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

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

I see quite a bit of similarities between Toronto and Chicago. Chicago has more of the large office buildings while Toronto has more residential towers. I don't think it's a stretch at all comparing the skylines. The two cities at street level are different.

Toronto has high-rises everywhere including the suburbs. Where Chicago's high-rises are mostly confined to the downtown area and the north side lakeshore north of downtown.

[WhipperSnapper]

The two cities are so different which is why I believe these threads always lead to statistics on the number of towers. Toronto has made major inroads towards catching up to Chicago in the 300 to 500 range. Should real estate trends continue, it is within the realm of possibilites that Toronto will catch and possibly surpass in the 500+ range in decades time. At such a point, the conversation will be a lot more entertaining along the same vein as New York vs Hong Kong.

[JHikka]

There seems to be this increasing interest in Chicago lately. A lot of people I know (at least a dozen +) here in Ottawa have visited Chicago in the past year or so. I'm not entirely sure what has sparked this sudden interest.

[geotag277]

Of course if you stack ranked the towers based on tallest Chicago would come out ahead but aesthetically speaking it is totally a toss up between the two cities based on personal preferences. I'm not really sure what the point or the goal of starting such a thread is.

There are definitely angles where I would prefer the Toronto skyline over the Chicago one. It isn't a zero sum game people.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by JHikka

There seems to be this increasing interest in Chicago lately. A lot of people I know (at least a dozen +) here in Ottawa have visited Chicago in the past year or so. I'm not entirely sure what has sparked this sudden interest.

We're drawing up invasion plans.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by JHikka

There seems to be this increasing interest in Chicago lately. A lot of people I know (at least a dozen +) here in Ottawa have visited Chicago in the past year or so. I'm not entirely sure what has sparked this sudden interest.

I ended up going to Chicago 3 times since July, and many other people I know have gone as well. I'm not sure if it applies to Ottawa as much, but Porter seat sales certainly help. It's MUCH cheaper to travel to Chicago for a long weekend than it is the NYC which I think is a big driver. And there seems to be a recognition that Chicago has a great food and drink scene (particularly beer) on top of the standard tourist attractions.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by scrapin

Even with Toronto's massive downtown growth which is incredibly impressive I still think Toronto is a couple decades away from catching up to Chicago, and thats assuming downtown Chicago doesnt grow much...which I doubt. Theres no shame in being number 3 in USA/Canada.

The problem is we lack high quality high rise buildings.

The Chicago riverfront alone has more beautiful pre war highrises than Toronto. Toronto was royally screwed over by the Great D epression. It's depressing to look at some of the planned towers (Princess Towers, Vimy Circle, College Park, The Toronto Towers etc) Had these been built, Toronto would be objectively viewed as just as architecturally impressive as Montreal.

For this reason alone, I dont think we'll ever "catch up" to Chicago. No develop is willing to spend the money, except in the odd project like One Saint Thomas.

I know Ive made a similar post sometime in the past year and risk coming across as redundant, but too many people view city vs city as a numbers game.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Highrises don't have to be historic buildings with masonry cladding to be "high quality". Toronto may be lacking in that particular category of highrise, but one must look at the big picture, not just one aspect.

[Beedok]

Too many masonry highrises is rather ugly.

[ssiguy]

Outside of both being financial centers on the Great Lakes, I don't think the 2 cities have anything in common. Ya, they are big cities but then Dallas/FT has 7 million but I sure as hell wouldn't compare it to the other.

Why on earth Toronto would want to "catch-up" to Chicago in nearly any category except skyline is unknown to me. Chicago is an interesting and dynamic city with a real soul but whether as a tourist or resident, it has nothing on Toronto.

Toronto is not nearly Chicago, a mini-New York, or a big Melbourne...........it's just Toronto and it has such a great worldwide reputation the idea of why it would want to be anything else completely escapes me.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by scrapin

Even with Toronto's massive downtown growth which is incredibly impressive I still think Toronto is a couple decades away from catching up to Chicago, and thats assuming downtown Chicago doesnt grow much...which I doubt. Theres no shame in being number 3 in USA/Canada.

The vast majority of Toronto skyscraper proposals are realized. If that pattern repeats Toronto will be ahead of Chicago in every category but super talls by 2020. And even in super talls, we're really talking about 5 buildings. 5 very big buildings, but still. I crunched the number 6 months ago when another forum member posed the exact same question. Even I was surprised how close Toronto is getting.

That said, a city isn't measured by skyscrapers alone. Toronto is ahead by a good many metrics already. Passing Chicago in skyscrapers, population, and GDP are some of the last metrics left where Toronto still trails.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is kind of interesting though that the Chicago-Toronto thing feels real enough that people are making threads about it now. Chicagoans who entertain this comparison are implicitly accepting a change in relative stature between the two cities compared to where they were a few decades ago.

