HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 12:51 AM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Building Boom Set to Vault Toronto Past Chicago in Skyscraper Rankings

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...er-ranks-chart

Quote:
Toronto is on pace to move up in North America’s skyscraper rankings, thanks to a building boom that shows little sign of wavering. With 67, Canada’s largest city ranks third on the continent for tall buildings of at least 150 meters (492 feet), but with 31 more under construction and 59 proposed, it will leapfrog Chicago -- which boasts 126 skyscrapers with another 19 under construction or proposed -- for second place, according to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. The good times are also reflected by the amount of tower cranes dotting the skyline, with Toronto boasting the most among 13 major cities surveyed by consulting firm Rider Levett Bucknall Ltd.

Image was taken from the above referenced link.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 1:07 AM
Boisebro's Avatar
Boisebro Boisebro is offline
All man. Half nuts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 3,564
yeah, but for skyscrapers over 910 feet, Chicago still kicks Toronto's maple-leafy butt!



it is pretty cool seeing all the activity in Toronto, though.

<-- Molson
__________________
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”―Mark Twain
“The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page.”―Saint Augustine
“Travel is the only thing you buy that makes you richer.”―Anonymous
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 2:14 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,636
Toronto has long had a lot more 20+ story buildings than Chicago, so this is just another jump in its continuing evolution.

But far more interesting to me than the penis measuring is the fact that North America's 2nd and 3rd largest skylines are in the interior, on the shores of the great lakes, and not on the over-hyped coasts.

There's gotta be something in the water.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 3:32 AM
Gresto's Avatar
Gresto Gresto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,740
Chicago still has more supertalls and better architecture overall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 9:44 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,271
IF Toronto has all of its proposals built (not counting what is already under construction), which is a dubious proposition, I would still put Chicago as having the more impressive skyline for a number of contextual reasons:

A—greater height
B—greater visual concentration
C—better architecture
D—more variation in architecture
E—significantly more skyscrapers underneath this article’s arbitrary boundary - for most people, 150 meters is WAY above the boundary line for what they’d consider a skyscraper... official metrices by cloistered academics be damned - for which points A-D also apply
F—and the fact that, well, Toronto won’t be far enough ahead of Chicago at all at that point on the simple, arbitrary, and totally unjustified metric used by this article (12 towers, or 8% of Chicago’s existing + under construction + proposed tower stock over 150 meters... far less than the difference between NYC and Chicago) for Toronto to say that it unambiguously has a bigger skyline (AKA because it is ambiguous, context matters).

Conclusion: at best Toronto can say it is tied with Chicago.

Also: Toronto’s archetypal tower in the park style is an urban typology of which I am very much not a fan. Skyscrapers often DO NOT equal high quality urbanism. Yay for Toronto, the Miami of Canada.
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)

Last edited by wwmiv; Jan 11, 2020 at 9:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 4:11 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
Houston really dropped the ball. Can't let those upstarts on the west coast overtake us.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 4:55 PM
Razor Razor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Toronto has long had a lot more 20+ story buildings than Chicago, so this is just another jump in its continuing evolution.

But far more interesting to me than the penis measuring is the fact that North America's 2nd and 3rd largest skylines are in the interior, on the shores of the great lakes, and not on the over-hyped coasts.

There's gotta be something in the water.
Re Great Lakes: Good point!.. North America is lucky to have these inland oceans..Ditto for the Mississippi and St. Lawrence . Some great interior (2 -3 world) cities came to be because of, and helped to spread out the influence away from the coasts. Anyways, OT. Good for Toronto!

Last edited by Razor; Jan 11, 2020 at 5:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 5:25 PM
softee's Avatar
softee softee is offline
Aimless Wanderer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown Toronto
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Yay for Toronto, the Miami of Canada.
The vast majority of new 150+ metre skyscrapers in Toronto are being built in the urban core, with underground parking and street fronting retail at their bases, not tower in park style (although there are some still going up in the boroughs) and certainly nothing like what you see in a typical Miami condo tower.

Most of the shorter new hi-rises and mid-rises throughout the city are also being built up against the street with underground parking and street fronting retail at their base. Again, not like Miami.
__________________
Public transit is the lifeblood of every healthy city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 5:41 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Lots of problems with this.

-There is no such thing as "proposed", so not point to comparing "proposed" between cities. It's completely meaningless. Take away the "proposed" and Toronto isn't close.

-When talking about skylines, it makes no sense to weight all towers equally. In this article ranking the Burj Khalifa is weighted with the same skyline contribution as a random 492 ft. commieblock. Nonsensical. There's also no consideration given to architectural attributes, bulk, and setting.

-The Chicago skyline is intensely centralized, the Toronto skyline is intensely decentralized. So the Chicago skyline looks so much bigger than the Toronto skyline, because it is. But obviously Toronto has vastly more towers outside the core.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 6:32 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
But far more interesting to me than the penis measuring is the fact that North America's 2nd and 3rd largest skylines are in the interior, on the shores of the great lakes, and not on the over-hyped coasts.

