My trip to Toronto was awesome, the city was alot bigger and taller then i thought it was, and more dense, once your on the streets it's 110% different then looking at pictures.
Now i can only imagine the size of Chicago ( lets just say HUGE )
anyways i've seen alot of people fighting ( toronto vs chicago threads ) all i wana know is how does Toronto's skyline compare to Chicago's ???
Also i think Toronto's main cluster of high rises is more impresive then Chicago's main cluster of high rises.
Also the addition of Trump tower and Downtown Plaza will further more make T.O's main cluster more inpresive then Chicago's IMO, Chicago's super talls are all spread out i like how in T.O there are in one big cluster. can someone say SKYSCRAPER CANYONS


http://www.cjtripnewton.com/images/chicago-skyline.jpg

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~doughb/chicago/chicago02.jpg

http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/northamerica/images/magnificentmile04.jpg

http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/northamerica/images/magnificentmile04.jpg



Toronto

http://www.urbancanada.com/photos/data/media/2/view.jpg

http://www.urbancanada.com/images/toronto/skyline-rate/3.jpg

Chicago has a better skyline from most angles for photographing.

Toronto's skyline is building up at the edges an incredible pace at the moment as the city finally sold off the western lands between Front and Gardiner. In 10 years once that and East Bayfront have been constructed we will see a very different skyline than what was in place a couple of years ago.

Yonge Street between Front and Queen Street looks so dark and the buildings are so high! :D

I like TO's skyline, it's pretty impressive in real life, maybe because I'm not that used to NA skylines, but it has a nice view, specially from Gardiner xpressway...

A Chicago vs. Toronto skyline battle... :runaway:

I LOVE TO!!!!!But Chicago is in a completely different class. With it's greater # of super highs and it's interesting historical mix you have to give the thumbs up to Chicago.

im not a fan of the chicago skyline i dont know why people like it at all. but toronto does not compare to chicago on the streets. they got wicked waterfront drive, beaches, and nice neighbouhoods. toronto to me only looks nice from the lake, but i still love the city.

Oh no, now you've done it Lars. These TO vs. Chi-Town battles usually get pretty ugly.

Chicago wins in hieght catagory as well as numbers of scrapers. Chicago is a member of the big three for a very good reason.

But I am a bigger fan of Toronto on the basis of its top three buildings and soon to be the top five are so close and in a cluster formation. Chicago's Top Three, ST, JHC, and the AON center (i think the name changed on the AON center) are all pretty far apart. Just to me, that decreases the impact of the 1000 footers to me.

I'll agree with Chicago having the more impressive skyline...but neighbourhoods? That's Toronto's specialty...Chicago doesn't measure up in that catagory (as will any American city).




KGB

Chicago's skyline is also very impressive because of the architecture. They have an amazing selection of scrapers from pretty much every architectural style. It's the depth and breadth of their skyline that is immensely impressive. Toronto's skyline can never match that... hence, Chicago by a long shot.

when ever i go to chicago i enjoy driving around, it is much better its planned out , i just dont like how toronto is planned. im not talking about lifestyle, but chicago has more scenic roads and more friendly drive of downtown.

How does Toronto's skyline compare to Chicago's? As far as overall quality and size (of buildings) goes...it doesn't. As for which is overall more aesthetically pleasing, well that depends on personal preference, as usual. Comparing typical skyline shots, I find Toronto's more attractive...I just like the financial cluster then the drop off, dramatic rise with the CN Tower and the SkyDome just to the left...quite dramatic. And with all of the construction going on, the skyline will be extended without losing the tight, dramatic feel.

There's not much of an objective comparison here. Chicago's skyline is much bigger and taller. I guess Calgary could have a better skyline than Chicago subjectively.

chicago has the more impressive skyline in my opinion.


http://goonsta.homestead.com/files/chipan.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/21391121/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/24391747/original.jpg

personally even though i am from Toronto i like Chiacago's better. They have more buildings, better architecture and older buildings.

Landscape wise... Toronto and Chicago are really similar... but obviously.. Chicago is a much bigger city then Toronto. But it is interesting to see how Toronto may have a potential to grow... then I can imagin that both of the city will be look a like in the future.

Landscape wise... Toronto and Chicago are really similar... but obviously.. Chicago is a much bigger city then Toronto. But it is interesting to see how Toronto may have a potential to grow... then I can imagin that both of the city will be look a like in the future.
While Toronto has the potential to grow, I think that it would be impossible for it to grow as big as Chicago.

Since 2000, Chicago has completed eight buildings over 150 meters.
Park Tower - 257 m
UBS Tower - 199 m
55 East Erie - 198 m
River East Center 1 - 196 m
Bank One Corporate Center - 177 m
The Fordham - 175 m
Park Millennium - 166 m
191 North Wacker Drive - 157 m

Toronto has completed none.

Chicago has six buildings under-construction over 150 m.

111 South Wacker - 214 m
Hyatt Center - 207 m
Grand Plaza Tower 1 - 195 m
The Heritage at Millennium Park - 189 m
Millennium Center - 182 m
The Pinnacle - 163 m

Toronto has one 1 King West, 176 meters.

Chicago has four buildings over 150 meters proposed.

Trump International Hotel & Tower - 342 m (soon to be u/c)
111 West Wacker - 246 m
River East Center 2 - 196 m
Gallery Park Place - 150 m

Toronto wins in this catagory with six proposed.

Trump International Hotel & Tower - 309 m
Downtown Plaza - 245 m
Richmond-Adelaide Centre 2 - 181 m
764 Yonge - height unknown 50 floors
Minto Midtown Tower 1 - 160 m
Festival Tower - 153 m

here's a little stat that is always fun to rub in the toronto skyline boosters' faces. ;)

number of 500+ foot buildings (including U/C)
Chicago: 87
Toronto: 13

that doesn't prove anything about which skyline is better because if you go down to the 12 story level, then toronto has far more than chicago, but it is still interesting, don't ya think? chicago simply has a significantly higher amount of the truly tall buildings, AND chicago continues to build more of the truly tall buildings, just check out the links below.

CHICAGO boom rundown (http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=18467)

TORONTO boom rundown (http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=22654)


at the end of the day, however, both cities have great skylines, it's kinda hard to deny that, but given the superior height figures for chicago, i find it to be the more impressive skyline. that doesn't mean that i think toronto has a bad skyline, just that it is not quite at chicago's level, and that's totally OK because few cities are.

Since 2000, Chicago has completed eight buildings over 150 meters.

Park Tower - 257 m
UBS Tower - 199 m
55 East Erie - 198 m
River East Center 1 - 196 m
Bank One Corporate Center - 177 m
The Fordham - 175 m
Park Millennium - 166 m
191 North Wacker Drive - 157 m


Chicago has six buildings under-construction over 150 m.

111 South Wacker - 214 m
Hyatt Center - 207 m
Grand Plaza Tower 1 - 195 m
The Heritage at Millennium Park - 189 m
Millennium Center - 182 m
The Pinnacle - 163 m



uhh, naptown, you're a bit off there, grand plaza I and millennium center are now complete, and the 571 ft. (174m) 1 south dearborn has started construction. also your height figure for 111 south wacker is old, it is now listed at 208 meters instead of 214 meters.

you're numbers for the proposed buildings are so far off it isn't even worth it to try and correct them, but suffice it to say that there are many more proposals over 150 meters for chicago, and i am sure that there are more for toronto. but proposals aren't really all that important anyway because maybe they'll get built and maybe they won't. only time can answer that puzzle, but for the here and now, it's better to look at what has actually been recently built and what is currently under construction.

i suspect you got your outdated info from skyscraperpage.com, which is a mistake. for the most accurate and up to date chicago scraper info, head on over to skyscrapers.com

I think much of that comes from Chicago having gone through a cycle or 2 more. Standard development in TO for residential was 20 floors not all that long ago. In fact, more 40+ storey residentials have been completed in the last 4 years than existed prior to 2000.

Anyway, point being Toronto is still getting it's legs under it. Heights significantly increase with each round of development. 50 years from now both Toronto and Chicago will be very different cities, who knows what could happen.

Chicago obviously wins in size, height and architecture. I'd also add that their downtown/main skyline boasts many more of the ever popular 12 storey+ highrises than Toronto.

I do love height but I'm more envious of Chicago's abundant human-scaled (6-12 storey) developments. Chicago can use some of Toronto's nimby-ism as far as height is concerned to get developers to build more of the parking underground.

"Toronto has one 1 King West, 176 meters"

Naptown - obviously Chicago has and is currently building more 500 footers however this arbitrary value seemsi less significant to Torontonians since heights for the city's tallest (u/c and built) have yet to be obtained/confirmed by its 4 or 5 local s.com editors.

To be more accurate - 3 are in construction with another one or two confirmed to start this year.

To be more accurate - 3 are in construction with another one or two confirmed to start this year.

toronto has 3 500+ footers under construction? really?

what are they?

Along with 1 King, there is College Park....it's now 52 floors, and I'm sure it's at least 500 feet. There is also the 49 floor tower at Cityplace u/c as well...I think it's just under at 492 feet...close enough.




KGB

^ oh, ok, you're counting the 491 ft. Harbourview Estates 2 as the 3rd 500+ footer. not that i really care about rounding numbers up, i just thought that there was another 500+ footer U/C in toronto that i wasn't aware of.

I've heard 492ft, 502ft and 508ft. Most likely it's 492 (listed as such on a planning application) but to make my point I'm more accepting of the others.


BTW, Definitely kicking Chicago's ass in the 300 foot and above area.

BTW, Definitely kicking Chicago's ass in the 300 foot and above area.

if you include scarborough, mississauge & north york, then yes.

if you want to talk old city toronto vs. downtown chicago then its 12 to 10 in toronto's favor in terms of 300 footers/30 flooors that are currently U/C, according to the numbers i've seen. that's not exactly an ass-kicking, but then again, the numbers i have for old city toronto may be wrong.

and if you go back to the start of this decade and compare old city toronto to downtown chicago in terms of 300 footer/30 floors construction, then chicago is firmly in the lead, 42 to 20. (again, my TO numbers may be wrong).

i pulled all the numerical data above from the two boom run down lists i have compiled for the two cities over at SSP.

"if you include scarborough, mississauge & north york, then yes. "


Mississauga is not part of the city of Toronto...the former boroughs are of course...why would we not want to include them? I don't think Toronto should be handicapped for highrise building outside of it's downtown.




KGB

Mississauga is not part of the city of Toronto...the former boroughs are of course...why would we not want to include them? I don't think Toronto should be handicapped for highrise building outside of it's downtown.


well that's fine, but new towers in north york and scarborough don't really add anything to the downtown toronto skyline, and as this thread was a comparison about the skylines of toronto and chicago, i think it's best to compare apples to apples, but if you think comparing apples to oranges is more relevant, that's totally cool.

Well, I really think limiting the idea of "skyline" to just one cluster is short-sighted. There are highrise buildings and clusters all over the city....it's quite noticeable when you gaze across the city from the CN Tower...they are as far a the eye can see. And some of these clusters are becoming quite large on their own...Y&E and obviously NYCC.




KGB

^ this is a critical difference between chicago and toronto. toronto has very significant skylines spread throughout the city and even on into the burbs, chicago, on the other hand, is definitely more of an "all of your eggs in one basket" kind of town. true, there are the string of highrises along the north and south shore lines extending out from downtown, but the vast majority of chicago highrises are located within the greater downtown area.

i was merely making a distinction between the highrise construction habits of the two cities and how they relate to the central core skylines. chicago not only currently builds taller buildings than toronto, but it also clusters them much more tightly together in the central core. in toronto, the 3 or 4 dozen 300 footers that have been added to the city are spread out across the 240 sq. miles of the city, in chicago, they're all downtown.

i was not making a judgement call on this, i was just pointing out the difference in response to valantino's "we're kicking chicago's ass" comment.

Just on a downtown vs downtown basis, Toronto is adding more highrises (arbitrary height limits notwithstanding). The developing clusters outside of downtown is just an added bonus.






KGB

(arbitrary height limits notwithstanding).


any height definition for a "highrise" is always going to be arbitrary. should it be 12 stories? 20 stories? why not 10 stories? or 17 stories? or 8 stories or 178 ft. or 123 ft. or 237 ft. or 57m or 43m?

no matter where you make the cut-off, it will ALWAYS be arbitrary.

to be on the safe side, we can at least make the accurate statement that toronto is adding more condo dwelling units to its downtown than chicago is. the heights of the buildings in the two cities are different (chicago is building fewer, but taller buildings), but the total number of units is still greater in toronto.

"no matter where you make the cut-off, it will ALWAYS be arbitrary."


Yes....hence my notwithstanding comment. Although my guess is they are rarely arbitrary...people will generally pick a number that is complimentary to their agenda...and generally there is an agenda...he he

Luckily, downtown Toronto's condo boom still seems to be gaining momentum...I hope many, many new condo towers are built beyond the current bunch.




KGB

I really couldn't care less about 500 ft. buildings. Who really cares...it means nothing. Besides, most of the planet has switched to the metric system anyways, haven't they?

It doesn't silly.

Silly boy.....you fell for the proverbial carrot...you are supposed to ignore the obvious provocative nature of the thread by a Vancouverite to start a flame-war, and instead use it to discuss projects in both cities.