Torontonians started making threads about whether we could usurp Chicago 10 years ago, but they're becoming less common. Our insecurities have vanished and we almost have this unswerving faith that it's a fait accompli. Time to move on to the next target (New York) although that city will be a monumental challenge. It won't happen in my life time.

By the time some Chicagoans entertain the Chicago-Toronto comparison, the comparison will be largely pointless. It might put some people's nose out of joint, but a significant number of people have already looked beyond Chicago. Chicago still holds the lead in size, but by most other measures Toronto has already passed it. Even in some of those metrics that deal with scale, Toronto has quietly moved ahead. Which city is home to the larger transportation hub, Chicago or Toronto? If you answered Chicago (O'Hare), you'd be wrong. It's Union Station in Toronto. There are many other examples like this.

Chicago will remain a large financial centre, but it speaks volumes that Chicago's days as a global financial centre are behind it. I believe it was Foreign Policy and AT Kearney who made that point last year. A re-jigging of the pecking order is a difficult transition for any city to go through. No city is immune from it although London does seem to re-invent itself over and over and over.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Time to move on to the next target (New York) although that city will be a monumental challenge. It won't happen in my life time.

Wouldn't LA be the next target?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Wouldn't LA be the next target?

One could make an argument for LA, but size (population) is just one criteria by which global cities are gauged. Some are arguing that scale is becoming less of a factor while innovation, human capital, and interconnectivity with the world are becoming key. I agree with that assessment.

In America, Toronto's rivals are New York, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, and increasingly San Francisco. These are the cities (along with Toronto) that will be the dominant cities over the next century. Size is important, but not everything. That said, LA will remain in the mix. I don't see Chicago being able to however.

[MolsonExport]

vs. thread?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Wouldn't LA be the next target?

What about Coruscant?

[MolsonExport]

Coruscant is not known for peameal bacon sandwiches.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What about Coruscant?

That comes after New York and before Tokyo.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Chicago to me is a far more dangerous version of Toronto. Though I do like Chicago.

Hey, I find your remark interesting. What do you mean by more "dangerous?"

From what I see of the proposed buildings in Toronto, such as the creations in the Theatre District, I'm blown away. (Not hard to do; I'm from Vancouver).

These, and others such as at SW Yonge and Bloor put Toronto over Chicago in height. But how nice-looking would they be?

I've been to both, and Chicago for me has a certain elegance and continuity to it that I do not find in Toronto. Chicago also has a consistent density in the downtown core,
with many sleek, smart, daring buildings, culmintaing in a "logical" sense with John Hancock, and ultimately the Sears Tower.

Toronto, at present, has dramatic vertical height (look at it in profile as well as the traditional view from the islands! Whoa!!), and an elegant line going down central Bloor, but, due to its lakeshore geography,
does not have, as does Chicago, Grant Park on its lakeshore, nor Michigan Avenue, heading up Lakeshore, with an almost Rio-esque look to it.

Toronto has treated its lakeshore entirely differently, although that enlarges onto another topic.
In buildings, Toronto ranges (IMO) from the imaginatively elegant (RBP), to impressively tall (Scotia, First Canadian PL, etc etc) but has a total look and feel than chicago.
The two dontowns feel and look different, but somehow Chicago hits my adrenaline more, although there are aspects of Toronto - like going down University Avenue - that I wouldn't trade for the world!


Anyway, that's roughly my brief take on the two downtowns. Any futher reply most welcome. Thank You
Anyway, you said "dangerous". I'd love to discuss that further, if that's ok.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Torontonians started making threads about whether we could usurp Chicago 10 years ago, but they're becoming less common. Our insecurities have vanished and we almost have this unswerving faith that it's a fait accompli. Time to move on to the next target (New York) although that city will be a monumental challenge. It won't happen in my life time.

//sorry, but I do not understand why Toronto feels the need to overtake New York. Isn't that a bit pretentious? Or maybe not. Let New York be New York , and just be Toronto, with a focus on "quality" not quantity. (the "quantity" being the sheer height in this case//

......... By the time some Chicagoans entertain the Chicago-Toronto comparison, the comparison will be largely pointless.
Chicago will remain a large financial centre, but it speaks volumes that Chicago's days as a global financial centre are behind it. I believe it was Foreign Policy and AT Kearney who made that point last year. A re-jigging of the pecking order is a difficult transition for any city to go through.

// does this "rejigging, which is a natural and normal sequence, seems to be interpreted here as, additionally, have bigger, taller,and more high-rises? You mentioned overtalking NYC earlier.
Does this mean that Toronto will overtake NY as the third, second, or even first global financial centre, and needs the height to state that? //

No city is immune from it although London does seem to re-invent itself over and over and over.

//are you referring to the Shard, or to the city centre in general, its building styles and designs? But, hey, that is a remarkable and amazing city// thanks for your time