stands.

Metro areas are really a measure of urban sprawl; they don’t identify any relationship or interaction from a social or economic perspective between a city and its surroundings. At the heart of a city region, employers and entertainment venues for example could have a larger catchment to draw upon, but that interaction is dependent upon infrastructure.

When people are referring to the City of London – the original Roman settlement – it is typically in terms of finance and antiquity. In the modern context, London as a city is referred to as Greater London. The ‘City of’ and ‘Greater’ have different connotations to their North American use and to really confuse people, the centre of London (from where all distances are measured) is not in the City of London, but in the neighbouring City of Westminster.

[mhays]

Also, "Greater London" omits the commuter belt.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by memph

It's not that puzzling. They still left a fair bit of greenfields open for sprawl, especially considering the sprawl is dense enough to fit quite a lot of new homes into a relatively small area. There still is quite a lot of land available for further sprawl in places like Caledon, Whitby, East Gwilimbury and Milton but there's only so much interest in commuting from Brooklyn in Whitby to Downtown Toronto. The recent job growth has been centered on Toronto and to a lesser extent more close in suburbs like Mississauga, Vaughan, Oakville and Markham.

The number of housing units in Toronto still increased by 67,000 from 2006 to 2011 which is pretty substantial, but the city was also dealing with declining household sizes in several neighbourhoods and a lot of those 67k units were 1 bedroom condos.

Well that explains it. Thank you for the explanation. I suppose we have a new equilibrium between city growth and growth beyond city limits. Seems like a healthy split as places like Milton are in their infancy still.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by nito

Metro areas are really a measure of urban sprawl; they don’t identify any relationship or interaction from a social or economic perspective between a city and its surroundings. At the heart of a city region, employers and entertainment venues for example could have a larger catchment to draw upon, but that interaction is dependent upon infrastructure.

When people are referring to the City of London – the original Roman settlement – it is typically in terms of finance and antiquity. In the modern context, London as a city is referred to as Greater London. The ‘City of’ and ‘Greater’ have different connotations to their North American use and to really confuse people, the centre of London (from where all distances are measured) is not in the City of London, but in the neighbouring City of Westminster.

Agree on all points.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Well that would be embarrassing lol

One thing is certain, though: the main culprit of things not getting done on a large scale, at least in this part of the country (HOAs and Neighborhood Councils) will probably be on it’s way out by then. FWIW, the average homeowner in LA is 57, at least according to this website:

https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/...-in-top-metros

That’s obviously assuming millenials and Zers don’t want to sit on their properties the same way their parents did and let their equity skyrocket.

I wouldn't say embarrassing as every metro eventually plateaus. The LA region has its challenges and the challenges facing the Toronto region will mount the larger it gets. Affordability, access to green space, PT/congestion, infrastructure, and inequality are already problematic. If these issues aren't addressed and fixed Toronto growth could come to a screeching halt.

[Quixote]

Is this skyscraper boom in Old Toronto fueled more by increasing NIMBY resistance to growth in the outer parts of the city and CMA, or rather more a reflection of lifestyle tastes/preferences and market forces? If it’s the latter, that probably explains the more utilitarian look of the skyline, as the bulk of it is residential. Nevertheless, that skyline model rendering is impressive.

[Crawford]

Toronto has a crapload of highrise construction, as well as existing highrises, on the fringe. Even highrises basically in cornfields. As a share of overall highrises, it's core probably has comparable share of highrises as a U.S. Sunbelt city; i.e. the majority of highrises aren't in the traditional core.

But Toronto has so many highrises overall that the core is still very impressive.

[Doady]

Approx high rise count across the metropolitan area to give you guys an idea:

Old Toronto: 1200
York: 50
East York: 50

North York: 500
Scarborough: 300
Etobicoke: 200

Mississauga: 300
Brampton: 75
Markham: 75
Oakville: 50
Richmond Hill: 50
Vaughan: 50

Pre-war Toronto: 1300 high-rises
Post-war Toronto: 1600 high-rises

[WhipperSnapper]

The political boundaries for Toronto have not changed since they were created in the mid 1950s and are extremely unlikely to ever change. Toronto merging with Mississauga, Peel Region, for example, is definitely not what occurred in the mid 1990s. The two tiered municipal government in Toronto was merged into one; bottom tier services were merged and, subsequently, most have divided up since. The boroughs incorporated themselves as cities throughout the 1980s but, had very little political impact on the two tiered system.

I understand the usual patting on the backs and that number of skyscrapers equating to a spiritual awakening. It's a skyscraper forum. This is a real estate investment bubble that now has a controlling stake in the local economy that the city can't afford to let it correct itself. The scale of development is entirely driven on real estate values.The height of the towers is not a result of wanting to build tall. Lot coverage is at its maximum. Going higher is the only option.

I was extremely lucky to get in on this at the angel level. I made my money. However, I'm also involved with several communities where the people weren't so fortunate and the struggle to survive is unbelievable to see in our society. As usual, the popular opinion around these parts is to limit zoning regulations to build even bigger and, of course, taller. In my opinion, that's just a continuation of what we have now. These units will be handed over to investors after many years of construction and debt juggling. It won't do a thing on the affordability front now or in the future.