But we'll give you points for your minimalist approach to posting. LOL




KGB

Besides, most of the planet has switched to the metric system anyways, haven't they?

metric system? what the fuck is this metric system that you speak of?



anyway, for those of you who don't click links, below are the two boom rundown lists from SSP that i made for chicago and toronto. they both start 5 years ago in 1999. because height info is so dodgy for toronto, i included all buildings that were at least 300 ft. or that had 30 or more floors. the height info for chicago projects is far more complete, as the chart below shows.



Chicago's building boom:


name use height floors year

recently completed:
1. Park Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116666) res./hotel 844 ft 67 2000
2. UBS Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100401) office 651 ft 50 2001
3. 55 East Erie (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100423) residential 647 ft 56 2004
4. River East Center I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100410) residential 644 ft 58 2001
5. Grand Plaza Tower I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100436) residential 641 ft 57 2003
6. Millennium Centre (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100422) residential 610 ft 58 2003
7. Bank One Corp. Center (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100407) office 580 ft 39 2003
8. The Fordham (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100411) residential 574 ft 52 2003
9. Park Millennium (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100440) residential 544 ft 57 2002
10. 191 North Wacker Drive (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100432) office 516 ft 37 2002
11. One Superior Place (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116857) residential 502 ft 52 1999
12. The Bristol (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116817) residential 488 ft 42 2000
13. The Sterling (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100424) residential 466 ft 50 2001
14. 400 North Lasalle (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101501) residential 454 ft 45 2003
15. ABN AMRO Plaza I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100418) office 453 ft 29 2003
16. Riverbend (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100442) residential 451 ft 38 2002
17. Skybridge (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100434) residential 421 ft 39 2003
18. 2 East Erie (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100414) residential 415 ft 39 2002
19. The Pearson (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100405) residential 395 ft 35 2003
20. Wells street tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100408) residential 388 ft 34 2002
21. Forty-One East Eighth (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100413) residential 387 ft 33 2003
22. Grand Plaza II (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100437) residential 378 ft 39 2003
23. 1111 South Wabash (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101495) residential 367 ft 34 2004
24. Kinzie Park Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116679) residential 365 ft 34 2001
25. Chestnut Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116848) residential 360 ft 36 2000
26. Park Alexandria (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101483) residential 347 ft 32 2003
27. Sofitel Chicago (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100435) hotel 347 ft 33 2002
28. 530 North LSD (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100420) residential 328 ft 29 2003
29. River View I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=117455) residential 321 ft 27 2000
30. Courtyard by Marriott (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102141) hotel 317 ft 23 2003
31. The Caravel (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101488) residential 309 ft 29 2003
32. Kingsbury on the Park (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101486) residential 301 ft 25 2004



under construction:
1. 111 South Wacker Drive (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=169011) office 681 ft 51 2005
2. Hyatt Center (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=148153) office 679 ft 48 2004
3. The Heritage (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101478) residential 621 ft 57 2004
4. 1 South Dearborn (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=168984) office 571 ft 40 2005
5. The Pinnacle (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101481) residential 535 ft 48 2004
6. The Shoreham (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=171705) residential 450 ft 47 2005
7. River View II (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100417) residential 448 ft 32 2004
8. 840 North LSD (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100406) residential 329 ft 27 2004
9. The Lancaster (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=157536) residential 324 ft 30 2004
10. Michigan Ave. Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=137360) residential 314 ft 29 2004


color code:
red = over 700 ft
purple = 600 - 699 ft
blue = 500 - 599 ft
green = 400 - 499 ft
black = 300 - 399 ft






Toronto's building boom:


name use location height floors year

recently completed:
1. Pantages Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100255) R/H TO 458 ft 46 2003
2. Waterclub - East Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100290) R TO 387 ft 37 2003
3. Apex 2 (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100219) R TO 356 ft 36 2003
4. Skymark West I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=112776) R MS 35 2000
5. Skymark West II (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100309) R MS 35 2001
6. Optima (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100228) R TO 338 ft 34 2003
7. Royal Pinnacle (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=112615) R NY 33 1999
8. 8 Park Road (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100230) R TO 333 ft 32 2002
9. Matrix 1 (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100224) R TO 310 ft 32 2002
10. The Pinnacle (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=112552) R NY 32 1999
11. The Penrose (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=112616) R TO 31 1999
12. 21 Hillcrest (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101425) R NY 318 ft 31 2003
13. Triomphe at Northtown 2 (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100286) R NY 30 2003
14. Chrysler West Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100251) R NY 374 ft 28 2002
15. Chrysler East Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100250) R NY 374 ft 28 2002
16. 10 Bellair (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100223) R TO 315 ft 26 2003



under construction:
1. Residences of College Park I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101448) R TO 52 2004
2. 1 King West (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101423) R TO 578 ft 51 2004
3. Harbourview Estates 2 (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101421) R TO 491 ft 49
4. Harbourview Estates 1 (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101420) R TO 40
5. Waterclub - South Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100291) R TO 387 ft 37 2004
6. Platinum Towers I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=146661) R NY 37 2004
7. Equinox I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=162755) R SC 37 2004
8. Equinox II (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=162756) R SC 37 2004
9. Ultima at Broadway (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=146657) R NY 36 2005
10. 18 Yorkville (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=146660) R TO 351 ft 36 2005
11. Waterparkcity 1 (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=146662) R TO 377 ft 36 2004
12. Harbourview Estates 3N (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=162639) R TO 36
13. Ellipse East Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101433) R SC 361 ft 34 2003
14. Ellipse West Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101434) R SC 361 ft 34 2003
15. Citygate I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=186261) R MS 34
16. Minto Gardens 1 (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=176273) R NY 33 2004
17. Aria (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100218) R TO 299 ft 32
18. Skymark 2 at Avondale (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=140622) R NY 31 2004
19. Ovation at City Center 1 (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=186255) R MS 31
20. Ovation at City Center 2 (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=186256) R MS 31
21. No. 1 City Centre, I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=186064) R MS 31
22. No. 1 City Centre, II (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=186065) R MS 31
23. Radio City II (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101440) R TO 30 2004
24. Grand Triomphe at Northtown (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=136615) R NY 30
25. Empire Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=162622) R NY 427 ft 28 2005
26. Waterclub - West Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100292) R TO 302 ft 27 2004
27. Skyline cosmopolitan (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=156723) R TO 302 ft 25 2004

color code:
blue = 50 - 59 floors
green = 40 – 49 floors
black = 30 – 39 floors

use code:
R = residential
H = hotel

Location code:
TO = old city toronto
NY = north york
SC = scarborough
MS = mississauga







as you can see, both cities have been building a great deal of highrises, but the recent buildings in chicago are clearly taller. that really was my only point in this conversation anyway, so there it is.

now back to our regualrly scheduled discussion of subjective asthetics ;).



EDIT:
whoa! this new forum over here at SSC does wacky things when you use the {code}{/code} tags. weird.

^ I agree. Theres no comparison. Toronto wins in the 200-299 ft category. Take that Chicago!! Yeah!!! Didn't think so eh??!!!

With the buildings from the first part of the condo boom completed and the current ones not starting construction for a while, I figured there wouldn't be many construction tower cranes downtown these days.

I was wrong...current construction is still pretty strong....there are at least 39 tower cranes busy in just downtown alone.




KGB

Is this a serious comparison? Toronto versus Chicago? :bash: There is no comparison.

Chicago's skyscrapers and skyscraper skyline are obviously much better than Toronto's but Toronto does have the CN Tower on its skyline - let's not forget that!!

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL85/949935/2690949/51629311.jpg

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL85/949935/2690949/51628928.jpg

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL85/949935/2690949/51628937.jpg

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL85/949935/2690949/51628935.jpg

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL85/949935/2690949/51628941.jpg

I stayed away from this thread as long as I could figuring there would be war raging. Nice to see evryone so civil.

Chicago has the bigger and more impressive skyline. Toronto's poplulation is growing faster than Chicago's so maybe someday, long after I'm dead, we will catch up. As someone mentioned earlier, up to 5 years ago, 20 stories was the norm for Toronto condo's. Now it seems 40 is. In 10 years it may be 60 considering the number of people moving downtown.

Go Toronto and Chicago. The two great cities on the Great Lakes should stand together against cities that purport to be urban but really are not.

I stayed away from this thread as long as I could figuring there would be war raging. Nice to see evryone so civil.

Chicago has the bigger and more impressive skyline. Toronto's poplulation is growing faster than Chicago's so maybe someday, long after I'm dead, we will catch up. As someone mentioned earlier, up to 5 years ago, 20 stories was the norm for Toronto condo's. Now it seems 40 is. In 10 years it may be 60 considering the number of people moving downtown.

Go Toronto and Chicago. The two great cities on the Great Lakes should stand together against cities that purport to be urban but really are not.
Can you give me proof that Toronto is growing and developing faster?

Can you give me proof that Toronto is growing and developing faster?

I posted some kind of growth comparisons on Urban Toronto on general discussions, but im banned from that site, why because I said America is more tolerant than Canada. So you can pull it off from there, but ill try to find it again on the net. I can’t remember exact numbers but I think by 2028 Toronto will be about 8 million and Chicago by 2025 will be above a little above 11 million. But Toronto growth rate is fairly higher than Chicago’s.

"Can you give me proof that Toronto is growing and developing faster? "


City of Chicago population 50 years ago...3.6 million Today...2.9 million

City of Toronto population 50 years ago...1.1 million Today...2.5 million

Toronto is simply a bigger national draw than Chicago is, as well as a much bigger immigrant draw. Even with Chicago's first increase in population in the last 50 years (1990-2000 ), Toronto still grew twice as fast (in real numbers) as Chicago did. This trend is probably going to continue, when at some point, Toronto will surpass Chicago in population. Toronto is already a more livable, cosmopolitan city than Chicago is...the gap is just going to increase.

Toronto has been on a slow but steady rise for a while, and is really starting to bloom and experiencing somewhat of a Renaissance. Chicago has seen somewhat of an improvement to it's 50 years of decline, but I wouldn't say it's eclipsed whatever heyday it had.




KGB

My fault, I thought we were talking about high-rise growth and development. :nuts:

My fault, I thought we were talking about high-rise growth and development. :nuts:
population ultimatly leads to increase in construction, but atleast you guys did not have to define your city with a bunch of ugly bricked aprantment buildings of the late 70's and early 80's. Toronto has suffred from poor planning, but i think there taking steps to redefing the city as it wishes to emerge to the next level. I like torontos skyline better as it appears from the lakeand i think it will continue to get better, but i like i said before i like driving around chicago much much more, better variety of buildings and alot of the older 1900's building which i wish toronto had more of, thats why new york is my favorite city. what is that area where trump is buildinig his building, i probably drove around there 100 times over and over again, toronto lacks that kind of defining center.

more fuel for the fire :bleh:

lol. just kidding. i'm going to chicago soon for vacation.

i just wanted to show some good angles of toronto

http://ca.geocities.com/elektro_dan/toronto_pics/IMG_2154_Web.jpg

http://ca.geocities.com/elektro_dan/toronto_pics/IMG_1861_Web.jpg

http://ca.geocities.com/elektro_dan/toronto_pics/IMG_2157_Web.jpg

http://ca.geocities.com/elektro_dan/toronto_pics/IMG_2067_Web.jpg

http://ca.geocities.com/elektro_dan/toronto_pics/IMG_1861_Web.jpg

Nothing compares to Chicagos skyline!!!!!!!!

Hong Kong does, New York does, Shanghai does, Singapore does...

It's all on a subjective basis. Thus, I will give you Shanghai as they are part of the ever growing China. However, Singapore does not compare. They don't have 1 skyscraper over a 1,000 feet. Chicago soon will have five (Sears, Aon, AT&T, Hancock, and Trump). That's what defines an impressive skyline IMO.

Hong Kong does, New York does, Shanghai does, Singapore does...
okay now your going too far, hong kong and new york, and shanghai you got to be crazy. chicago is no where in that class ppl who think chicago is one of the best skylines in the world are just bias. Its like comparing columbus to chicago, there realy is no comparison. those cities are realitily new cities and therefore planned out nicer, newyork falls in those catagories because of its status, chicago realy has no world status.

"chicago realy has no world status"

*chuckle*

Always holds true - the newer the city, the worst the planning

okay now your going too far, hong kong and new york, and shanghai you got to be crazy. chicago is no where in that class ppl who think chicago is one of the best skylines in the world are just bias. Its like comparing columbus to chicago, there realy is no comparison. those cities are realitily new cities and therefore planned out nicer, newyork falls in those catagories because of its status, chicago realy has no world status.

Not very bright, are you? Chicago is easily in Hong Kong and Singapore's class as a global city and above Shanghai. Now, New York is another matter.

Chicago's skyline isn't quite as large as Hong Kong or New York's but it's much bigger than Singapore's. Shanghai's main skyline isn't quite as big either although that's sure to change.

omersheikh,

Your ignorance is frightening.....

Here is the Brooking's Institute ranking of American cities(Global Connectivity 2002):

The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy has ranked the global connectivity of American cities. The breakdown is as follows (in order of importance):

PREMIER GLOBAL CITY
New York City

GLOBAL CITIES
Chicago
Los Angeles

MAJOR SPECIALIST WORLD CITIES
San Francisco
Miami
Atlanta
Washington, DC

MINOR SPECIALIST WORLD CITIES
Boston
Dallas
Houston

IMPORTANT REGIONAL-GLOBAL CENTERS
Seattle
Denver
Philadelphia
Minneapolis

SECONDARY REGIONAL-GLOBAL CENTERS
St. Louis
Detroit
San Diego
Portland

MINOR REGIONAL-GLOBAL CENTERS
Charlotte
Cleveland
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Pittsburgh

UNIMPORTANT REGIONAL-GLOBAL CENTERS
Baltimore
Phoenix
Cincinnati


1.00 is the highest score.

