DISCUSS: Best North American Skyline

[Sarcasticity]

Yes, I think watching Toronto and Chicago in this decade is more exciting than what NYC has to offer with its supertalls. Both cities are always compared and have arguably the next best skylines. I think its safe to say right at this moment, density-wise Toronto already is way ahead of Chicago, but Chicago still is way ahead in height and it's core still looks more impressive. But Toronto is just experiencing a construction boom that Chicago hasn't have had for a decade.

[Dralcoffin]

Originally Posted by Sarcasticity

Yes, I think watching Toronto and Chicago in this decade is more exciting than what NYC has to offer with its supertalls. Both cities are always compared and have arguably the next best skylines. I think its safe to say right at this moment, density-wise Toronto already is way ahead of Chicago, but Chicago still is way ahead in height and it's core still looks more impressive. But Toronto is just experiencing a construction boom that Chicago hasn't have had for a decade.

I would agree with this, although Chicago has a vast number of pre-war skyscrapers that Toronto can't match, which is a strong point in Chicago's favor for me, and one of the reasons Chicago still has a large lead on Toronto among my favorite skylines. However, the recession hit Chicago much harder than Toronto, so while I think we'll see another huge boom in Chicago, it won't be until towards the end of the decade.

[HK999]

GOTHAM CITY

image hosted on flickr

NYC by jimmysqueeker77 on Flickr

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Sarcasticity

I think its safe to say right at this moment, density-wise Toronto already is way ahead of Chicago, but Chicago still is way ahead in height and it's core still looks more impressive.

That's how I see it as well. At the minimum, Toronto will need to build 4-5 high quality buildings in the 300-450 m range to become a worthy skyline rival to Chicago. We're still waiting.

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

I would agree with this, although Chicago has a vast number of pre-war skyscrapers that Toronto can't match, which is a strong point in Chicago's favor for me, and one of the reasons Chicago still has a large lead on Toronto among my favorite skylines. However, the recession hit Chicago much harder than Toronto, so while I think we'll see another huge boom in Chicago, it won't be until towards the end of the decade.

Quite right. Toronto was much smaller than both Chicago and New York 100 years ago. There are tons of beautiful pre-war buildings in Toronto, but very few pre-war skyscrapers. It's an advantage that Chicago (and New York) will always hold over Toronto. It makes the failure to finish College Park (1929 stock market crash casualty) all the more regretful. It would have been the largest office/shopping complex in the world/our Empire State Building, but only one corner of it was built. Chicago also has the Chicago river and those stately bridges that cross it.

In Toronto's defense, it does have a few topographical advantages over Chicago. The extensive ravine system is a gorgeous feature offering visual interest. Driving downtown down the Don Valley Parkway is just one of the impressive vistas available in the city. Toronto is also blessed with Leslie Spit and the Toronto Islands. They both afford great views and readily accessible parkland.

As an admirer of pre-war architecture, I'd rather have the vast stock of pre-war skyscrapers in Chicago. As a citizen, I'm not sure I'd want to give up the ravines and islands in exchange for them. We do have Commerce Court North, Canada Life, Royal Bank Building, Canadian Pacific Building, the Royal York, and a few others so I shouldn't complain too loudly.


Commerce Court North

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That's how I see it as well. At the minimum, Toronto will need to build 4-5 high quality buildings in the 300-450 m range to become a worthy skyline rival to Chicago. We're still waiting.




Quite right. Toronto was much smaller than both Chicago and New York 100 years ago. There are tons of beautiful pre-war buildings in Toronto, but very few pre-war skyscrapers. It's an advantage that Chicago (and New York) will always hold over Toronto. It makes the failure to finish College Park (1929 stock market crash casualty) all the more regretful. It would have been the largest office/shopping complex in the world/our Empire State Building, but only one corner of it was built. Chicago also has the Chicago river and those stately bridges that cross it.

In Toronto's defense, it does have a few topographical advantages over Chicago. The extensive ravine system is a gorgeous feature offering visual interest. Driving downtown down the Don Valley Parkway is just one of the impressive vistas available in the city. Toronto is also blessed with Leslie Spit and the Toronto Islands. They both afford great views and readily accessible parkland.

