Skyscrapers for the purpose of this thread are defined as twelve stories or more. All information is from of Emporis.com

Toronto
Completed: 1,600
U/C: 56
Approved: 112
Proposed: 126

Chicago
Completed: 1,035
U/C: 36
Approved: 35
Proposed: 73

The ratio is currently 1.55 buildings in Toronto for every Chicago building. Will it increase, decrease, or remain the same in the future? It's true Chicago's are much taller while Toronto's strength comes in its 12 to 20-storey buildings. Chicago is definetly king when it comes to the supertalls. Here is the infamous "Skyline Ranking" from Emporis. It's purpose is to list "...what cities have the world's most impressive skylines."

1. Hong Kong 111,912
2. New York City 35,323
3. Chicago 15,237
4. Singapore 12,947
5. Bangkok 11,080
6. Tokyo 9,154
7. Shanghai 8,512
8. São Paulo 6,563
9. Toronto 6,496
10. Seoul 6,171

Finally, the skyscrapers per capita.

Toronto 1,550
Chicago 2,772

I guess it depends on your data source for what you consider a scraper. But let me just say that the building in Chicago are a HELLAVA lot taller then what you see in Toronto.

Great point. It all depends on what you define as a skyscraper. If you bump the criteria from 12 stories to about 30 or 40, you will see the numbers for Toronto drop well below that of Chicago.

I think the fact that Toronto's strength comes from its 12-20 story buildings while Chicago's strength comes from its 50-110 story buildings speaks for itself.

Everyone also forgets that Toronto's strength comes from it's annexation of the surrounding areas into a NY-like borough supercity. Until this happened, Toronto was WELL behind Chicago in terms of skyscrapers, and anyone who's ever been there can attest that the CBD's of these two cities (while Toronto is absolutely awesome and gorgeous) are nowhere near similar sizes.

The following numbers make the difference between Toronto and Chicago quite dramatic. These are the counts of buildings at 500, 400 and 300 feet in each city.

Toronto Chicago
500+ 10 83
400+ 33 149
300+ 69 256

Add in the fact that all but 1 or 2 of Chicago's 500 footers are downtown, and it's clear how different the skylines of these two cities are. This takes nothing away from Toronto, but there's just no comparison.

The following numbers make the difference between Toronto and Chicago quite dramatic. These are the counts of buildings at 500, 400 and 300 feet in each city.

Toronto Chicago
500+ 10 83
400+ 33 149
300+ 69 256

Add in the fact that all but 1 or 2 of Chicago's 500 footers are downtown, and it's clear how different the skylines of these two cities are. This takes nothing away from Toronto, but there's just no comparison.

Thanks, I knew this list existed somewhere. I assume the info is from Emporis, if the height is now known, say for a 40-storey building. Is it still counted in this list as a 400+?

A 12-story building is not a skyscraper. It is a small hi-rise. Skyscraper, I my view, is a more subjective term that is given to tall buildings that define a skyline, by breaching the mass of lower buildings. A skyscraper must also have a vertical thrust to its design.

Thus a 12-story building in Chicago is not a skyscraper. Move it out to the boonies, then yes, as long as it looks like it is reaching higher.

two quick points.

- I think most chicagoans laugh when we hear people from smaller cities like toronto claim that 12 story buildings are somehow skyscrapers.

- Chicago is much more of an "all of your eggs in one basket" situation with regards to its skyscrapers and high-rises. in toronto, the tall buildings are spread across the whole city and metro in way that chicago comes no where close to matching (yeah, we got our lakefront highrises, but that's about it). so for the main downtown skylines, chicago's appears both taller and lager than toronto's, at least form the hundreds of pictures that i've seen. i've never actually been to toronto so i could very well be wrong on that.

A 12-story building is not a skyscraper. It is a small hi-rise. Skyscraper, I my view, is a more subjective term that is given to tall buildings that define a skyline, by breaching the mass of lower buildings. A skyscraper must also have a vertical thrust to its design.

Thus a 12-story building in Chicago is not a skyscraper. Move it out to the boonies, then yes, as long as it looks like it is reaching higher.

"Skyscrapers for the purpose of this thread are defined as twelve stories or more. All information is from Emporis.com

...