NEW YORK 0.98

Chicago 0.62

Los Angeles 0.60

San Francisco 0.51

Miami 0.46

Atlanta 0.43

Washington 0.42

Boston 0.35

Dallas 0.34

Houston 0.34

Seattle 0.30

Denver 0.27

Phidelphia 0.27

Minneapolis 0.27

St. Louis 0.25

Detroit 0.25

San Diego 0.23

Portland 0.22

Charlotte 0.21

Cleveland 0.21

Indianapolis 0.21

Kansas City 0.20

Pittsburgh 0.20

Baltimore 0.18

Phoenix 0.17

Cincinnati 0.17

The City of Chicago, Illinois makes more money per year than the entire country of Russia. :runaway:

I'v been to Chicago and other cities around the world, when I went to Chicago I was not like wow. Now, New York gives you that felling, so does Hong Kong.
I can pull out some retarded ranking system that ranks Toronto as world class city too. Chicago by dominance and size has a better skyline than Toronto, but you’re an idiot to think Chicago is world class city. No one cares what Chicago is doing outside of America. No one talks about the Chicago stock exchange and its impact, and thinks it plays role on a world stage. If you think Chicago is world class plan and simply your an idiot, when ppl outside of America think of the states they think of NY and LA, not Chicago. there are only a few real world class cities, NY, tokyo, Hong Kong, london, and Paris are usally the most commonly considered world class cities.

I'v been to Chicago and other cities around the world, when I went to Chicago I was not like wow. Now, New York gives you that felling, so does Hong Kong.
I can pull out some retarded ranking system that ranks Toronto as world class city too. Chicago by dominance and size has a better skyline than Toronto, but you’re an idiot to think Chicago is world class city. No one cares what Chicago is doing outside of America. No one talks about the Chicago stock exchange and its impact, and thinks it plays role on a world stage. If you think Chicago is world class plan and simply your an idiot, when ppl outside of America think of the states they think of NY and LA, not Chicago. there are only a few real world class cities, NY, tokyo, Hong Kong, london, and Paris are usally the most commonly considered world class cities.

The only retarded thing around here is you. That list was made by knowledgable, respected professionals. Being a World City is about busniess and commerce and plain ol' Midwestern Chicago easily ranks in the top 10 cities of the world. Here's some more info for ya:

[
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world.gif


Alpha Cities:
12 - Lonon, New York, Paris, Tokyo
10 - Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore

Beta Cities
9 - San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zurich
8 - Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, Sao Paulo
7 - Moscowm, Seoul

Gamman Cities
6 - Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dalas, Dusseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington
5 - Bangkok, Beijing, Motreal, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw
4 - Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Budapest, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shanghai

"The only retarded thing around here is you."

The only retarded thing here is this thread.

"The only retarded thing around here is you."

The only retarded thing here is this thread.
Agreed all I said is I don’t think Chicago is the greatest skyline and ppl get so defensive, and spend hours on the computer looking up stupid things to make a stupid point which is irrelevant to a subjective opinion made by me. I m trashing Chicago but in my opinion it’s not world class.

Oh...give them a break...Americans just have a habit of romantisizing their cities way out of proportion...and made worse by Americans being extremely unaware of the rest of the world and assuming their cities MUST be greater than all other cities by vertue of the fact they are "american".

Chicago is just an old boomtown...it's got some big business and big buildings....but it's hardly ever been another Paris. It's very blue-collar in nature. It's a lot more well-known for it's race problems, crime and ghettos, than it is for it's cultural contributions to the world....unless "Good Times" count. LOL!!




KGB

but chicago has more 500+ footers than paris, so, by definition, chicago is the better city. in the same way, chicago is a better city than toronto because it has more 500+ footers. enough said.

500+ footers are the *ONLY* thing that matters in this whole universe to a scraper dork such as myself. having more 500+ footers makes a city better because there are more of them, and more is always better.

what is so hard about this for the rest of you to understand? it is so clearly obvious to me.

cities are not about cosmopolitanism or multiculturalism or livability or urbanism or transportation or any of that other worthless, pointless, stupid bullshit. cities are about 500+ footers, and they are the only thing that make a city worthwhile, and they can be the difference between a good city and a bad city. if london didn't have a handful of 500 footers, it would out and out suck (london is already pretty poor in my estimation, but the few 500+ footers it does have do modestly help its case, but not much).

so you see, 500+ footers, that's what it is all abouf folks.

call me when toronto builds a couple dozen more 500+ footers, maybe then i'll give enough of a shit to notice the city.

one more thing, paris and toronto ain't Old Style cities, so once again, chicago OWNS!

but chicago has more 500+ footers than paris, so, by definition, chicago is the better city. in the same way, chicago is a better city than toronto because it has more 500+ footers. enough said.

500+ footers are the *ONLY* thing that matters in this whole universe to a scraper dork such as myself. having more 500+ footers makes a city better because there are more of them, and more is always better.

what is so hard about this for the rest of you to understand? it is so clearly obvious to me.

cities are not about cosmopolitanism or multiculturalism or livability or urbanism or transportation or any of that other worthless, pointless, stupid bullshit. cities are about 500+ footers, and they are the only thing that make a city worthwhile, and they can be the difference between a good city and a bad city. if london didn't have a handful of 500 footers, it would out and out suck (london is already pretty poor in my estimation, but the few 500+ footers it does have do modestly help its case, but not much).

so you see, 500+ footers, that's what it is all abouf folks.

call me when toronto builds a couple dozen more 500+ footers, maybe then i'll give enough of a shit to notice the city.


:weird:

^What do you expect - Steely drinks Old Style

I prefer the 'new world' and Chicago is definitely one of its premier cities.

i prefer Chicago's skyline.. but if Toronto would only start spreading out their tall ones

Oh...give them a break...Americans just have a habit of romantisizing their cities way out of proportion...and made worse by Americans being extremely unaware of the rest of the world and assuming their cities MUST be greater than all other cities by vertue of the fact they are "american".

Chicago is just an old boomtown...it's got some big business and big buildings....but it's hardly ever been another Paris. It's very blue-collar in nature. It's a lot more well-known for it's race problems, crime and ghettos, than it is for it's cultural contributions to the world....unless "Good Times" count. LOL!!




KGB

Ah, you're just mad because Canada lives in America's shadow. I mean, America *IS* the most powerful country in the world. No amout of pitiful, jealous, temper tantrums will change that.

Agreed all I said is I don’t think Chicago is the greatest skyline and ppl get so defensive, and spend hours on the computer looking up stupid things to make a stupid point which is irrelevant to a subjective opinion made by me. I m trashing Chicago but in my opinion it’s not world class.

You're right, your subjective opinion *IS* irrelevant. I just though I would post some relevant objective information.

BTW, I didn't spend hours looking for anything idiot. I grabbed that chart from the Citytalk and Urban Issues Forum. A guy from London was using it to make a point in the "Global Cities" thread.

but chicago has more 500+ footers than paris, so, by definition, chicago is the better city. in the same way, chicago is a better city than toronto because it has more 500+ footers. enough said.

500+ footers are the *ONLY* thing that matters in this whole universe to a scraper dork such as myself. having more 500+ footers makes a city better because there are more of them, and more is always better.

what is so hard about this for the rest of you to understand? it is so clearly obvious to me.

cities are not about cosmopolitanism or multiculturalism or livability or urbanism or transportation or any of that other worthless, pointless, stupid bullshit. cities are about 500+ footers, and they are the only thing that make a city worthwhile, and they can be the difference between a good city and a bad city. if london didn't have a handful of 500 footers, it would out and out suck (london is already pretty poor in my estimation, but the few 500+ footers it does have do modestly help its case, but not much).

so you see, 500+ footers, that's what it is all abouf folks.

call me when toronto builds a couple dozen more 500+ footers, maybe then i'll give enough of a shit to notice the city.

Damn straight! :)

Oh...give them a break...Americans just have a habit of romantisizing their cities way out of proportion...and made worse by Americans being extremely unaware of the rest of the world and assuming their cities MUST be greater than all other cities by vertue of the fact they are "american".

Chicago is just an old boomtown...it's got some big business and big buildings....but it's hardly ever been another Paris. It's very blue-collar in nature. It's a lot more well-known for it's race problems, crime and ghettos, than it is for it's cultural contributions to the world....unless "Good Times" count. LOL!!




KGB

Hey Hey I’m American too, but that dampyre kid I guess just lives for this kind of stuff, living on the computer getting all fidgety for people to respond while he sits on his computer looking for information to back up his stupid claims. But if one idiot wants to believe that Chicago is world class he can, and if he wants to wack off to pictures of Chicago go for it Dampyre, it's your business.
Chicago will never be a world class city because it falls in the shadow of New York and LA, is it a cool city, I never disagreed, but world class comes on, only pp who wack off to it believe that. People think Toronto is more world class than Chicago why, because it does not fall under the shadow of other cities, is it world class not yet, will it be 20 years from now, yes. And will Chicago be of course not, because NY and LA will always be more recognizable. There are a lot of countries that have many mega cities, and have beautiful skylines, but usually only one takes the world stage, the only reason LA does because of Hollywood. So Dampyre keep researching on your computer and promise not to get too excited, this is just a forum where ppl exchange their opinions. Remember clean up after you’re done, and to put the lube back in the closet.


KGB[/QUOTE]

I just wish Dampy would get a sense of humour...like Sharpy.

Dampy will always rely on stuff like GDP's and "we're the most powerful country in the world" .

I have no interst in living in the most powerful country in the world...it is simply not a quality that seems to appeal in any kind of concrete way....and given the way the USA treats such a label, who the hell would want to?

And you are using it as some kind of bragging tool? The fact nobody brought the subject up is even sadder.

You gotta be kidding.




KGB

Your world class criteria doesn't make any sense omersh, then again you must be 14.

What is "world class criteria" anyway?

Is it what really goes on in a given city...or how the rest of the world perceives it?

Can it be summed up in simple terms such as GDP or population, or density, or number of skyscrapers...or any other number of statistical interpretations?


I think there are as many answers as there are people.

I don't think there is an "overall" label at all. I think it needs to be broken down into individual criteria and based soley on that, as there is no priviledged frame of reference as to what constitutes "better" for every person.

If you have to live in a city where the visual arts are a major aspect...then yes, Toronto is a world class city in that regard.

If you have to live in a city where the prevailing attitude is one of open-minded progressive liberal thinking...then yes...Toronto is a world class city in that regard.

If you have to live in a city which embraces multiculturalism and a cosmopolitan atmosphere...then yes...Toronto is a world class city in that regard.


You get the picture





KGB

Well there must be some type of criteria used, i've heard everything from Paris to Houston being called "world class," but i understand your point.

So...if anything is going to be considered world class, what should be the minimum inclusion point....in the top 10....top 20....top 50....top 100 ?


Should it be a strict numbers thing...or based on more intangable criteria?

Is one painting better than another because of the value the market puts on it? A painting always seems to become more valuable when the artist is dead.

Are dead painters better than living painters then?






KGB

Personally, I think the use of the term "world class" is simply a generalization when you can't come up with specific facts.

It's simply an over-used pr term. People still buy into it....so people just keep using it. Although I think it's at the point where almost anybody wouldn't give it much thought....it doesn't hold much weight anymore....almost everything is world class now.

If your company is producing a widget that has the highest ratings by it's peers, and has the highest sales in it's class.....would you say that...or would you describe it as "world class" ?

I think the more indepth information holds a lot more weight than just telling people your product is great (world class).....people expect you to say that. People will decide whether it's world class based on their personal opinions...not because you tell them.

Although people are pretty gullable....so you might get some attention by using the term...even if it's a complete piece of crap.




KGB

Well, I think Chicago is "world class"...no doubt about that. However, I do agree with KGB that American cities are very romanticized in the media...something that I guess is to be expected. How many movies, etc. have been set in NYC, Chicago, etc.? I also agree that Chicago is probably generally more known for crime, gangs, pizza and Oprah more than skyscraper related cultural contributions. I mean, that's basically what most people hear about Chicago anyways.

For those of you who are unfamilar with America's NFL...KGB is a player for the Green Bay Packers. So our beloved KGB must be a packer fan! The Packers hate the Chicago Bears and vice versa. That explains all...not like any explaining was needed when dealing with childish posters like KGB. He/She has proved his/her opinion as pretty worthless.

How did this thread get to become what city is World-Class? I thought it was about Toronto's skyline in comparison to Chicago's skyline (which itself is a loaded question). Sure, Chicago's world-class, it's America's best kept secret! So is Toronto. There, it's settled.

Boo Packers, Go Bears (and Leafs too)!

Sure, Chicago's world-class, it's America's best kept secret! So is Toronto.

You know, I think that most Montrealers would agree that Toronto is America's best kept secret.

Let's go bash Houston!

Thanks rbt, I meant Chicago is America's best kept secret. Toronto, like Chicago, is world-class. I think there are different levels of world-class. Socially, economically, politically, etc.

What the feq is a packer???




KGB

it refers to the beef industry of the early 1900's that made Green Bay exist. It fed off of the largest meat center in the world...the Chicago stockyards. Thus, they were named the "Meat Packers"...tough name, huh? They are commonly refered as Fudgepackers today.

i think that chicago is a more mature city than toronto but give toronto another
10-15 years and you'll be suprised,with the amount of approved and under construction
projects you'll see some hong kong style growth with areas like cityplace,harbourfront,
libertyvillage,fort york neiborhood and the core so look out chicago!
Although i do admire your skyline and respect your quality architecture.