As an admirer of pre-war architecture, I'd rather have the vast stock of pre-war skyscrapers in Chicago. As a citizen, I'm not sure I'd want to give up the ravines and islands in exchange for them. We do have Commerce Court North, Canada Life, Royal Bank Building, Canadian Pacific Building, the Royal York, and a few others so I shouldn't complain too loudly.


Commerce Court North

Im not trying to be mean man, but how can you compare Chicago and Toronto, or even Toronto and Tokyo ? Toronto's skyline length of total buildings around 20 floors and up is about 2 miles. Chicago's is close to 7.13 miles, the width of NYC's skyline, from battery park to the end of central park. Toronto doesn't have very good architecture either, its tallest building is a box, while Chicago's tallest buildings are some of the most known, most beautiful and creative in the world. And Chicago's waterfront is enough alone to win. Not to mention the fact that Chicago is going through a mini building boom, and built The Trump, the tallest building built in the last 30 years in America, and also built several buildings above 200m between 2000-2010. Also, Chicago is definitely more dense. The gap is huge, I can't see Toronto ever having a chance of passing Chicago, unless Chicago doesn't build anything for a long time. Toronto is still an amazing city though, and could pass up Tokyo someday.

[Dralcoffin]

Toronto's skyline is much more spread out than Chicago. Chicago is basically the huge Loop/Near North clump, and a thin tentacle a block or two wide following the lake all the way up with a small cluster in Hyde Park. Other than that, Chicago is very low rise. Toronto on the other hand (especially with the boom) has several clumps of towers scattered over the central city, with a sea of condo towers stretching quite a ways inland from the lake. Chicago's central core is much, much larger than Toronto's downtown, but Chicago doesn't have anything on the scale of the Yonge Street corridor or Mississauga.

(It doesn't help Toronto that its skyline is mostly perpendicular to the lakefront, so pictures from the lake show basically the narrow side of the skyline. On the other hand, Chicago's skyline is crowded parallel to the lake, so that perspective is the most flattering for Chicago.)

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Im not trying to be mean man, but how can you compare Chicago and Toronto, or even Toronto and Tokyo ? Toronto's skyline length of total buildings around 20 floors and up is about 2 miles. Chicago's is close to 7.13 miles, the width of NYC's skyline, from battery park to the end of central park. Toronto doesn't have very good architecture either, its tallest building is a box, while Chicago's tallest buildings are some of the most known, most beautiful and creative in the world. And Chicago's waterfront is enough alone to win. Not to mention the fact that Chicago is going through a mini building boom, and built The Trump, the tallest building built in the last 30 years in America, and also built several buildings above 200m between 2000-2010. Also, Chicago is definitely more dense. The gap is huge, I can't see Toronto ever having a chance of passing Chicago, unless Chicago doesn't build anything for a long time. Toronto is still an amazing city though, and could pass up Tokyo someday.

I have no issue with you asking. I don't want to get into a pissing contest, but Toronto isn't all that far behind Chicago if you look at buildings 100 m or taller in each city. In 2010, Chicago was ahead by about 125 buildings. Based on construction in 2011-2012 and projects soon to break ground, the discrepancy will all but disappear in a few years.

02. New York: 794
07. Chicago: 341
14. Toronto: 216

http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?...language=en-GB

For buildings 12 floors or more, Toronto has far more than Chicago. Density? If you're talking about people/square kilometre, Toronto smokes Chicago. If you're talking about buildings, Chicago is denser but the gap is closing in a hurry. Chicago is more comparable to Toronto than it is with New York.

I'm no fan of First Canadian Place, but Scotia Plaza, Royal Bank Plaza, and TD Centre stack up well to anything in Chicago. Perhaps, you should look a little closer.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Toronto's skyline is much more spread out than Chicago. Chicago is basically the huge Loop/Near North clump, and a thin tentacle a block or two wide following the lake all the way up with a small cluster in Hyde Park. Other than that, Chicago is very low rise. Toronto on the other hand (especially with the boom) has several clumps of towers scattered over the central city, with a sea of condo towers stretching quite a ways inland from the lake. Chicago's central core is much, much larger than Toronto's downtown, but Chicago doesn't have anything on the scale of the Yonge Street corridor or Mississauga.

(It doesn't help Toronto that its skyline is mostly perpendicular to the lakefront, so pictures from the lake show basically the narrow side of the skyline. On the other hand, Chicago's skyline is crowded parallel to the lake, so that perspective is the most flattering for Chicago.)