Emporis is very very very very very very incomplete, and that data is by no means completely exact. Chicago has twice as many people as Toronto, and it most likely has way more skyscraopers, being the origin of the artform! ;)

Aside from the skyscrapers that were built in the late 60s-l;ate 70s, with a few exceptions, each and every one is a work of art.

To be fair to the hard-working editors for Chicago and Toronto. Both cities have a 100% accurate count thanks to their efforts.

Like Mr Man said, I wasn't sure about Toronto's data, but, I knew that all 12+ buildings in Chicago were accounted for (it says so right on the front page).

At any rate... 12 stories is a skyscraper according to the CTBUH... until we get a better and more difinitive system than CTBUH's, I'll let them make the definitions.

Skyscrapers for the purpose of this thread are defined as twelve stories or more.

You could have also said "for the purpose of this thread 2+2=5", but it doesn't make it true.

Yeah, Toronto has more 12 story buildings than Chicago. They don't exactly scrape the sky. It's a pretty lame retort to the fact that Toronto really doesn't have that much of a skyline, at least compared to the major world skylines...

You could have also said "for the purpose of this thread 2+2=5", but it doesn't make it true.

That's a weak argument. You're more than welcome to create your own thread and define "2+2=5," but since this is my thread and the word "skyscrapers" may mean different things to different people as you just demonstarted, I don't see how or why anyone would consider this to be wrong.

"That's a weak argument. You're more than welcome to create your own thread and define "2+2=5," but since this is my thread and the word "skyscrapers" may mean different things to different people as you just demonstarted, I don't see how or why anyone would consider this to be wrong."

Because I was walking in Uptown in Chicago today, a good six miles from downtown, and I passed by a building that was 13 stories, and it didn't stand out as anything particularly tall. Twelve stories may be a cut-off for something, but not for skyscrapers.

Chicago's skyline is taller, Torontos is longer. Both look great. To be honest, I prefer Chicagos, cause it has more buildings from other eras then just the 70s and 80s.

two quick points.

- I think most chicagoans laugh when we hear people from smaller cities like toronto claim that 12 story buildings are somehow skyscrapers.

- Chicago is much more of an "all of your eggs in one basket" situation with regards to its skyscrapers and high-rises. in toronto, the tall buildings are spread across the whole city and metro in way that chicago comes no where close to matching (yeah, we got our lakefront highrises, but that's about it). so for the main downtown skylines, chicago's appears both taller and lager than toronto's, at least form the hundreds of pictures that i've seen. i've never actually been to toronto so i could very well be wrong on that.
Ha thats funny. Smaller cities like Toronto? Its only smaller by about 300,000 in the city.

Yeah, Toronto has more 12 story buildings than Chicago. They don't exactly scrape the sky. It's a pretty lame retort to the fact that Toronto really doesn't have that much of a skyline, at least compared to the major world skylines...
Well soon when TO gets the Trump tower and the Saphire it will, also the CN tower is a great foundation.

The first skyscraper was a 12 storey building in Chicago.

http://img96.exs.cx/img96/1213/5956.jpg

That is Toronto's skyline going upo Younge. It's the best pic I have of that part of it. There is more to the right too, but it's out of the frame. Someone should post a picture of chicago from a similar angle as well.

"I think most chicagoans laugh when we hear people from smaller cities like toronto claim that 12 story buildings are somehow skyscrapers."


Funny how the story has changed.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Don't like the way a particular criteria makes things look...so you complain about the criteria. LOL

Ironically enough, the only reason Toronto got counted in the first place, was because Chicago forumers used to rub their 12+ count in our noses (yes, the criteria is long established...and it's actually "highrises"...not skyscrapers).

When it was suggested that Toronto may have as many...if not more, it was a huge joke...this is where the whole idea that Torontonians were "crazy" about talking about the city....wildly over-stating.

When the count had surpassed Chicago, people were not in the mood for humble pie. All of a sudden the "official" highrise count isn't so important...better to change the criteria so Chicago isn't behind.








"Everyone also forgets that Toronto's strength comes from it's annexation of the surrounding areas into a NY-like borough supercity. Until this happened, Toronto was WELL behind Chicago in terms of skyscrapers"


Well, that happened 50 years ago...at which point there were no highrises in the old boroughs. And Toronto and Chicago are almost identical in geographical size anyway...so I don't see the relevance to this point.







"300+ 69 256"


If you want to post facts and figures, make sure they are accurate...there are a lot more than 69 buildings over 300 feet in Toronto.