My fault, I thought we were talking about high-rise growth and development. :nuts:

Well, Toronto does have far more highrises under construction. Even if you set the cut-off at 30 floors as your definition of "highrise", Toronto still has more highrises under construction. Chicago SHOULD have more with it's higher population, but it doesn't.

I don't think that Toronto will ever catch up with Chicago in the area of pure highrise history.

Chicago has so many early 20th century art-deco buildings that cannot be built in Toronto in the present day. If Toronto was to truely compete with Chicago, it would have needed to have kept up with Chicago 80 or so years ago.

That isn't even to mention that Chicago is truely the home of the skyscraper.

Toronto has an unfortunate signature look as well .... the 'cheap out.' Our buildings, and there are many built and many on the way, are, well, designed to reflect that this city is 'financially reserved.'

Part of the problem is that Toronto is taxed to death. Unlike in the United States, where major cities get treated fairly, Canadian cities are poorly treated by the federal government. Moreover, the federal government -- like many Canadians, LOATH Toronto, and do nothing for it, but tax it substantially.

^wtf

I can't speak towards the corporate tax levels in Toronto. And I don't think it would be wise for me to make any stupid wisecracks about the funding we get.

But I wouldn't say that Toronto has a cheap look to it. Anybody who has ever payed $6.00 for a cup of java in Yorkville would not describe Toronto as cheap.

Perhaps you mean that there is a much smaller amount of legit parties that can/will invest in a building in a CBD or other area of a downtown core. Therefore, the size or number of large scale projects are less in Toronto than would be in an American city.

But still, Toronto is respectable as it does rank after NYC and Chicago in terms of highrises inbetween the US and Canada. To me that says that Toronto is keeping pretty good company considering how much more fiscally conservative Canada is than the US.

But.. sadly, the age of 'wow' buildings is long past in Toronto.
The new opera house is remarkable for how unremarkable it is. The ROyal Ontario Museums is being gutted, with the possibility that the dramatic crystal will be constructed from corrugated metal. The original designs might be very impressive, but then, once construction starts, the project gets 'cheapped out.' See also the Minto midtown towers, where the internationally respected SOM architectural firm was canned to save costs.

There are loads of very unremarkable buildings in Toronto. A lot of cheap - ass glass curtain walls, stuck onto the facades of old bank buildings-- and were supposed to be impressed.

How many condos look like cereal boxes, constructed form the same parts bin?

In Tokyo, buildings are still built with an intentional 'wow' factor. In Toronto, they are built with an intentional 'cheap out"- factor. And it shows. Cost cutting is the be all and end all of Toronto building design.
I which I were wrong, I truly do. But we have very unremarkable buildings, even if some of them are tall- going up in Toronto. Toronto's signature look --- the "cheap out."

Chicogo has many 'wow' buildings. Toronto has many "cheap out' buildings.

"How many condos look like cereal boxes, constructed form the same parts bin"

LOL - do you really believe that residential construction is any better elsewhere. And ,BTW, the SOM designs are still being built.

The changes to the crystal like ROM addition weren't a cheap-out. The original idea was just unrealistic.

The opera house is hardly unremarkable either

IMO, Many of Tokyo's buildings are more remarkable for their girth than actually design

I though SOM got canned!
Hmmm
Could it be that they are using the SOM design for the outside, and having some schlep to the inside?

There aren't many impressive landmark buildings going up. And when anything interesting is constructed, the community rallies against it! See the impressive OCAD building and the hostility it generated. It's as if bold design is scorned in Toronto. Sucks that I'm right, eh?

I don't know how anybody can use Tokyo as an excuse to put down building design in Toronto. That city certainly has some interesting architecture, but it is dominated by horrible, soul-deadening buildings that are far worse than anything scarborough has to offer....same with Hong Kong. The quality of housing in Toronto is far better than Tokyo...from every aspect....price, architecture, landscaping, interior finishes, proper access to amenities..etc, etc....yes...TOO MUCH density can be a bad thing.

You drone on about how people move to Mississauga....do you have any idea how far away from work in downtown Tokyo people have to move to? And pay outrageous amounts of money for a tiny little box?






KGB

Yup.

Are Be,

The SOM design is intact for Minto's exterior, other firms were hired to design interior layouts, HVAC, parking facilities etc.

I though SOM got canned!
Hmmm
Could it be that they are using the SOM design for the outside, and having some schlep to the inside?

There aren't many impressive landmark buildings going up. And when anything interesting is constructed, the community rallies against it! See the impressive OCAD building and the hostility it generated. It's as if bold design is scorned in Toronto. Sucks that I'm right, eh?

Do you think things are different anywhere else? The original WTC Towers were not popular...locals didn't even want them built. Even the new plans for the area are generating a lot of controversy. Bold design is controversial anywhere...that's why it's bold.

"Impressive landmark buildings" don't go up everyday...in any city. That's why they're "impressive landmark buildings". You're simply not going to find any city where all buildings u/c are masterpieces, especially in this day and age.

I'm from Toronto, but I'll have to say Chicago definitely has the better skyline.... it just has way more tall buildings. But I also definitely like Toronto as a city much more... there's just a much more social and friendly feeling to it, as no matter where you are, there's always lots of people walking down the streets. Each neighbourhood in Toronto has its own character, which makes it a great place to live and explore. In terms of skyline? Toronto definitely does not measure up to Chicago. They both have their own unique character, though and are both great world class cities.

I've never been to Toronto, but Chicago is a friggin' huge cultural institution in itself, and it also shows in the buildings and everyday city life. I do need to get out to Toronto, though.

LOL - do you really believe that residential construction is any better elsewhere. And ,BTW, the SOM designs are still being built.


Only in Miami my friend, they know how to build highrise residential!

Toronto has many 'cheaped out' buildings. The new opera house is a very suburban looking brick box with a glass box sticking out of it.

Many of the office buildings are a measly 20 stories tall, and are mostly glass curtain walls. The only tall buildings going up are condos, and they are green glass towers --- so many of them, all close together. The whole will be greater than the sum of its parts... because the individual buildings going up in Toronto are remarkably unremarkable.

To be fair, I think the end result -- given how many buildings are going up - will be quite something. The drive into downtown will be quite breathtaking for many tourists.

Are Be, SOM is still haulin' in Chicago. Wherever you heard that they were shut down, your source is far from correct.

Ah, they designed a building for mid - town Toronto -- the Minto Mid-Town, and --- were canned shortly after they released the design. Though, some disagree with my analysis. The fact is that SOM was hired to design the building and much wa s made of that, and then they were 'replaced' by a local firm. The local firm has made some slight changes to the exterior (Toronto's infamous 'cheap -out' look to my understanding, some of the set backs are gone, as is the detail in the crown of the building) and a local firm will design the interior.

Toronto customers are happy with crap, so why should developers pay big bucks for good design and good materials?

"The fact is that SOM was hired to design the building and much wa s made of that, and then they were 'replaced' by a local firm. "

are be....you will notice that ALL foreign architects are paired with cdn architects. This is because unless you are licensed to practice architecture in Canada...you can't...hence there is always a cdn architectural firm associated. The design can come from whomever, but the actual working drawings must be done by a firm which is lisenced to do so in Canada....Mies was technically just a "consultant" on TD Centre.

But I agree...the origional Minto Midtown does seem to be different in it's details than what it is now.

Your analysis that Toronto buildings are crap is of course ridiculous. You will get a hell of a lot more for your money in Toronto than just about anywhere on the planet.







KGB

Ah, they designed a building for mid - town Toronto -- the Minto Mid-Town, and --- were canned shortly after they released the design. Though, some disagree with my analysis. The fact is that SOM was hired to design the building and much wa s made of that, and then they were 'replaced' by a local firm. The local firm has made some slight changes to the exterior (Toronto's infamous 'cheap -out' look to my understanding, some of the set backs are gone, as is the detail in the crown of the building) and a local firm will design the interior.

Toronto customers are happy with crap, so why should developers pay big bucks for good design and good materials?


Hmmm...you haven't addressed anything mentioned in my last post...

Are there no design changes since the SOM plan? I think there are. Isn't the top different? Are there not fewer set backs? Are these not significant differences? I recall some serious discussion about this at Urban Toronto.

The changes to the crowns were primarily due to the OMB decision and the height reduction. The planned crowns for the 54 and 49s towers wouldn't have worked on 52 and 39.... The 52 has the same crown as the previous 49 and the 39s tower has a crown that is 'stepped' up in an angle to the taller tower.

Minto has not cheaped out. If you had any idea how expensive the special limestone 5s base is and the costs they are going to for the interior courtyard, with all the limestone arches, landscaping, water and light features you would be amazed - let's just say that Are Be you can drop your 'cheap out' definition for this project.

Go to the sales office and see the models for yourself, go see the finishes and the detailings planned on the windows. And don't tell me everything will change once it starts construction - the plans and budgets are laid out and this is one expensive and risky project. This project will be one of the premier residential projects ever built in Canada.

Toronto may have some unique buildings to offer, but come on guys, comparing it to Chicago is a clear no go. Downtown Chicago outnumbers,outfloors outclasses TO. The Wrigley Building and Tribune alone make the skyline different than any other (NYC being an exception).
Toronto should be compared to smaller world cities, not to a skyline specialist like Chi-town...

Later :runaway:

Well if your gonna run what's the point of even posting such nonsense in the first place?

^Definitely not to dismissed as nonsense as far as architecture, height and sheer numbers go.

LOL, If it means our buildings are shorter because they do not sit atop a 6 storey parking garage than so be it.

If it means our buildings are shorter because they do not sit atop a 6 storey parking garage than so be it.

But they do sit on 6 storey parking garages. It's just that it's 6 floors down from ground level rather than up.

CN-Tower,

Dude, just take two skyline pictures from every direction for both cities. Take a look at them. If you still think they are in the same league I'd rather ask you take it easy on the pot as you post. Or see another optometrist.

L A T E R

CN-Tower,

Dude, just take two skyline pictures from every direction for both cities. Take a look at them. If you still think they are in the same league I'd rather ask you take it easy on the pot as you post. Or see another optometrist.

L A T E R

There is not a person on Earth outside of Toronto who believes Toronto's skyline is comparable to Chicago's.

Hey dumpy your back! What's the matter nobody over at the chicago board latley? You should be the last person posting here; who gives Toronto a 1/10? How childish!

Hey dumpy your back! What's the matter nobody over at the chicago board latley? You should be the last person posting here; who gives Toronto a 1/10? How childish!


It's hard to decipher that incoherent babbling.

There is not a person on Earth outside of Toronto who believes Toronto's skyline is comparable to Chicago's.

That this topic has piqued interest in so many people demonstrates that they are worthy of comparison. If the thread started with a post comparing the skyline of Chicago to your average farmhouse I seriously doubt as many responses would have been added.

Heck, we're even getting emotional exaggerations.

There is not a person on Earth outside of Toronto who believes Toronto's skyline is comparable to Chicago's.

That this topic has piqued interest in so many people demonstrates that they are worthy of comparison. If the thread started with a post comparing the skyline of Chicago to your average farmhouse I seriously doubt as many responses would have been added.

Heck, we're even getting emotional exaggerations.

This topic proves my point. The only people who think the skylines are comparable are from Toronto or somewhere in Canada.

The fact is that Chicago's skyline is far larger. The only thing up for discussion is wich skyline looks better.

This topic proves my point. The only people who think the skylines are comparable are from Toronto or somewhere in Canada.

The fact is that Chicago's skyline is far larger. The only thing up for discussion is wich skyline looks better.

That you are emotionally defending the uncomparability of the two skylines means, to me, that you beleive they are. Particularly with the last statement that there is remaining discussion to be held as to which skyline looks better, which requires comparing their aesthetic qualities, one of which is height and massing.

If you simply want to judge based on a bigger is better scheme, then a city akin to Vancouver would take the cup as there are some pretty large natural masses in their skyline.

This topic proves my point. The only people who think the skylines are comparable are from Toronto or somewhere in Canada.

The fact is that Chicago's skyline is far larger. The only thing up for discussion is wich skyline looks better.

That you are emotionally defending the uncomparability of the two skylines means, to me, that you beleive they are. Particularly with the last statement that there is remaining discussion to be held as to which skyline looks better, which requires comparing their aesthetic qualities, one of which is height and massing.

If you simply want to judge based on a bigger is better scheme, then a city akin to Vancouver would take the cup as there are some pretty large natural masses in their skyline.

It's pretty hard to feel emotion through the internet. I'm simply stating facts. The truth is that my saying that the two skylines aren't comparable is probably getting to you.

Would you like me to post building heights to prove my point? I'd be happy to.

BTW, land masses are not part of a skyline.

Chicago's 20th tallest would be Toronto's 7th tallest. Chicago has some 80 buildings over 500 feet compared to Toronto's, what, 11 or 12? In terms of sheer height Chicago blows Toronto away.

You can talk about mountains and other irrelevancies all you want, rbt, but facts are facts.

So what if Chicago beats Toronto in terms of height? Does it really make a difference on which skylines look better? No not really! Take Vancouver for example!

It's pretty hard to feel emotion through the internet. I'm simply stating facts. The truth is that my saying that the two skylines aren't comparable is probably getting to you.

Would you like me to post building heights to prove my point? I'd be happy to.