There's gotta be something in the water.
This has probably been true for a very long time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 7:18 PM
fleonzo fleonzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by C. View Post
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...er-ranks-chart




Image was taken from the above referenced link.
Am I to understand that according to this bar chart that LA is about to soon overtake Houston too?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 7:39 PM
softee's Avatar
softee softee is offline
Aimless Wanderer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown Toronto
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
-There is no such thing as "proposed", so not point to comparing "proposed" between cities. It's completely meaningless. Take away the "proposed" and Toronto isn't close.

-The Chicago skyline is intensely centralized, the Toronto skyline is intensely decentralized. So the Chicago skyline looks so much bigger than the Toronto skyline, because it is. But obviously Toronto has vastly more towers outside the core.
Going by the development threads and database on this very forum over the last 10+ years, most proposals in Toronto seem to get built (albeit often with some revisions), and while it's true that Toronto has hundreds of tall towers spread throughout the city and suburbs, the vast majority of 150+ metre skyscrapers currently under construction/proposed are in the urban core.
__________________
Public transit is the lifeblood of every healthy city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 8:11 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by softee View Post
Going by the development threads and database on this very forum over the last 10+ years, most proposals in Toronto seem to get built (albeit often with some revisions), and while it's true that Toronto has hundreds of tall towers spread throughout the city and suburbs, the vast majority of 150+ metre skyscrapers currently under construction/proposed are in the urban core.
I'm sure this is right, but again, "proposed" is a meaningless term. You cannot compare "proposed" buildings across cities with any degree of accuracy because there's nothing apples-to-apples objective.

Is it a building announced in the press? Or a secret assemblage, verifiable through air rights transfers? Or a building with official permits? Or a zoning change for the purpose of new development? Or a financed site? How do you standardize when every city has different zoning/building requirements? There's no definition.

For example, new towers in NYC are not infrequently built with no new building permits. They're built as technical "alterations" of the previous building, as it's frequently advantageous in terms of zoning. How do we compare such wildly different development frameworks?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 9:14 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by softee View Post
Going by the development threads and database on this very forum over the last 10+ years, most proposals in Toronto seem to get built (albeit often with some revisions), and while it's true that Toronto has hundreds of tall towers spread throughout the city and suburbs, the vast majority of 150+ metre skyscrapers currently under construction/proposed are in the urban core.
It seems that several of the responses are completely misunderstanding this. The article is talking in terms of 150m+ towers and a tiny fraction of those are outside the core (certainly less than 1/10) and a tinier fraction are anything resembling towers-in-the-park. The TITP trend is mostly (entirely?) a sub 150m category from before the current boom.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 9:41 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is online now
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Toronto has long had a lot more 20+ story buildings than Chicago, so this is just another jump in its continuing evolution.

But far more interesting to me than the penis measuring is the fact that North America's 2nd and 3rd largest skylines are in the interior, on the shores of the great lakes, and not on the over-hyped coasts.

There's gotta be something in the water.

commodities.

yay.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 10:49 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
It seems that several of the responses are completely misunderstanding this. The article is talking in terms of 150m+ towers and a tiny fraction of those are outside the core (certainly less than 1/10) and a tinier fraction are anything resembling towers-in-the-park. The TITP trend is mostly (entirely?) a sub 150m category from before the current boom.
If you look at the chart, the article reaches its conclusions by counting nonexistent buildings. It concludes that Toronto has more towers than Chicago due to "proposed" which is not a thing. Chicago has far more actual, real towers of that height.

And this doesn't account for the relative difference in heights. Toronto's tallest tower would be the 8th tallest tower in Chicago. Toronto has six buildings above 250m, Chicago has 16. Chicago, consistently, has more towers at 250 ft. and higher.

https://www.emporis.com/statistics/t...toronto-canada

https://www.emporis.com/statistics/t...chicago-il-usa

Chicago has essentially no towers of 150m+ outside its core (maybe there's one or two, but basically none). Toronto has quite a few, almost certainly more than 10% of the overall total. Humber Bay, Mississauga, North York, Yonge-Eglinton all have such towers. Humber Bay, alone, has far more towers of such height that all of Chicagoland excluding the core.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 11:42 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is online now
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Roncesvalles, Toronto
Posts: 11,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I'm sure this is right, but again, "proposed" is a meaningless term. You cannot compare "proposed" buildings across cities with any degree of accuracy because there's nothing apples-to-apples objective.

Is it a building announced in the press? Or a secret assemblage, verifiable through air rights transfers? Or a building with official permits? Or a zoning change for the purpose of new development? Or a financed site? How do you standardize when every city has different zoning/building requirements? There's no definition.

No clue about elsewhere, but the planning framework in Toronto, antiquated as it can be at times, is very transparent. I would consider "proposed" to be, at the very least, to be some form of planning application. Basically, anything that requires a sign illustrating proposed changes to be posted outside the site. Of course we have plenty of zoning exercises that won't come to fruition for some time as well.
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 11:53 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell View Post
No clue about elsewhere, but the planning framework in Toronto, antiquated as it can be at times, is very transparent. I would consider "proposed" to be, at the very least, to be some form of planning application. Basically, anything that requires a sign illustrating proposed changes to be posted outside the site. Of course we have plenty of zoning exercises that won't come to fruition for some time as well.
This makes sense, and probably means you can compare "proposed" for Toronto, over time. But you can't compare to other cities.