"Emporis is very very very very very very incomplete, and that data is by no means completely exact. Chicago has twice as many people as Toronto, and it most likely has way more skyscraopers"


It's very very very very very very accurate for Toronto and Chicago...so no go on that idea. And no, Chicago does not have twice the pop...it has around 300k more.


Toronto has more highrises.

Toronto is building more highrises.

Toronto has a pretty dense highrise downtown/midtown core (aprox 700 highrises?? )

Toronto has many secondary evolving clusters of highrises.

Toronto has the tallest structure in it's skyline.


Chicago's average height is much taller.

Chicago's main downtown cluster is bigger and taller.

Chicago has a more impressive skyline, with many more individual highrises of high architectural merit.








KGB

I applaud most of your arguments KGB... they're pretty decent. But, I hate to inform you that Toronto does, in fact, only have 69 buildings over 300 feet. The 70th tallest in your city is ING Tower at Adelaide Place at only 289'. In Chicago, you don't find a <300' until you hit Astor Tower (officially the 257th tallest building in the City).

Alot of my annoyance is that "Toronto's" skyscraper count includes areas like York (500+ high-rises), Scarborough and Etobicoke (each over 250 high-rises). Toronto, itself, is just over 900 buildings. What you consider to be Toronto is what we would consider to be an entire metropolitan region almost. Although, your argument that all the included municipalities still add up to roughly the same area of land-mass is entirely accurate. Unfortunately, your argument about TO's downtown "core," or CBD, doesn't fare as well. You claim approximately 700 high-rises in the downtown area when, in fact, there's fewer than 200 (180 to be exact, according to Emporis).

Don't take any of this as an attack on you, or your fine city. I have spent considerable time in Toronto and absolutely fell in love with it, but, to compare it's skyline, while amazing in its own right, to that of Chicago is just sort of silly.

"But, I hate to inform you that Toronto does, in fact, only have 69 buildings over 300 feet. "


Your looking at s.com...correct?

Then perhaps you should keep going...because Toronto's listing has a ton that doesn't have heights...just floors....you need to finish the list with heights before those buildings show up.








"Alot of my annoyance is that "Toronto's" skyscraper count includes areas like York (500+ high-rises), Scarborough and Etobicoke (each over 250 high-rises). Toronto, itself, is just over 900 buildings."


Perhaps you should educate yourself a little better about Toronto.

These boroughs you refer to are part of the city proper....have been since 1953. The two-tiered system of municipal government was removed in 1998, and replaced with a single-tier one.






"What you consider to be Toronto is what we would consider to be an entire metropolitan region almost. "


Who the hell is "we"....Americans....that's pretty absurd, seeing as you guys are into those 10,000 square mile "metros".


Look dude...forget about whatever strange ideas you have...the city of Toronto is 243 square miles...places like York and Etobicoke, etc are just areas of the city itself...they used to be boroughs...now we got rid of the borough system...it's not really important.






"Unfortunately, your argument about TO's downtown "core," or CBD, doesn't fare as well. You claim approximately 700 high-rises in the downtown area when, in fact, there's fewer than 200 (180 to be exact, according to Emporis)."


Well, then they are wrong...but I suspect you are hust interpreting the data incorrectly again.

Trust me...I'm the one who did the count and gave the info to them.








"but, to compare it's skyline, while amazing in its own right, to that of Chicago is just sort of silly."


Well, I think you are just inventing your own topic....the thread is about highrise counts...so the comparison is what it is....if you want to change the subject to get attention away from Toronto having more, then go ahead...that seems to be the norm anyway. If Chicago had more, then Chicagoans would make out like it was the greatest thing on planet earth (which they have done in the past)...but now that they aren't...well it's a whole new ball game.






KGB

This thread is going to be long...

The following numbers make the difference between Toronto and Chicago quite dramatic. These are the counts of buildings at 500, 400 and 300 feet in each city.

Toronto Chicago
500+ 10 83
400+ 33 149
300+ 69 256

Add in the fact that all but 1 or 2 of Chicago's 500 footers are downtown, and it's clear how different the skylines of these two cities are. This takes nothing away from Toronto, but there's just no comparison.
Great post and your points are all that matter.

Why is a topic having to do with Toronto being posted in here?

Well, so much for being polite I guess. You've got to make up your mind KGB... you repeatedly preached the accuracy of s.com (which, I agree is incredibly accurate), but now you're claiming inaccuracies because they benefit your argument. Which is it?