BTW, land masses are not part of a skyline.

The truth is you can't seem to prove a damn thing; and if Toronto really wasn't in Chicago's so called "league" you wouldn't be always here trying to prove that to us all the time!

Do yourself a favour and get a job!

So what if Chicago beats Toronto in terms of height? Does it really make a difference on which skylines look better? No not really! Take Vancouver for example!

I've already stated as much. You could argue that Toronto has a better-looking skyline than Chicago. The fact that Chicago's skyline is much larger cannot be argued.

I've already stated as much. You could argue that Toronto has a better-looking skyline than Chicago. The fact that Chicago's skyline is much larger cannot be argued.

Well this proves one thing; you must have failed English. Did you ever stop and take a look at the name of the topic?

"How Does Toronto's skyline compare to Chicago's ???"

I could careless about height; when it comes right down to it I'd rather have a better looking skyline than a few tall towers!

The truth is you can't seem to prove a damn thing; and if Toronto really wasn't in Chicago's so called "league" you wouldn't be always here trying to prove that to us all the time!

Do yourself a favour and get a job!

We're are talking about skylines here and, no, Toronto is not in Chicago's league. I find it extremely odd that certain Canadians seem to think it is.

I find it odd your replying to my posts seconds after I post them. What's the matter with you; a little insecure are we? lol

What a loser!

Well this proves one thing; you must have failed English. Did you ever stop and take a look at the name of the topic?

"How Does Toronto's skyline compare to Chicago's ???"

I could careless about height; when it comes right down to it I'd rather have a better looking skyline than a few tall towers!

I'm sure that if you created a poll most people would prefer Chicago's skyline. Chicago is more than a "few tall towers". Honestly, that probably describes Toronto better.

BTW, over 60% of people polled prefer Trump Tower Chicago to Trump Tower Toronto. :D :lol:

Well, I think it migth be fair to say that currently, Chicago has a better skyline, but that Toronto -- which is booming-- may overtake it in 10 years time.
The sad thing about Toronto is the signature look--- the "cheap out."

Once again what are you trying to prove dumpy? Honestly you can't seem to accept the truth; don't worry we get many of you around here!

Another thing; over 60% voted for Chicago. Well Mr. I don't have a job or life has Toronto won any poll that has ever been created at this board? When you get over 50 people who vote 1/10 for a pretty darn good skyline you know we got a lot of screwed up members!

Well, I think it migth be fair to say that currently, Chicago has a better skyline, but that Toronto -- which is booming-- may overtake it in 10 years time.
The sad thing about Toronto is the signature look--- the "cheap out."

Chicago has tons of massive projects going on.

Chicago's building boom:



code:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
name use height floors year

recently completed:
1. Park Tower res./hotel 844 ft 67 2000
2. UBS Tower office 651 ft 50 2001
3. 55 East Erie residential 647 ft 56 2004
4. River East Center I residential 644 ft 58 2001
5. Grand Plaza Tower I residential 641 ft 57 2003
6. Millennium Centre residential 610 ft 58 2003
7. Bank One Corp. Center office 580 ft 39 2003
8. The Fordham residential 574 ft 52 2003
9. Park Millennium residential 544 ft 57 2002
10. 191 North Wacker Drive office 516 ft 37 2002
11. One Superior Place residential 502 ft 52 1999
12. The Bristol residential 488 ft 42 2000
13. The Sterling residential 466 ft 50 2001
14. 400 North Lasalle residential 454 ft 45 2003
15. ABN AMRO Plaza I office 453 ft 29 2003
16. Riverbend residential 451 ft 38 2002
17. Skybridge residential 421 ft 39 2003
18. 2 East Erie residential 415 ft 39 2002
19. The Pearson residential 395 ft 35 2003
20. Wells street tower residential 388 ft 34 2002
21. Forty-One East Eighth residential 387 ft 33 2003
22. Grand Plaza II residential 378 ft 39 2003
23. 1111 South Wabash residential 367 ft 34 2004
24. Kinzie Park Tower residential 365 ft 34 2001
25. Chestnut Tower residential 360 ft 36 2000
26. Park Alexandria residential 347 ft 32 2003
27. Sofitel Chicago hotel 347 ft 33 2002
28. 530 North LSD residential 328 ft 29 2003
29. River View I residential 321 ft 27 2000
30. Courtyard by Marriott hotel 317 ft 23 2003
31. The Caravel residential 309 ft 29 2003
32. Kingsbury on the Park residential 301 ft 25 2004



under construction:
1. 111 South Wacker Drive office 681 ft 51 2005
2. Hyatt Center office 679 ft 48 2004
3. The Heritage residential 621 ft 57 2004
4. 1 South Dearborn office 571 ft 40 2005
5. The Pinnacle residential 535 ft 48 2004
6. The Shoreham residential 450 ft 47 2005
7. River View II residential 448 ft 32 2004
8. 840 North LSD residential 329 ft 27 2004
9. The Lancaster residential 324 ft 30 2004
10. Michigan Ave. Tower residential 314 ft 29 2004


color code:
red = over 700 ft
purple = 600 - 699 ft
blue = 500 - 599 ft
green = 400 - 499 ft
black = 300 - 399 ft

Toronto has 12 500 foot buildings total. Chicago has nearly half that under construction right now, including 3 600+ footers.

We won't even go into massive projects like Lakeshore East and Trump Tower Chicago.

Well, I think it migth be fair to say that currently, Chicago has a better skyline, but that Toronto -- which is booming-- may overtake it in 10 years time.


i believe it would take toronto much longer than 10 years to catch up to chicago, especially considering the fact that chicago is currently building more of taller buildings that shape and give definition to skylines.

toronto could build another 3 million 25 story condo buildings, but it's got to get more height to get to chicago's level, and currently chicago is outbuilding toronto in the height department.

Wow, since 1999 Chicago has built enough 500+ foot buildings to equal Toronto's total. Throw in the ones curently under construction and Chicago surpasses Toronto.

i belove it would take toronto much longer than 10 years to catch up to chicago, especially because chicago is currently building more of taller buildings that shape and give definition to skylines.

toronto could build another 3 million 25 story condo buildings, but it's got to get more height to get to chicago's level, and currently chicago is outbuilding toronto in the height department.

Yeah, the only thing Toronto is really outbuilding Chicago at is the sub-300 foot stuff. A lot of Chicago's residential development in the neighborhoods is low-rise anyway.

It's pretty hard to feel emotion through the internet.

Text is perfectly capable of converying emotions and a "tone of voice". Authors regularly achieve this feat.

Anyway, I consider your arguments to be emotional since you rely on exaggerations and persist in stating that your opinion is fact, and that nobody disagrees with you about your opinion being fact. I would appreciate it if you dig out the numbers on the two cities to show us, through comparison, that the cities are not comparable.

Mountains most certainly are a feature of a skyline, not a man made feature but a feature none-the-less. You're welcome to have the opinion that natural areas do not add to a skyline but be prepared to have others, particularly those with such features, to disagree with you.

It's pretty hard to feel emotion through the internet.

Text is perfectly capable of converying emotions and a "tone of voice". Authors regularly achieve this feat.

Anyway, I consider your arguments to be emotional since you rely on exaggerations and persist in stating that your opinion is fact, and that nobody disagrees with you about your opinion being fact. I would appreciate it if you dig out the numbers on the two cities to show us, through comparison, that the cities are not comparable.

Mountains most certainly are a feature of a skyline, not a man made feature but a feature none-the-less. You're welcome to have the opinion that natural areas do not add to a skyline but be prepared to have others, particularly those with such features, to disagree with you.


I just posted numbers. Look up. Anyway, I see skylines as being made up with buildings like most people do.

I find it interesting that rbt ignored my stats and the construction list I just posted and then asks me for facts.

I could careless about height; when it comes right down to it I'd rather have a better looking skyline than a few tall towers!

There's more to Chicago than a few tall towers. You probably think Toronto is better because you've never been to Chicago. :lol:

I just posted numbers. Look up. Anyway, I see skylines as being made up with buildings like most people do.

Yes, I know you compared the two skylines earlier in order to come to the conclusion that they are not comparable. Read that one again, just incase. My question was in jest.

As to the second comment, do you have something showing that the general population no longer accepts the definition the general population gave to the word "skyline" or is this another assumption you have made about others based on your own opinion?

Okay, rbt here you go:

Completed only, not including under contruction/proposed

300+ meter buildings:

Chicago-5
Toronto-0

200+ Meter buildings:

Chicago-22
Toronto-6

150+ meter buildings:

Chicago-85
Toronto-11

'Dem numbers don't lie! :lol:

I just posted numbers. Look up. Anyway, I see skylines as being made up with buildings like most people do.

As to the second comment, do you have something showing that the general population no longer accepts the definition the general population gave to the word "skyline" or is this another assumption you have made about others based on your own opinion?

I haven't done any scientific study on the matter. It's just that I've yet to encounter anyone besides yourself that thinks mountains should be included in a skyline.

You don't get it do you.

By comparing the two skylines through posting numbers you're demonstrating that they are worthy of comparison -- the very definition of comparable.

This says nothing about which is bigger or better for any quality -- simply that someone may take the time to put them side by side and evaluate their similarities and differences.

The truth is you can't seem to prove a damn thing; and if Toronto really wasn't in Chicago's so called "league" you wouldn't be always here trying to prove that to us all the time!

We don't have to prove it to you. We just need you to realize that a ton of low-rise buildings do not measure up to a ton of high-rises.

Anyways, height is not indicative of a great skyline. What about Taipei and Kuala Lumpur? They have height, but they don't have any context at all.

For height, Chicago wins hands-down.

For style, well, I would have to say so as well.

There's more to Chicago than a few tall towers. You probably think Toronto is better because you've never been to Chicago. :lol:

Well who the hell as; I never knew where chicago was until I moved to Canada.

[QUOTE=cntower]The truth is you can't seem to prove a damn thing; and if Toronto really wasn't in Chicago's so called "league" you wouldn't be always here trying to prove that to us all the time!QUOTE]

We don't have to prove it to you. We just need you to realize that a ton of low-rise buildings do not measure up to a ton of high-rises.

Anyways, height is not indicative of a great skyline. What about Taipei and Kuala Lumpur? They have height, but they don't have any context at all.

For height, Chicago wins hands-down.

For style, well, I would have to say so as well.

Ok well that's what you think; however if you wern't blind or retarded you would have noticed that the topic is comparing skylines. It's really odd whenever we have skyline debates all the chicago members seem to try and change the topic over to a height issue and the number of certain heights of buildings. Talk about lame!

Ok well that's what you think; however if you wern't blind or retarded you would have noticed that the topic is comparing skylines. It's really odd whenever we have skyline debates all the chicago members seem to try and change the topic over to a height issue and the number of certain heights of buildings. Talk about lame!

Did I not say that height is insignificant when discussing skylines? Look at Minneapolis.

It's really odd to me that you never come up with good points and that you are constantly insulting us.

Originally Posted by MCC
There's more to Chicago than a few tall towers. You probably think Toronto is better because you've never been to Chicago.


Well who the hell as; I never knew where chicago was until I moved to Canada.

Oh...and to not have heard of Chicago, you must be living in a cardboard box somewhere on top of CN. In the world of skylines, Chicago is one of the most well-known names world-wide. It's one of the "big three." If you had never heard of Chicago and you respond by saying "who the hell has," then perhaps you don't even belong in a forum about skyscrapers.

To have not heard of Chicago, perhaps you are blind or retarded. You're 24, I'm 17. You should realize that Chicago is a major retail, transportation, industrial, and financial center in the WORLD, and Toronto doesn't even measure up to Chicago in worldwide significance, nor architecturally. How old were you before you moved to Canada? I knew where Toronto was when I was eight.

Considering that your tallest building was designed by a notorious Chicago-born architecture firm and resembles Aon Center in form, and that Scotiabank looks to me like a rip-off of Three First National Banks Plaza, perhaps you should research some Chicago architecture more often.

If you are that ignorant of Chicago then stop insulting our intelligence.

I think that there are some great things going on in Toronto, but I also believe that it is truly incomparable. Try as you might, but you will never convince the majority of people that Toronto is even close to Chicago. Again, I emphasize, I don't give a shit about height. I think that the Petronas Towers are ugly.

Chicago just looks better, and we have the popular support to prove it.

:bash:

Well, Toronto does have far more highrises under construction. Even if you set the cut-off at 30 floors as your definition of "highrise", Toronto still has more highrises under construction. Chicago SHOULD have more with it's higher population, but it doesn't.

Can I get a source for this?

Chicago is just an old boomtown...it's got some big business and big buildings....but it's hardly ever been another Paris. It's very blue-collar in nature. It's a lot more well-known for it's race problems, crime and ghettos, than it is for it's cultural contributions to the world....unless "Good Times" count. LOL!!

KGB

Cultural Contributions? bull shit. We have one of the best art museums in the world (Art Institute of Chicago), as well as two of the best concert musical groups in the world, the Lyric Opera and CSO. We are the home of the blues and somewhat jazz. We are the home of the skyscraper, for crying out loud.

We have some of the best hospitals in the world, and two of the best medical schools and business schools.

We dye the river green for St. Patty's. We are adamant about our heritage and our diversity.

What does Toronto have in terms of culture? The Blue Jays?

I want you to show me a city that takes more pride in its cultural diversity and music/arts.