In NYC, there is no such thing as a "planning application." A building is as-of-right, or it isn't. There is nothing that needs to be submitted prior to construction unless you're applying for a variance (which is rare, and rarely granted). So hypothetically any underbuilt lot outside a landmarked/special district is a potential site. But there's nothing in the regulatory process that documents proposed structures. The first required public notice is a New Building permit, but that's once construction starts.

And I'm pretty sure that zoning in Chicago is almost totally controlled by the neighborhood aldermen. So zoning is a political construct. If you want to build a 200-floor building, and the alderman supports it, you can probably do it. What's a "proposed" building in that context?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 11:58 PM
PFloyd's Avatar
PFloyd PFloyd is offline
DownTowner
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Rosedale & Muskoka
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
IF Toronto has all of its proposals built (not counting what is already under construction), which is a dubious proposition, I would still put Chicago as having the more impressive skyline for a number of contextual reasons:

A—greater height
B—greater visual concentration
C—better architecture
D—more variation in architecture
E—significantly more skyscrapers underneath this article’s arbitrary boundary - for most people, 150 meters is WAY above the boundary line for what they’d consider a skyscraper... official metrices by cloistered academics be damned - for which points A-D also apply
F—and the fact that, well, Toronto won’t be far enough ahead of Chicago at all at that point on the simple, arbitrary, and totally unjustified metric used by this article (12 towers, or 8% of Chicago’s existing + under construction + proposed tower stock over 150 meters... far less than the difference between NYC and Chicago) for Toronto to say that it unambiguously has a bigger skyline (AKA because it is ambiguous, context matters).

Conclusion: at best Toronto can say it is tied with Chicago.

Also: Toronto’s archetypal tower in the park style is an urban typology of which I am very much not a fan. Skyscrapers often DO NOT equal high quality urbanism. Yay for Toronto, the Miami of Canada.
A few comments on your points above:

- No arguments with C and D above.
- Your arguments on points E and F are not correct, and they are based not on factual data but your own faulty estimates. Quick fun exercise for the lazy, go to diagrams on this website, and select Toronto & Chicago (include only built and on-construction buildings, and please include towers - I'm sure if the CN Tower was in the US, you guys would include it in the stats). After page 1 (where Chicago has 16 out of 25 buildings, you'll see it fairly even up to page 10. Toronto takes over after that, pretty much.

Your more glaring misstatement is calling Toronto, the 'Miami of Canada'. I can tell you've never been to Toronto. Outside of NYC, Toronto has arguably, along with Montreal, the most extensive, dense, fully functional and accessible urban cores in US & Canada that are served by mass transit (subways, streetcars, buses) and are fully pedestrianized. When I say 'fully functional and accessible', I mean there are basically no no-go-zones, and you can move through the entire urban fabric without being concerned for your safety.

Miami (I went to school there) is several levels below in the 'urbanity' league, to say the least. Taking about a towers in-the-park type of city.

Even if you don't have the initiative or means to travel more abroad, we live in an age when there is Google Street view. Use it.
I love Chicago, by the way.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

Last edited by PFloyd; Jan 12, 2020 at 12:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2020, 12:59 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
If you look at the chart, the article reaches its conclusions by counting nonexistent buildings. It concludes that Toronto has more towers than Chicago due to "proposed" which is not a thing. Chicago has far more actual, real towers of that height.

And this doesn't account for the relative difference in heights. Toronto's tallest tower would be the 8th tallest tower in Chicago. Toronto has six buildings above 250m, Chicago has 16. Chicago, consistently, has more towers at 250 ft. and higher.

https://www.emporis.com/statistics/t...toronto-canada

https://www.emporis.com/statistics/t...chicago-il-usa

Chicago has essentially no towers of 150m+ outside its core (maybe there's one or two, but basically none). Toronto has quite a few, almost certainly more than 10% of the overall total. Humber Bay, Mississauga, North York, Yonge-Eglinton all have such towers. Humber Bay, alone, has far more towers of such height that all of Chicagoland excluding the core.
My post was about the claim of "towers-in-the-park" and a decentralised skyline and had nothing to do with the article including proposals or not considering variations in height so none of this is relevant in a potential rebuttal. And I was so confident I was correct in the ratio of 150m+ buildings downtown vs elsewhere I went to the diagrams section and looked it up. If you search completed+ u/c Toronto highrises minimum 150m there are 102 results. I found 8 that are outside central Toronto. That's just under 8%. I'm sure if you counted Mississauga it would be higher but that isn't in Toronto, and based on the numbers cited it doesn't seem to be included in the article analysis.

I don't know what prompts you to make claims about Toronto with such confidence and certainty ("certainly more than 10%") when you clearly don't have the knowledge base to justify it.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
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 > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:07 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.