"Look dude...forget about whatever strange ideas you have...the city of Toronto is 243 square miles..."

Umm... didn't I already say that it added up the roughly the same area as Chicago? Right. I thought so.

"Well, then they are wrong...but I suspect you are hust interpreting the data incorrectly again.

Trust me...I'm the one who did the count and gave the info to them."

Interpreting the data incorrectly again? LOL. First of all... what is "again?" Where have I misinterpreted any data? Secondly... you must be joking. How hard is it to gather a conclusion about a number in parenthesis next to a name? Name of City (number of high-rises). Seems pretty straight-forward to me. I'm thinking even our LA-LA-Landers could figure this one out. Perhaps the data that you, supposedly, supplied to emporis was, itself, flawed? All I know is that, as I have stated before, I've been to TO several times and can attest to the CBD feeling very compact. It's not a knock on your city (because I have also stated several times how much I like TO), it's just a fact. You claim 700+ high-rises in the core while emporis (and my own two eyes) claim a number closer to 200.

Also, if all this annexation took place in 1953 (which I'm not arguing one way or another, because, honestly, I don't know), why did the high-rise count for TO suddenly jump from around 900 to around 1900 (according to emporis) somewhere around 2001 or 2002 (I don't remember, exactly, when I noticed this strange occurance)? I would suspect that it had something to do with the changes to how the municipalities were being defined, no?

Lastly, you claim that "we" (meaning Chicagoans, I presume) like to shift the argument to whatever makes us look/feel better. The reality is that you, yourself, are guilty of the very same vice with which you blame us. It was a Toronto forumer who began talking about how the skylines compare. All I am doing is saying that it's silly to compare TO's skyline to Chicago's. You want a fair comparison? Compare yourselves to Houston or Smell-A; granted... TO's skyline is much larger (and IMO more beautiful) than either of these cities... but, you all employ a zoning pattern of multiple nucleii rather than one continuous skyline.

Just a friendly word of warning... wear lots of padding. Falling from a horse can be dangerous.

"You've got to make up your mind KGB... you repeatedly preached the accuracy of s.com (which, I agree is incredibly accurate), but now you're claiming inaccuracies because they benefit your argument. Which is it? "



I didn't "repeatedly preach" anything...someone thought there was an incomplete highrise count for Chicago...I simply said it wasn't the case.






"Interpreting the data incorrectly again? LOL. First of all... what is "again?" Where have I misinterpreted any data?"


Well, you mistakingly interpreted Toronto numbers to include "metro" numbers...you mistankingly said Toronto only has 69 building 300 feet or greater, and you mistakingly say the main downtown cluster has less than 200 highrises....these are all wrong. I'm not saying it's all your fault, as that site has also made it a bit confusing or difficult to interpret.






"Perhaps the data that you, supposedly, supplied to emporis was, itself, flawed? "


Afraid not. The info included address, name of building (if any), number of occupied floors, and use of building. No duplications, all on foot, and no...I didn't make anything up (it can all be easily verified). And I didn't "supposedly" supply them with the info...I actually met with 3 members of s.com in person here in Toronto....and they were all from Chicago oddly enough. LOL!!






"You claim 700+ high-rises in the core while emporis (and my own two eyes) claim a number closer to 200."


Well, I said downtown and midtown...the downtown cluster is obvious (the area bounded by the lake, Don Valley, Bloor, and Bathurst)...it has around 500 now....and midtown is the area that centres on Yonge St that continues north of Bloor to Eglinton. I said "around" 700, because I dind't feel like going back to the data to get excact numbers...but that would be a pretty good estimate...it could be a bit less...or it could be a bit more.

I think the main problem you are having with the data, is where they have their "districts and zones" list. There's nothing wrong with this, other than the fact that the old boroughs no longer actually exist...so if they wanted to be totally accurate and up to date, they would just eliminate them...but it really doesn't matter, as people just didn't "forget" about them when the municipal government structure changed....Just like if NYC decided to illiminate their boroughs...I think people from Queens would still consider themselves living in Queens.

The other problem obviously stems from how they list "neighbourhoods". I notice they have all the different names of neighbourhoods in downtown separately...including one called "downtown". This is where the confusion comes in...neighbourhoods like "Bloor-Yorkville", "Church-Wellesley", "Financial District", "Harbourfront", "Regent Park", "U of T", "Entertainment District", "St Jamestown", "Chinatown", "Annex", "Fashion District", "Grange Park", ...are all actually IN downtown.