Chicago will never be a world class city because it falls in the shadow of New York and LA, is it a cool city, I never disagreed, but world class comes on, only pp who wack off to it believe that. People think Toronto is more world class than Chicago why, because it does not fall under the shadow of other cities, is it world class not yet, will it be 20 years from now, yes. And will Chicago be of course not, because NY and LA will always be more recognizable. There are a lot of countries that have many mega cities, and have beautiful skylines, but usually only one takes the world stage, the only reason LA does because of Hollywood. So Dampyre keep researching on your computer and promise not to get too excited, this is just a forum where ppl exchange their opinions. Remember clean up after you’re done, and to put the lube back in the closet.

You can't even say that Chicago falls in the shadow of LA. That is just crap. We are far above falling into the shadow. Do a little more research before you say that.

"Can you give me proof that Toronto is growing and developing faster? "

City of Chicago population 50 years ago...3.6 million Today...2.9 million

City of Toronto population 50 years ago...1.1 million Today...2.5 million

Toronto is simply a bigger national draw than Chicago is, as well as a much bigger immigrant draw. Even with Chicago's first increase in population in the last 50 years (1990-2000 ), Toronto still grew twice as fast (in real numbers) as Chicago did. This trend is probably going to continue, when at some point, Toronto will surpass Chicago in population. Toronto is already a more livable, cosmopolitan city than Chicago is...the gap is just going to increase.

Toronto has been on a slow but steady rise for a while, and is really starting to bloom and experiencing somewhat of a Renaissance. Chicago has seen somewhat of an improvement to it's 50 years of decline, but I wouldn't say it's eclipsed whatever heyday it had.

KGB

The fact is that Chicago's urban area is still growing, but people are moving out of the city for the suburbs because we are Midwesterners and like our own home (or, at least, some of us do).

And cosmopolitan? Have you ever been on Michigan Avenue?

okay now your going too far, hong kong and new york, and shanghai you got to be crazy. chicago is no where in that class ppl who think chicago is one of the best skylines in the world are just bias. Its like comparing columbus to chicago, there realy is no comparison. those cities are realitily new cities and therefore planned out nicer, newyork falls in those catagories because of its status, chicago realy has no world status.

^WTF? Do you know anything about urban architecture and development? Chicago started the skyscraper craze back in the 1800s. If no one thinks that we are important, then why are we consistently ranked as one of the top three in the world by international discussions, forums, and companies?

I'm going into international business and finance, and I will tell you right now that Chicago plays a major part of international business. by far, the majority of grain and livestock in the world go through CBOT or CME.
____________________________________________

Sorry about all of the posts, but I was looking back through and had to respond.

^ I agree. Theres no comparison. Toronto wins in the 200-299 ft category. Take that Chicago!! Yeah!!! Didn't think so eh??!!!

You should realize that unless it is an awesome design, and I'm sure that most of yours aren't, then we don't really care about buildings under 500-600 feet.

^Can I get a source for this?

According to our "bible" - A highrise is a building of 12 storeys or higher than 35m.

Toronto - 55 U/C
Chicago - 27 u/C

30 storeys or more

Toronto - 19 (The 360 now U/C)
Chicago - ~8
Mississauga - 8 (2X30 storey Capital towers now U/C)

500 feet or more

Chicago - 5
Toronto - 1 + 2 (unconfirmed)

Source: S.com

"You should realize that Chicago is a major retail, transportation, industrial, and financial center in the WORLD, and Toronto doesn't even measure up to Chicago in worldwide significance, nor architecturally."

LMAO - and Toronto is only a fur-trading outpost. It's dominance in Canada is meaningless

Architecture is a matter of perspective - a post-modernist society has little history and therefore considers it of little importance.

Anyways, We are familiar with Chicago's storied architectural firms but I wouldn't so quickly dismiss Toronto's rapidly rising firms/divisions which are heavily involved in Asia with some of the largest project ever conceived

"that Scotiabank looks to me like a rip-off of Three First National Banks Plaza, perhaps you should research some Chicago architecture more often."

Well then, might as well say everything is a rip-off.

"You should realize that Chicago is a major retail, transportation, industrial, and financial center in the WORLD, and Toronto doesn't even measure up to Chicago in worldwide significance, nor architecturally."

LMAO - and Toronto is only a fur-trading outpost. It's dominance in Canada is meaningless.

Do you really think that I don't know what a high-rise is? My favorite building of all time is the midgit 19-floor Inland Steel Building...and it is SHORT.

I'm just saying that If he's into buildings, then he shouldn't be so ignorant of Chicago's presence. I shouldn't have said that Toronto doesn't measure up, though it is significantly a smaller deal economically.

I'm just frightened by CNTower's ignorance.

No one cares about twelve story buildings except Torontonians. They barely have an impact on the skyline.

At least go there so you have some credibility. Then again, most Toronto forumers have never been to Chicago anyway.

I'm going into international business and finance, and I will tell you right now that Chicago plays a major part of international business.

Good. Then you also realize that Toronto has one of the fastest growing roles in international business, particularly finance.

I think a big issue is that most outside of Toronto see Toronto as it was even as little as 5 years ago without realizing that quite a bit has changed since then. A majority of Torontonians (on this forum) are looking 5 to 10 years ahead.

I suppose that is true for the residents of most citiies. Tourists see what you have, and residents see what will be.

What does Toronto have in terms of culture?

Art galleries, general museums and performing arts related are undergoing $200M+ expansions. These had regional (300km) to national draws previously and the expansions are bound to grant an international appeal. Most of the funds are from donations with some government funding equal to taxes they are expected to pay for development. They're all tourist attractions though that much of the local population ignores.

About 50% of the population has immigrated from other countries and they have each brought a segment of their culture to their own area. There is not another city with a larger variety of restaurants and minor attractions (small specialty art galleries, restaurants, concerts, etc.).

Someone wrote about their 48 hours in Toronto and what they did without hitting any significant attraction.
http://www.tdbab.com/toronto48.htm

It's not big ticket items (although those are developing) but the thousands of little items that make Toronto a great place to live (for me).

POINTZ:
1. Toronto is a better place to live than to visit.

2, I've been to Paris, New York, London, and Tokyo-- and I can assure you - at least Paris and London, blow the sox off of both Toronto and Chicago as tourist destinations -- (Cities with both a thousand years of history and that are former capitals of global empires always make for interesting cities. )

3, Toronto is taxed to freaking death -- it is a surprisingly poor city due to the obscene taxation. As a result, there is less money for expensive buildings. The constructed building is almost always a cheap imitation of the glorious original plans. It pains me to call Toronto's signature style the 'cheap out' but it is sadly, factually correct. (Take note at how the actual results of One King West is nowhere near as dramatic as the original plan. Sucks that I'm right.)

4, many of the buildings going up in Toronto fall into 2 categories: 1 Cereal box inspired brick buildings. 2, Glass pitcher inspired glass curtain walls.

5, Chicago has the better skyline. This can be explained, at least partially, by the fact that Toronto is LOATHED - flat out HATED by the rest of the country. Both the federal and provincial governments score cheap political points by screwing Toronto. Helping Toronto is a bad political move. Toronto pays the bills for the country, and thus, doesn't have the money to help itself, never mind have money for frivolous luxuries, such as interesting architecture and good materials. Further, this obscene taxation is rustling in sprawl and suburban office parks.

6, Chicago wins. Hands down. And there are many reasons for this-- and they are not all the fault of the people who live in Toronto.

POINTZ:
1. Toronto is a better place to live than to visit.

2, I've been to Paris, New York, London, and Tokyo-- and I can assure you - at least Paris and London, blow the sox off of both Toronto and Chicago as tourist destinations -- (Cities with both a thousand years of history and that are former capitals of global empires always make for interesting cities. )



Im sure they do...however, if you've lived in Toronto for most of your life you can't really give an accurate assesment of it as a tourist destination...

Do you really think that I don't know what a high-rise is?

I'm just saying that If he's into buildings, then he shouldn't be so ignorant of Chicago's presence. I shouldn't have said that Toronto doesn't measure up, though it is significantly a smaller deal economically.

I'm just frightened by CNTower's ignorance.

I can't seem to figure out why all the chicago members keep coming back to respond; if you know for a fact that Chicago is better (even though it's not) then why do you and your goons keep coming back? I mean if the topic was stupid then you wouldn't have pages of comments now would you? Every Toronto vs Chicago thread has turned out like this; it only means one thing!
They are insecure about there own city and rightfully they should be! We're going to take Chicago; maybe not today or tommorow but one day we will; we can see you tremble; just look at your patethic posts. It says enough!

Now run along back to your abandonned board where nobody ever posts. What's the matter you send all your goons over here?

Im sure there are plenty of Chicago forum members that can give a rats ass about the useless ranting going on both sides, and when Toronto does "take" Chicago; whatever that means, i hope you can finally sleep better at night cntower.

Im sure there are plenty of Chicago forum members that can give a rats ass about the useless ranting going on both sides

Well said.

All right. I'll shut up. The only reason that I was on here is because someone put a link to it on the Chicago boards.

Its kind of funny how the Chicago forumers are so uneasy about their city that they have to keep going off topic. :fiddle:

Don't get shot :runaway: eeeekkkkkk

As a Torontonian who has never been to Chicago, I'll add my honest impressions.

From what I have seen, Chicago has much better architecture in terms of design. I think few rational people would argue that point. Plenty of beautifully classical buildings compared with the mainly functional look of T.O.'s buildings. As for which city has a more "impressive" or imposing skyline, once again Chicago wins, but certainly not by a large margin. As the birthplace of the skyscraper, a city that started erecting them in the 19th century, it's only natural that Chicago be one of the frontrunners; however, Toronto is no slouch in the height and quantity stakes by any means.

...Toronto is no slouch in the height and quantity stakes by any means.
True, but sadly, Toronto is a slouch when it comes to QUALITY! Perhaps Toronto can learn from Chicago. Perhaps Chicago has stricter rules regarding design. In Toronto, by and large, anything goes.

True, but sadly, Toronto is a slouch when it comes to QUALITY! Perhaps Toronto can learn from Chicago. Perhaps Chicago has stricter rules regarding design. In Toronto, by and large, anything goes.

Chicago has a huge problem with the quality and design of their newer buildings...there was an article posted from a Chicago newspaper a while back on the terrible quality and design of their newer buildings.

As for which city has a more "impressive" or imposing skyline, once again Chicago wins, but certainly not by a large margin. .

Well, that depends on what you consider to be a large margin.

Completed only, not including under contruction/proposed

300+ meter buildings:

Chicago-5
Toronto-0(1 if counting th CN Tower)

200+ Meter buildings:

Chicago-22
Toronto-6

150+ meter buildings:

Chicago-85
Toronto-11


I'd say that these statistics show that Chicago does indeed beat Toronto by a "large margin".

:bash:

no comment

:bash: Third fortune: How can you compare Titan and apprentice,
haugh... :bash:

The only thing is that Toronto is up and coming

Chicago is past its prime, sure there's gonna b the trump tower and that waterthingy tower, but after that, Chi-town aint got shit

Currently, Chicago is much, much better(skyline wise) but you doint know what the future holds for Toronto

I predict that there will be about 7-10 more 800-1200 foot buildings in Toronto by 2012

You cant really say the same thing for Chicago

Chicago's skyline is NOT comparable with Toronto's. Chicago hands down is the best!!

I think it's very comparable to Chicago...in the sense that both cities have a very large and diversified collection of highrise styles from the earliest to the latest eras. This is not something you find that often....asian and european cities don't have much of the older stuff and a lot NA cities haven't seen as much newer stuff as those two cities. Both cities have over 1000 highrises in their skyline as well (with Toronto haveing considerably more than Chicago)...not something you find very often either.

But while they may be comparable...I think Chicago "wins" easily, as their collection includes more important examples as well as being more prominent based on the average height being taller.






KGB

The only thing is that Toronto is up and coming

Chicago is past its prime, sure there's gonna b the trump tower and that waterthingy tower, but after that, Chi-town aint got shit

Currently, Chicago is much, much better(skyline wise) but you doint know what the future holds for Toronto

I predict that there will be about 7-10 more 800-1200 foot buildings in Toronto by 2012

You cant really say the same thing for Chicago

chicago will get just as many or more the only diffrence it wont have as big of an impact as those building will in toronto, if they are ugly like most new buildings in toronto, then toronto will lose its chance to compete. right now toronto is at a crossroads it can do spectacular things and truley become world renowned or take the direction they are closer to taking as of now with stupid height restriction and no laws against bad and common architectecture they will end up messing up this oppurtunity.

The only thing is that Toronto is up and coming

Chicago is past its prime, sure there's gonna b the trump tower and that waterthingy tower, but after that, Chi-town aint got shit

Currently, Chicago is much, much better(skyline wise) but you doint know what the future holds for Toronto

I predict that there will be about 7-10 more 800-1200 foot buildings in Toronto by 2012

You cant really say the same thing for Chicago

Delusions and dreams are sometimes indistinguishable. Anyway, I'll ignore your ignorant comments about Chicago. I'm used to that type of utter nonsense coming from way up north.

"Anyway, I'll ignore your ignorant comments about Chicago. "

followed by.....

"I'm used to that type of utter nonsense coming from way up north."


Not only are you not ingnoring it, you counter with it. But then again, does anyone expect Dampy to contribute anything but some kind of racist or bigoted comments?

What is it with Chicago and anger? Could there be some kind of connection between that and it's reign as the murder capital of a murder-happy USA?






KGB

"Anyway, I'll ignore your ignorant comments about Chicago. "

followed by.....