How they determined this "neighbourhood" info is beyond me...it looks about right for the whole downtown...I'm just not sure how they determined which ones went into what neighbourhood.







"Umm... didn't I already say that it added up the roughly the same area as Chicago? Right. I thought so."


Yea...but you made out like it was cheating or something..or posed some sort of unfair advantage...I believe you even said you were even "annoyed" about it. You said we were using "metro" numbers instead of "city" numbers. This is incorrect.







"Also, if all this annexation took place in 1953, why did the high-rise count for TO suddenly jump from around 900 to around 1900 (according to emporis) somewhere around 2001 or 2002 I would suspect that it had something to do with the changes to how the municipalities were being defined, no?


No...the reason the number jumped was because that's when the count was done. In fact, the number was a lot less than 900...it was more like 350 previous to a comprehensive Toronto count (my first count was about 1000 buildings...then someone did the rest of the city later).







"The reality is that you, yourself, are guilty of the very same vice with which you blame us. It was a Toronto forumer who began talking about how the skylines compare. All I am doing is saying that it's silly to compare TO's skyline to Chicago's."


Well, no...I believe mr man posted a thread specifically regarding the highrise count for both cities. I don't think you can say Toronto does not compare, as it clearly leads in this regard. Chicago clearly leads in other criteria regarding the skyline, but that wasn't the topic.







"Just a friendly word of warning... wear lots of padding. Falling from a horse can be dangerous."


I'm not on a high horse...just trying to educate you...if you can't handle being corrected, then that's not my problem.







KGB

wow, talk about about Chicago folks in denial here. Toronto has more and its a fact...stop trying to put a spin on the numbers.

So where do we stand with all of this now? Here's a summary:

1. The city limits of Toronto and Chicago are roughly equal (243 sq.miles vs. 228 sq. miles), so neither city has a geographic advantage for skyscraper counts.

2. The stats on emporis (skyscrapers.com) are incomplete for Toronto in that height info for the vast majority of the 12-floor+ buildings is missing. Thus, when consulting this list for counts on how many buildings there are above a certain height, you have to rely on guesstimates that count some buildings just based on their floor count.

3. Even when you do this guesstimating, Chicago still has 256 buildings at 300 ft/30 floors or above, vs. around 120 for Toronto.

4. As stated repeatedly in this thread, Toronto has far more buildings of 12+ floors than Chicago. Most of these buildings are in the 12-20 floor range.

5. What these facts mean has been argued again and again on the skyscraper forums and the great debate will eventually be sparked again after this thread dies out.

6. This is quite a hot-button topic that seems to bring out intense emotions among residents/admirers of both cities.

Well, I don't have a problem with that summery.

But, I don't think it really has much to do with mr man's topic...I think he was trying to get a conversation going in regards to the current situation with highrise development between Chicago and Toronto....and how it looks to be moving in the near future.

What's the problem with that? Sure...I think Chicago's skyline is more impressive than Toronto's too...but that's not really the point of the topic brought up.







"Even when you do this guesstimating, Chicago still has 256 buildings at 300 ft/30 floors or above, vs. around 120 for Toronto."


Yea...unfortunetely, official heights are not known. In the end, picking something as arbitrary as 300 feet isn't all that important, but for the sake of the topic, Toronto has about 209 that are either built or u/c or on the market that are 30+ floors. This doesn't include many office buildings that would be over 300 feet, but under 30 floors.

I think Toronto will continue to widen the gap in highrise construction, because of a few advantages...it's population is growing faster, and the condo market is available to a larger percentage of the population in Toronto than in Chicago. We also like to build highrises all over the place, rather than a confined area, which brings another level of choice factor....no matter what part of town you prefer, there will be a condo development that will appeal to you, in whatever price range you prefer.








KGB

That's a pretty accurate summary.

I think I would say this and then end the thread:

If we're talking about the number of 12-20 story buildings built or being built, then Toronto (a remarkable city) wins.

If we are talking about the number of buildings that 1) exceed the 12-20 story range, 2) pierce the skyline, 3) are of architectural merit, 4) create a more formidable skyline, then Chicago wins in a landslide.

The topic of the thread has to do with the first part, which we have all commented on and hopefully acknowledge that Toronto has a very significant number of 12 and 20 story buildings built or being built. Great.

As I said before, if we are trying to make a favorable comparison of Toronto vs. Chicago, and we have to take it all the way down to the 12-20 story criteria, then I think that pretty much speaks for itself. There isn't much point in exploring it any further. I would imagine that KGB's numbers are accurate, so no point in challenging those figures if the criteria of building we are exploring here is of little significance anyways. The arguing between these two great cities is getting a little out of hand.

:cheers:

I've never understood that criteria. 12 stories is a mid-rise at best unless you live on the Great Plains. If thousands of 12 story buildings made a great skyline, Sao Paolo and Mexico City would rank higher.

I hate Canucks.

Why is a topic having to do with Toronto being posted in here?

"Toronto and Chicago's skyscraper count" It's a topic about Chicago and Toronto, Dampy.

"Toronto and Chicago's skyscraper count" It's a topic about Chicago and Toronto, Dampy.

Well, I don't want anything about Toronto posted in here. Next thing you know the place is crawling with detestable Canucks and their out-of-whack egos.

"If we're talking about the number of 12-20 story buildings built or being built, then Toronto (a remarkable city) wins. "


Well, I think the number of buildings over 20 floors being developed in Toronto is higher as well.




And Dampy, you hate Canucks because we probably remind you of your own sense of inadequacy or something. I mean, nobody could possibly be a bigger example of a bitter, hateful sod then you.

And BTW, "Canuck" is a rather endearing nickname for Cdns...if you really want to be hateful, you should maybe come up with a new name.






KGB

"If we're talking about the number of 12-20 story buildings built or being built, then Toronto (a remarkable city) wins. "


Well, I think the number of buildings over 20 floors being developed in Toronto is higher as well.




And Dampy, you hate Canucks because we probably remind you of your own sense of inadequacy or something. I mean, nobody could possibly be a bigger example of a bitter, hateful sod then you.

And BTW, "Canuck" is a rather endearing nickname for Cdns...if you really want to be hateful, you should maybe come up with a new name.






KGB

Your crackerjack, psychobabble is as off-base as it is laughable. Do me a favor and spare me the half-wit repartee. It's boring.

hmmm...well, if it's so far off base, then why have you always been spouting the same bitter troll swill forever, yet never seem to have any logical reasoning behind it?

Unless you think "I hate Canucks" is some kind of reasonable excuse? LOL!!

Let's face it...you hate pretty much anybody...white people, Canadians...all very reasonable social behavior eh? ha ha

Boredom should be the least of your worries






KGB

hmmm...well, if it's so far off base, then why have you always been spouting the same bitter troll swill forever, yet never seem to have any logical reasoning behind it?

Unless you think "I hate Canucks" is some kind of reasonable excuse? LOL!!

Let's face it...you hate pretty much anybody...white people, Canadians...all very reasonable social behavior eh? ha ha

Boredom should be the least of your worries






KGB

You're pretty redundant yourself. Do me a favor and die horribly. I'll drink to that!
:cheers:

KGB ->http://www.cobbs.ca/bbs/images/smilies/add_shit.gif<- Dampyre

Anyways, they're both wrong. Both Chicago and Toronto are completely outclassed by the Twin Cities ;)

^and out-"assed" by yo mama :banana:



Just kidding. I've got a party to get to

:dance:

http://www.jrsfilm.com/Vegas%20SUN%20LIGHTS%20DON%20JUAN%20-%20REVISED,%20FULL.jpg
Bishop Don Sez: All you Muthafuckas chill the fuck on out! Damn!

And I, for one, agree with the good Bishop. Take a deep breath and recognize the diplomacy and magnanimity with which the vast majority of Chicago forumers have put in their posts on this thread (while simultaneously proving that no kind gesture goes unpunished... I feel for ye Mr. Geoff D) and leave the dick measuring contests to the city vs city threads. And if this shit has to go on much longer, can we at least move it from the relatively tranquil Chicago board and slap it somewhere else? I mean, damn(!), we already fought off the invasion of the insecure Angelinos... do we need this too? :)

So where do we stand with all of this now? Here's a summary:

1. The city limits of Toronto and Chicago are roughly equal (243 sq.miles vs. 228 sq. miles), so neither city has a geographic advantage for skyscraper counts.