"I'm used to that type of utter nonsense coming from way up north."


Not only are you not ingnoring it, you counter with it. But then again, does anyone expect Dampy to contribute anything but some kind of racist or bigoted comments?

What is it with Chicago and anger? Could there be some kind of connection between that and it's reign as the murder capital of a murder-happy USA?






KGB

As usual, you ignore the true instigator and focus on the response. How....typical.

The instigator of what? You are the one who makes a hobby of trolling the Toronto board being a racist and bigot. As far as the Chi vs TO thing....there is nothing that can be said that hasn't already been said a million times before in that age-old debate. We just keep repeating ourselves...myself included.






KGB

There is no comparison. Chicago is simply bigger and better. Toronto is a great place to visit but I was dissappointed in its rather small boxy skyline. Small in pictures and even smaller in person.

^^^ Toronto's skyline is definitely nothing close to Chicago's in quality, but I cannot believe you visited the city and said it has a rather "small" skyline. Outside of NYC and Chicago, it doesn't get any bigger than T.O. in North America...even if most of it is boxy.

The instigator of what? You are the one who makes a hobby of trolling the Toronto board being a racist and bigot. As far as the Chi vs TO thing....there is nothing that can be said that hasn't already been said a million times before in that age-old debate. We just keep repeating ourselves...myself included.






KGB


Yep...that's pretty much all he does. Guess it makes him feel special.

Chicago is past its prime, sure there's gonna b the trump tower and that waterthingy tower, but after that, Chi-town aint got shit

and what special info do you have access to that allows you to say "chi-town ain't got shit"? how do you know that there aren't more super-towers being planned for the windy city right now? wolf point has been thrown around as a potential super-tall with rumored interest from a certain donald trump. i'd just like to know how in the hell you arrived at the conclusion that chicago is past it's prime and that trump chicago and waterview tower will be the only skyscrapers to ever be built in the upcoming future for chicago. i suspect that you have absolutely no factual basis upon which you are making this claim because it is ridiculous to sincerely put forth such nonsense.









Currently, Chicago is much, much better(skyline wise) but you doint know what the future holds for Toronto

ok, i agree with this statement, i do agree that chicago currently has the better skyline and that the future is difficult to predict. toronto may indeed end up with a larger, taller central skyline somewhere down the line, but that's hardly a foregone conclusion. it's merely one possibility out of many.









I predict that there will be about 7-10 more 800-1200 foot buildings in Toronto by 2012

You cant really say the same thing for Chicago

and this is based on what? again, what is your source for all this incredibly vague info? chicago will ONLY build two more towers over 800 ft. from now until the end of time, meanwhile toronto will build 7-10 of them before 2012? huh? that scenario may well occurr, we can't know the future for certain, but how the hell did you arrive at this "chicago is done, but toronto will keep on trucking" conclusion? recent construction activity in chicago points in a completely different direction. i think it's FAR MORE LIKELY that both toronto and chicago will continue to make significant additions to their respective skylines for the forseeable future.

Oh...don't pay any attention....nobody in their right mind would be counting Chicago out of the highrise game at any time....it always manages to put them up. Besides, isn't Chicago going through a bit of a renaisance period? I think Chicago is due for a few more major towers before things cool down. Chicago doesn't rest on it's laurels very long when building skyscrapers either.

I think we will just see more of the same...Toronto will add more highrises, but Chicago will put up fewer, but generally taller buildings. Although I think Toronto will see a little flurry of pretty tall buildings in the 500-1000 ft range that will seem like a big deal.




KGB

Toronto will put up a bunch of 350 to 450 foot tall buildings, very few of which, if any, will be of any kind of merit. Let's face facts: there is very little 'wow' to any of Toronto's buildings. Toronto's buildings are very bland. Toronto taxed to death-- and it is only natural that our buildings reflect this. We'd build better buildings if we could. It's not that we don't earn the money, it's that we don't have it. The OCA&D table top is unique for not sucking. Our opera house is very pedestrian (though acoustically sound, which is more important than being any kind of landmark.)

Besides, isn't Chicago going through a bit of a renaisance period? I think Chicago is due for a few more major towers before things cool down. Chicago doesn't rest on it's laurels very long when building skyscrapers either.


yeah, chicago, the city in general, is definitely experiencing a rennaisance right now. also, skyscraper activity is tearing along at a good clip as well. below is the most current and up to date list for all of chicago's recently built, under construction and proposed towers over 300'. with only 10 buildings over 300' U/C right now, things have quieted down a bit over the last 6 months or so, but as you can see, there are still many big towers on the horizon.




Chicago's building boom:


name use height floors year

recently completed:
1. Park Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116666) res./hotel 844 ft 67 2000
2. UBS Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100401) office 651 ft 50 2001
3. 55 East Erie (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100423) residential 647 ft 56 2004
4. River East Center I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100410) residential 644 ft 58 2001
5. Grand Plaza Tower I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100436) residential 641 ft 57 2003
6. Millennium Centre (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100422) residential 610 ft 58 2003
7. Bank One Corp. Center (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100407) office 580 ft 39 2003
8. The Fordham (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100411) residential 574 ft 52 2003
9. Park Millennium (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100440) residential 544 ft 57 2002
10. 191 North Wacker Drive (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100432) office 516 ft 37 2002
11. One Superior Place (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116857) residential 502 ft 52 1999
12. The Bristol (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116817) residential 488 ft 42 2000
13. The Sterling (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100424) residential 466 ft 50 2001
14. 400 North Lasalle (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101501) residential 454 ft 45 2003
15. ABN AMRO Plaza I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100418) office 453 ft 29 2003
16. Riverbend (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100442) residential 451 ft 38 2002
17. Skybridge (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100434) residential 421 ft 39 2003
18. 2 East Erie (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100414) residential 415 ft 39 2002
19. The Pearson (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100405) residential 395 ft 35 2003
20. Wells Street Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100408) residential 388 ft 34 2002
21. Forty-One East Eighth (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100413) residential 387 ft 33 2003
22. Grand Plaza II (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100437) residential 378 ft 39 2003
23. 1111 South Wabash (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101495) residential 367 ft 34 2004
24. Kinzie Park Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116679) residential 365 ft 34 2001
25. Chestnut Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116848) residential 360 ft 36 2000
26. Park Alexandria (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101483) residential 347 ft 32 2003
27. Sofitel Chicago (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100435) hotel 347 ft 33 2002
28. 840 North LSD (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100406) residential 329 ft 27 2004
29. 530 North LSD (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100420) residential 328 ft 29 2003
30. River View I (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=117455) residential 321 ft 27 2000
31. Courtyard by Marriott (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102141) hotel 317 ft 23 2003
32. The Caravel (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101488) residential 309 ft 29 2003
33. Kingsbury on the Park (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101486) residential 301 ft 25 2004



under construction:
1. 111 South Wacker Drive (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=169011) office 681 ft 51 2005
2. Hyatt Center (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=148153) office 679 ft 48 2004
3. The Heritage (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101478) residential 631 ft 57 2004
4. 1 South Dearborn (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=168984) office 571 ft 40 2005
5. The Pinnacle (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101481) residential 535 ft 48 2004
6. The Shoreham (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=171705) residential 450 ft 47 2005
7. River View II (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100417) residential 448 ft 32 2004
8. Park Boulevard Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=162011) residential 425 ft 40 2005
9. The Lancaster (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=157536) residential 324 ft 30 2004
10. Michigan Ave. Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=137360) residential 314 ft 29 2004



proposed:
1. Trump Tower Chicago (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102119) res./hotel 1,125 ft 90 2007
2. Waterview Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=149542) res./office 967 ft 82 2007
3. The Elysian (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=188061) res./hotel 772 ft __ ____
4. 4th Presbyterian Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=206935) res./office 745 ft 64 ____
5. 65 East Huron (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102139) res./office 730 ft 67 2007
6. 340 on the Park (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102131) residential 640 ft 62 ____
7. The Clare at Watertower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=181219) residential 595 ft 50 2007
8. The Columbian (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102116) residential 493 ft 46 2006
9. The Regatta (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=190324) residential 460 ft 45 2006
10. The Lakeview Middle Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=159868) residential 442 ft 37 2006
11. 1000 South Michigan (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102143) residential 429 ft 40 2005
12. Museum Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=133777) residential 400 ft 38 ____
13. State-Delaware Condos (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=162654) residential 385 ft 42 ____
14. 901 South Wabash (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102129) residential 369 ft 43 ____
15. 1001 South Wabash (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102130) residential 369 ft 43 ____
16. The Lakeview North Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102136) residential 337 ft 30 2006


**************************** heights not known ****************************

17. 740 North Rush (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=154809) residential ___ ft 50 2005
18. 321 East Ohio Street (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=207589) residential ___ ft 48 ____
19. State-Walton condos (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=162655) residential ___ ft 42 ____
20. 1320 North LSD (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=135425) residential ___ ft 40 ____
21. 600 North LSD (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=207596) residential ___ ft 40 2007
22. Grand-Kingsbury Apartments (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102128) residential ___ ft 40 ____
23. 622 North LSD (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=207597) residential ___ ft 40 2007
24. Canal-Fulton Apartments (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102126) residential ___ ft 39 ____
25. 50 East Chestnut (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=187210) residential ___ ft 39 ____
26. Clinton-Kinzie Apartments (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=177830) residential ___ ft 35 ____
27. Clinton-Kinzie Condos (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=177838) residential ___ ft 35 ____
28. Wacker Plaza (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102142) office ___ ft 34 ____
29. Randolph Court (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=148431) residential ___ ft 33 ____
30. 300 West Washington (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=197256) office ___ ft 33 ____
31. Franklin and Randolph (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=205004) office ___ ft 32 ____
32. 160 East Illinois (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=135017) residential ___ ft 31 ____
33. ABN AMRO Plaza II (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102132) office ___ ft 30 ____
34. Ontario Street Condos (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=162010) residential ___ ft 30 ____


color code:
red = over 700 ft
purple = 600 - 699 ft
blue = 500 - 599 ft
green = 400 - 499 ft
black = 300 - 399 ft

are be....I really think you need to separate your politics from your highrise appreciation a bit...it clouds your judgement too much.

While the majority of Toronto's sizeable collection of highrises going up these days are pretty much cut from the same cloth, and are not breaking new ground in architecture (as is the case in any city), I would not say they are "bad" either. In fact, I would say towers like the ones going up at Cityplace are actually better than average.

No-one expects every building in every city to be stand-out miracles of architecture, and is obviously never the case. I find what you seem to think as "bland" is actually a nice new form of modern urban architecture, headlined by the likes of Architects Alliance. Much of the really nice stuff is generally not very tall....they are buildings which fit nicely into their urban context, while also being "new" modern at the same time.

But I would say there are quite a few very nice taller buildings for Toronto...I think you and I just have different ideas of what we consider "good". 1 King will probably impress a lot of people, but I'm not too crazy about the design....it will rely on it's thinness and location for being notable. I think Spire is an example of this new modern look for condo towers....I think Festival Tower might also have this look too. I think Minto Midtown will be "allright" as well. One St Thomas will be a nice derivative of an older design you don't see that often. The big ones like Trump and Saphire will probably be better architecturally than renderings suggest....and at over 1000 ft, very eyecatching. 2 Bloor East and Signature will combine fairly good height with interesting design as well.

None of these may herald the beginings of any new direction in architectural style, but they will also not be the bland, cheap-out nightmares you seem to want to scare everybody about. I think you are just projecting your political angst onto anything that goes on in the city....it's a pattern with you....I don't even think architecture interests you....everything is just an outlet for politics with you.








KGB

But, if architecture reflects society or is the product of the society in which is it taking place, then the constant gouging of Toronto must appear in the architecture.

I'd suggest that the 'sensible shoes' opera house that we are getting is a result of senior levels of government:
1, treating Toronto like a bank machine, constantly making withdrawals;
2, are scared of helping or being seen to help loathed Toronto, which drives editorial writers and radio commentators throughout the rest of the country into a freaking rampage.

So, KGB, I politely agree and disagree. Yes, it's a bit of a political diatribe, ok. But, our painfully not- so - great opera house is a result of Toronto being given the gears by senior government. The opera house design is outstanding for ten bucks, by the way - fantastic building built out of shoe strings and pocket lint. Truly a brilliant design, especially given the minuscule budget. Truly the work of genius. And, very fitting for Wyoming, not Toronto --- which is precisely why, in a wacky way, it fits into Toronto --- Looks cheap? Unloved? Forlorn? Not able to archive greatness? Yup- the 'cheap out' -- Toronto's signature look. Governments, that make sure we don't have the money to achieve greatness -through either taxing it away or being unbelievably cheap when dealing with Toronto - must bear a portion of the blame.

Obviously you don't want to take my advice...but I'm not surprised...anybody as worked up about politics, is not likely to come to their senses in any timely fashion.

You have made a few mistakes in your analogy of the situation....

one...basing it on an opera house.

two...your assertion that the opera house is cheap, forlorn, unloved, painfully not-so-great or not able to achieve greatness. I happen to like the design. It is not necessary for good architecture to be gregarious in nature.

three...your idea that every town on the planet is somehow entitled to or gets new opera houses all the time whenever they want them...and that they are all masterpieces of technical and architectural merit, without any budgetary constraints.

This is all untrue of course. So much for your arguement.

Which only leaves your politics....which sounded excactly the same as the hundreds of identical speaches you have always made. You just inserted "opera house" in this one.

Last time I checked, the list of current cultural projects u/c at the moment is quite extensive....and it's not like the city was wanting for them in the first place. Yet somehow, it's all negative to you.

And since when is $150 miilion for a 2000 seat auditorium cheap?

Tell the architect they came up with a ten dollar design...tell it to the engineers at PCL Construction, theatre designers Fischer Dachs in New York City, the lighting software people at Cast Lighting, the acousticians at Sound Space Design in England, the specialists fabricating 800 composite rubber blocks to float the auditorium above the rumble of Toronto's subway.

Tell them they all "cheaped out".

By all accounts, the new opera house is totally state of the art, and may end up being one of the best in the world.

And all this blabbering you are doing is because you don't prefer the transparant modernist treatment they gave the street facade????







KGB

he he he

I'm sure Toronto will overpass CH, it's just matter of time..... next decade.....
century hehehe.....

It's not a matter of good or bad necessarily, but I think the density comparison between Toronto and Chicago can be generalized by saying that Torontonians live in smaller pockets of land within the city, while Chicagoans are a little more evenly spread out in their city.

This would at least partially explain why Toronto has a considerably larger number of residential highrises.






KGB

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/istrian/1.jpg
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/istrian/toronto-2010.jpg

I'm sure Toronto will overpass CH, it's just matter of time..... next decade.....
century hehehe.....

Maybe you'll even get to see it from the afterlife.

Oh Dampryre, give it a rest man.

You have made your point already. All you are doing now is encouraging more activity on this foolish thread.

where'd u get those pics

Toronto is getting some competition from Miami for #3 in North America.

http://cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/27068248/original.jpg

Number 3 in what?

I've never seen Miami's skyline before. It's pretty ugly.
The buildings towards the left look Hong Kong sized.

Isn't that skyline a little small for a city the size of Miami?

It certainly looks a bit on the petit side to me.

There are over 1200 skyscrapers in the Miami metro, it will pass Toronto, it may even pass Chicago.
http://www.pbase.com/image/25685772/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/21183203/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/25685720/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/25751040/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/27067173/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/27067209/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/27067415/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/27067563/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/27067605/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/27067976/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/27068859/original.jpg

Considering the city of Miami has 288 buildings, and the city of Toronto has 1926. I think you may need some stronger sunblock.

Toronto's Metro:
- Ajax: 10
- Brampton: 61
- Markham: 21
- Mississauga: 216
- Oakville: 27
- Pickering: 6
- Richmond Hill: 21
- Vaughan: 19
TOTAL: 2307

In the words of my fav. character, Apu "Thank you, come again"

That 288 you pulled off skyscrapers.com is about a 1 sq mile area. That doesn't include south beach, miami beach, coral gables, coconut grove, sunny isles, etc. Like I said, 1200 in the metro....but thank you, don't come again.

Those are really nice shots. I just don't find Miami's skyline impressive. It looks more a resort city in Mexico or something. Are there no office buildings down there?

I also can't help but get the notion that Florida = old people with blue hair and plastic orange skin. I know that's a grosse generalization, but I watched Golden Girls for too many years!!

416, Miami is the second largest international banking center in NA behind NYC, this is due to the large amount of Latin American corporations that are located in Miami. It also has the largest port in the country, so its not doing too bad. Miami is most famous for South Beach (the "American Riveria" as some say) for its unique art deco buildings, amazing restaurants and exclusive clubs. Miami is not for everyone, thats for sure, but anyone would have fun there visiting.

"There are over 1200 skyscrapers in the Miami metro, it will pass Toronto, it may even pass Chicago"

LOL - Toronto's Metro is outpacing Miami's metro in almost every category. One of the debatable (arbitrary) height categories would be that of 500 feet of which Toronto isn't among the top 5.

:) to each his own

I doubt Miami will ever pass Chicago.

416, Miami is the second largest international banking center in NA behind NYC, this is due to the large amount of Latin American corporations that are located in Miami. It also has the largest port in the country, so its not doing too bad. Miami is most famous for South Beach (the "American Riveria" as some say) for its unique art deco buildings, amazing restaurants and exclusive clubs. Miami is not for everyone, thats for sure, but anyone would have fun there visiting.

Not that I want to get into this, but the banking presence in a lot of cities is just registered. The cayman islands is the 5th in the world in banking, ahead of Miami, but trust me, I wouldn't be bragging about it as no decisions are made there, and there presence is just and office.

Miami is great, but I doubt it will surpass Toronto in quantity of skyscrapers. Toronto would have to stop and allow Miami 20 years? or more to allow them to catch up. I use the city as a hub (well not me, the airllines I use) as well as a weekend get away as its only 1 hour gate to gate flight, but it is still a long way away from catching up. Miami is impressive though but overall, its not a city overall that I prefer as a destination if distance wasn't an issue for continental US cities. I live on a beachfront property so thats why I prefer NYC, Chicago, and Boston for citylife, but like you said, to each their own.

Considering the city of Miami has 288 buildings, and the city of Toronto has 1926. I think you may need some stronger sunblock.

Toronto's Metro:
- Ajax: 10
- Brampton: 61
- Markham: 21
- Mississauga: 216
- Oakville: 27
- Pickering: 6
- Richmond Hill: 21
- Vaughan: 19
TOTAL: 2307

In the words of my fav. character, Apu "Thank you, come again"

Hillis, are you on purpose using total buildings, including not built? That number you can shave off atleast 300-400 buildings.

Get out of our forum!

Wow! Good for you...at least our streets aren't named after fruits. Go **** a crack whore.

Get out of our forum!

Wow! Good for you...at least our streets aren't named after fruits. Go **** a crack whore.

Who are you talking to?

The Miami punks

Almight, you represent Toronto well.

This thread was about Toronto - Chicago, witch means that Miami has
quite nothing to do vith it !!!???!!!

PS
But you can allways open a new thread, perhaps:"Toronto vs Miami", or "Is Toronto better than Miami" .....URGH

Yeah get the hell out of here Miami! Your skyline sucks. It shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as Chicago and Toronto.

^Damned strait MCC!

Funny how, come December, the streets of Miami are jammed with Chicago and Toronto natives...

^The streets are jammed with people? No one walks in Miami, they drive.

S.com lists only 920 built buildings for metro miami. Toronto:1950

Maimi's skyline is nothing compared to Toronto, like jeesh give me a freaking break.

I guess Miami's skyline is to Toronto what Toronto's is to Chicago...:runaway:

MG2

Whew!!! There are a lot of insecure members in this forum...

Getting back on topic, I live in Toronto. Toronto has a great skyline. I personally don't think it is as great as Chicago's but both cities are great. Both are planning to add new towers that will make them even greater. What can be said, Chicago is a great city, so is Toronto, so is Miami (love the latin feel for instance).

Why the constant comparisons? Why feel the need to bash down someone elses city and why do we feel the need to lash out/step on others in order to make ourselves feel better?

wow, Miami supporters please get outta this thread and create your own. Leaches...

Toronto is the class of the North. Beautiful in everyway.

You all know about Chicago. It's America's best kept secret ;)

Miami...that's just a place for the rich to play and nothing more.

Miami skyline is the Worst.
99% of the building in South Florida are low rises.
Does Miami has more tall buildings than SF, LA, Houston, Dallas, Chicago?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

This is so freaking tedious!
How can it not be clear that Toronto's skyline is one of the nicest in North America, --if not the world? How can it not be equally clear that Chicago's skyline is superior to Toronto's? Stupid to debate it. Toronto's skyline is like perfectly fine Mercedes - benz or Jaguar, and Chicago's is like a Ferrari or Rolls Royce. Hey, a BMW or Jag is nothing to sneeze at, it's just that they are not an Austin Martin DB7 or a Rolls.

What the fruck, stating that Toronto's skyline is better than Chicago is like stating that Chicago or Toronto are more significant to the world than London or Paris. What kind of an idiot would deny that - at the very least as tourist destinations- Paris and London blow both Toronto and Chicago out of the water? This "who's skyline is better' debate is unbelievably tedious. I might be making a mistake by getting involved in this penis comparison and m penis mutual admiration society debate.

I could not have said it better myself.

Cut out the crap children!

This is so freaking tedious!
How can it not be clear that Toronto's skyline is one of the nicest in North America, --if not the world? How can it not be equally clear that Chicago's skyline is superior to Toronto's? Stupid to debate it. Toronto's skyline is like perfectly fine Mercedes - benz or Jaguar, and Chicago's is like a Ferrari or Rolls Royce. Hey, a BMW or Jag is nothing to sneeze at, it's just that they are not an Austin Martin DB7 or a Rolls.

What the fruck, stating that Toronto's skyline is better than Chicago is like stating that Chicago or Toronto are more significant to the world than London or Paris. What kind of an idiot would deny that - at the very least as tourist destinations- Paris and London blow both Toronto and Chicago out of the water? This "who's skyline is better' debate is unbelievably tedious. I might be making a mistake by getting involved in this penis comparison and m penis mutual admiration society debate.

Well, not to nitpick but Chicago gets many more visitors than Toronto. A *LOT* more.

Probably, and this is one area we need to work on. I mentioned in another thread that we need more money in this city. Maybe the government has a big part to do with it but more money would help bigtime to make T.O. a better city.

There are a lot of countries that have many mega cities, and have beautiful skylines, but usually only one takes the world stage, the only reason LA does because of Hollywood.



If you think that LA has a better skyline than Chicago, you're out of your mind

The only thing is that Toronto is up and coming

Chicago is past its prime, sure there's gonna b the trump tower and that waterthingy tower, but after that, Chi-town aint got shit

Currently, Chicago is much, much better(skyline wise) but you doint know what the future holds for Toronto

I predict that there will be about 7-10 more 800-1200 foot buildings in Toronto by 2012

You cant really say the same thing for Chicago

You can definitely say the same thing for Chicago.

and...yeah. I can't really say anything more about Miami...MCC summed it up rather nicely.

KGB , I (and probably many others) realize that you are only making yourself look more stupid. Instead of giving chicago credit when it is due, you want to talk about their ghettos and weak areas instead of their strong more powerful ones. It's ok, we all know that deep down you know Chicago is a bit more on a higher level.

This thread is six months old. Let it slide already.

Sorry, still had to add my input

Landscape wise... Toronto and Chicago are really similar... but obviously.. Chicago is a much bigger city then Toronto. But it is interesting to see how Toronto may have a potential to grow... then I can imagin that both of the city will be look a like in the future.

Your right, but Toronto's population is rapidly growing, to the point that it is one of the fastest growing cities in North America.

Cheers, Rick

I have a stunning new answer to this entire class of thread--

Who gives a fuck?

(stares out window at Empire State Building)

Uh actually Toronto is bigger in size than Chicago. Toronto is 630 sq km compared to Chicago which is 589 sq km. just stating the facts.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=101030

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=100993

Toronto = a great city

Chicago = a great city

People that want to bash one city or the other = very low self esteem

They are both great cities - Toronto has the quantity but Chicago has the quality.

Gees... enough of this... they are both beautiful!

Toronto & Chicago!

:kiss:

Chicagos skyline, IMHO is the best in the USA. NYC's is too flat, ever since 9/11. Chicagos is very.. unique.

many skyscrapers being built in nyc not just wtc site
nyc will be back on top

I dont think so, NYC cant be on top all the time and for that is why I dislike NYC. Everything has to be bigger and better. Everything has to be larger then any other city, it even takes credit for being one of the most beautiful cities in the world. NYC gets way to much credit these days and I think Chicagos skyline, finally beat NYC.

^ I disagree, NYC is still king and will continue to be king for a long time to come.

chicago does have an amazing skyline, but i don't think it is anywhere near as good as NYC's

Oh no, now you've done it Lars. These TO vs. Chi-Town battles usually get pretty ugly.

Chicago wins in hieght catagory as well as numbers of scrapers. Chicago is a member of the big three for a very good reason.

But I am a bigger fan of Toronto on the basis of its top three buildings and soon to be the top five are so close and in a cluster formation. Chicago's Top Three, ST, JHC, and the AON center (i think the name changed on the AON center) are all pretty far apart. Just to me, that decreases the impact of the 1000 footers to me.
Toronto actually has way more skyscrapers than Chicago. T.O has 1,959 and Chicago has 1,471. go to www.skyscrapers.com

I don't like New York's skyline. It has many buildings, but that doesn't make it stylish or give it form at all. It has little identity.

Chicago has a very scattered skyline, with no clever setup.

Toronto's is nicely balanced like a nice painting- the tall CN tower and bulky Rogers SkyDome Centre balancing out the tall towers to the east.

'nuf said on my part ;)

Manhattan's skyline is just the best from any angle....it covers every base so well it just can't be beat under any circumstances IMO. Chicago is an easy 2nd.

But if it's just based on your best money shot, I think the shot from the island across the harbour to downtown Toronto is just prettier than the best angle of Chicago....even though overall, Chicago has a better skyline and individual buildings than Toronto.






KGB

It's true. Chi-towners need a helicopter or a paddle to get a decent $ shot. Just keep the south side outa da angle.

Toronto actually has way more skyscrapers than Chicago. T.O has 1,959 and Chicago has 1,471. go to www.skyscrapers.com


It depends how you define a skyscraper. I personally define them as 500ft+. Under that criteria, Chicago has about 90 where as Toronto has about 11. There is a big difference in height between both skylines. Toronto does however excell greately with the number of 12+ floor buildings.

Yes, Toronto actually has more high-rises than Chicago, but far less skysrapers. Chicago's skyline is way bigger.