2. The stats on emporis (skyscrapers.com) are incomplete for Toronto in that height info for the vast majority of the 12-floor+ buildings is missing. Thus, when consulting this list for counts on how many buildings there are above a certain height, you have to rely on guesstimates that count some buildings just based on their floor count.

3. Even when you do this guesstimating, Chicago still has 256 buildings at 300 ft/30 floors or above, vs. around 120 for Toronto.

4. As stated repeatedly in this thread, Toronto has far more buildings of 12+ floors than Chicago. Most of these buildings are in the 12-20 floor range.

5. What these facts mean has been argued again and again on the skyscraper forums and the great debate will eventually be sparked again after this thread dies out.

6. This is quite a hot-button topic that seems to bring out intense emotions among residents/admirers of both cities.

I think the fact that Toronto's strength comes from its 12-20 story buildings while Chicago's strength comes from its 50-110 story buildings speaks for itself.

Those posts say it all... eloquently. Seriously, what more needs to be said? And how many more ways does it need to be said?




DON'T make the Bishop come down from his pulpit to hit you with his pimp stick.

The 'my city is better than yours' should really be left to city vs city, I agree. This thread is going nowhere fast.

Oooh!!! I won't say anything more to KGB as to not start all this back up... he seems to have his facts straight, whereas I've just got web sites to go off of (and my oft-flawed memory).

I will take my usual dump on Dampyre before this is all over and done with though. Hey shit-for-brains... do you really think they would name a professional hockey team the "Canucks" if it was derogatory? I swear... I am so fucking embarassed to have to share a city with you; even though I know you're just echoing your "woe is me... I've hit a glass ceiling" South Side surroundings.

Oooh!!! I won't say anything more to KGB as to not start all this back up... he seems to have his facts straight, whereas I've just got web sites to go off of (and my oft-flawed memory).

I will take my usual dump on Dampyre before this is all over and done with though. Hey shit-for-brains... do you really think they would name a professional hockey team the "Canucks" if it was derogatory? I swear... I am so fucking embarassed to have to share a city with you; even though I know you're just echoing your "woe is me... I've hit a glass ceiling" South Side surroundings.


Geoff, you're another lame white man. I could bitch slap you back into your mom's womb. BTW, I choose to live where I do to stay away from pathetic pretenders like you. Lots of us are doing just fine on the South Side. Don't like it? Kiss our collective black asses.

BTW, I promise to bitch slap you if I ever meet you so stay clear of those forum meets. :cheers:

BTW, Geoff, what the fuck makes you better than me? Your skin color and the side of town you live on? because you spell your forum name Geoff instead of Jeff? :lol:

^ Wow, you've just earned the 'most pathetic poster on sscity.com' award. Or you should. Someone should make a poll. You'd win by a landslide, I'm sure.

^ Wow, you've just earned the 'most pathetic poster on sscity.com' award. Or you should. Someone should make a poll. You'd win by a landslide, I'm sure.

Mind your own business.

ahahahah!!!! That's exactly what I was hoping for on my way to bed! You made my night.

Oh, and for the record... I'll see you at the next meet. Feel free to make a feeble little attempt at a "bitch-slap."

On second thought... no need to wait for a meet? You name your time and place. I assume somewhere off the green line would do just fine (south branch of course - we'll make sure to do this in front of all your 'brethren')?

On second thought... no need to wait for a meet? You name your time and place. I assume somewhere off the green line would do just fine (south branch of course - we'll make sure to do this in front of all your 'brethren')?

The next forum meet will do just fine. It will to be interesting to see what happens.

Lots of us are doing just fine on the South Side. Don't like it? Kiss our collective black asses.

^I love the south side and I've lived there, and I'm not black (nor white). The south side is for ALL to enjoy, and I plan to be one of them

^I love the south side and I've lived there, and I'm not black (nor white). The south side is for ALL to enjoy, and I plan to be one of them

Yep, and yep...

Why even waste your breath TUP... you should know better by this point. According to dampfuck... the south side is only for black folk... and every other race is pure shit.

I beg your pardon--A twelve story building most certainly is a skyscraper--according to Louis Sullivan, Burnham & Root, Charles Atwood and the other Chicago architects who invented the bloomin' things. Look at Chicago's most historic works of architectural genesis--like the Rookery (1890s), with its Frank Lloyd Wright interior, or the spectacularly beautiful Santa Fe Building(around 1900). None of them are much over 12-14 stories tall.

Never heard anyone complaining.

Chicago's skyline is taller, Torontos is longer. Both look great. To be honest, I prefer Chicagos, cause it has more buildings from other eras then just the 70s and 80s.
Toronto's is longer? That's just wrong.

dampfuck

"!"

So where do we stand with all of this now? Here's a summary:

1. The city limits of Toronto and Chicago are roughly equal (243 sq.miles vs. 228 sq. miles), so neither city has a geographic advantage for skyscraper counts.

2. The stats on emporis (skyscrapers.com) are incomplete for Toronto in that height info for the vast majority of the 12-floor+ buildings is missing. Thus, when consulting this list for counts on how many buildings there are above a certain height, you have to rely on guesstimates that count some buildings just based on their floor count.

3. Even when you do this guesstimating, Chicago still has 256 buildings at 300 ft/30 floors or above, vs. around 120 for Toronto.

4. As stated repeatedly in this thread, Toronto has far more buildings of 12+ floors than Chicago. Most of these buildings are in the 12-20 floor range.

5. What these facts mean has been argued again and again on the skyscraper forums and the great debate will eventually be sparked again after this thread dies out.

6. This is quite a hot-button topic that seems to bring out intense emotions among residents/admirers of both cities.

I think the fact that Toronto's strength comes from its 12-20 story buildings while Chicago's strength comes from its 50-110 story buildings speaks for itself.

End of story.



Or so you think...



I beg your pardon--A twelve story building most certainly is a skyscraper....

:badnews:



The 'my city is better than yours' should really be left to city vs city, I agree. This thread is going nowhere fast.

Amen!

Why even waste your breath TUP... you should know better by this point. According to dampfuck... the south side is only for black folk... and every other race is pure shit.

You don't know me well enough to make a statement like that. It's pure bullshit.

Well, I don't want anything about Toronto posted in here. Next thing you know the place is crawling with detestable Canucks and their out-of-whack egos.

Why, precisely do you hate Canadians?

http://www.saunalahti.fi/sakarit/kerro-lisaa/troll.jpg

You don't know me well enough to make a statement like that. It's pure bullshit.

Well dampfuck... I can only go off what I see on these forums. You have spewed enough reverse-racist and homophobic comments for me to make a pretty fair judgement.

At this point, though, I should probably take Mr. Man's advice and just start ignoring you.

You don't know me well enough to make a statement like that. It's pure bullshit.

Well dampfuck... I can only go off what I see on these forums. You have spewed enough reverse-racist and homophobic comments for me to make a pretty fair judgement.

At this point, though, I should probably take Mr. Man's advice and just start ignoring you.

Fuck yourself.

Obviously, neither city is mature enough to discuss eachothers skyline in a civilized manner. both are great skylines, but Chicagos is better cause it's taller and older. toronto's is great because it has the CN tower and some of the best examples of Modern Architecture (the architectureal style Modern, not Modern as in "new")

And Geoff: What happened to your BATs? They were great!

Obviously, neither city is mature enough to discuss eachothers skyline in a civilized manner. both are great skylines, but Chicagos is better cause it's taller and older. toronto's is great because it has the CN tower and some of the best examples of Modern Architecture (the architectureal style Modern, not Modern as in "new")

And Geoff: What happened to your BATs? They were great!
Chicago practically invented Modern architecture, vid. Ever heard of Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe?

Chicago practically invented Modern architecture, vid. Ever heard of Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe?

Actually, he's one of my favourite arhchtects :P

But I meant that in Chicago, aside from having modernist and internationalist styles of architecture, it's also got styles form pre-war to ultre-post-modernist glass towers of today. Its much more divers. Toronto's skyscrpaers, the taller ones at least, re more modernist, nothing really jumps out. It's quite plain..

Truth hurts, eh Damp?

No time to BAT these days Vid :(

Sorry!

I love Mies Van Der Rohe. He's a genius!! Unlike that egotist libeskind but that's a whole other story.

Both cities have a good mix in architectural styles, but Chicago's are simply taller. I think we can all agree on that. Toronto's strength has always been in the low-rise buildings.

And there's alot to be said for that! I stated in another thread that, while 12-storey buildings don't do much for a skyline, they're the bread and butter of a good pedestrian-oriented urban lifestyle.