I agree on Toronto being somewhat spread out.Outside of the loop there are some small clusters spread out, but for the most part its mostly low rise. The loop is very dense though, what part were you referring to as a small tentacle ? Here is a picture of the area to the west of Chicago - [IMG][/IMG] Also, I realize that I have the chicago spire and seven south dearborn in the skyline, I have to delete some files to get rid of that.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Dralcoffin]

By small tentacle, I'm referring to the north lakefront above Division Street:

image hosted on flickr

String of Pearls by Payton Chung

Originally Posted by isaidso

Density? If you're talking about people/square kilometre, Toronto smokes Chicago.

Good post overall, but this is only true for the metro areas. By metro area, Toronto is denser than Chicagoland's sprawl (850 vs 509 people/km^2). However, the City of Chicago and City of Toronto are nearly the exact same size, but Chicago is just barely denser in the city limits than Toronto (4447 vs. 4419 people per square km).

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Toronto's skyline is much more spread out than Chicago. Chicago is basically the huge Loop/Near North clump, and a thin tentacle a block or two wide following the lake all the way up with a small cluster in Hyde Park. Other than that, Chicago is very low rise. Toronto on the other hand (especially with the boom) has several clumps of towers scattered over the central city, with a sea of condo towers stretching quite a ways inland from the lake. Chicago's central core is much, much larger than Toronto's downtown, but Chicago doesn't have anything on the scale of the Yonge Street corridor or Mississauga.

(It doesn't help Toronto that its skyline is mostly perpendicular to the lakefront, so pictures from the lake show basically the narrow side of the skyline. On the other hand, Chicago's skyline is crowded parallel to the lake, so that perspective is the most flattering for Chicago.)

If Toronto's skyline stretches north away from the lake, why would you judge it based on lake views? I'm not sure how you can argue that downtown Chicago is much much larger than downtown Toronto unless you're including the Near South Side and Lincoln Park. If you look up the area, the Loop/Near North (1.58+2.72=4.3 square miles) and downtown Toronto (4.5 square miles), they're about the same in area.

This is Toronto circa 2015. Almost everything in this image is built or under construction. Chicago has 6 super talls, that's where the big difference is. Beyond that, Chicago's central core doesn't look much much bigger than Toronto's. Not to me anyway.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

By small tentacle, I'm referring to the north lakefront above Division Street:

Good post overall, but this is only true for the metro areas. By metro area, Toronto is denser than Chicagoland's sprawl (850 vs 509 people/km^2). However, the City of Chicago and City of Toronto are nearly the exact same size, but Chicago is just barely denser in the city limits than Toronto (4447 vs. 4419 people per square km).

The Chicago tentacle is interesting. I'll try and dig out Toronto's version. Density: I was referring to downtown. Downtown Toronto has far higher population density than the Loop/Near North. It's not even close.

Lincoln Park---Near North Side---Chicago Loop---Near South Side---Downtown Chicago
Land Area: 3.19 sq mi---2.72 sq mi---1.58 sq mi---1.75 sq mi---9.24 sq mi
Population (2010): 64,116---80,484---29,283---21,390---195,273
Density: 20,099/sq mi---29,589/sq mi---18,534/sq mi---12,223/sq mi---21,133/sq mi

Downtown Toronto (2011)
Land Area: 4.5 sq mi
Population (2011): 175,064
Density: 38,903/sq mi




http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1486697
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Loop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan

[Dralcoffin]

Ah, I see about the downtown density point. Yeah, Chicago's downtown has always been very business based, and the population still hasn't recovered from the 1970s and 1980s. I wouldn't consider Lincoln Park downtown, though.

As for the skyline density debate, I'll admit they're basically tied. Both Chicago and Toronto are nice cities, and if I had to leave the Midwest, Toronto would be high on the list. I'm damn envious of how quickly you people are building skyscrapers. Toronto's lucky in that it gets to be the dominant city in its country's economy; New York steals so much of Chicago's thunder when it comes to skyscrapers. But as long as we finally get a 2000 footer...

[iloveclassicrock7]

I have no issue with you asking. I don't want to get into a pissing contest, but Toronto isn't all that far behind Chicago if you look at buildings 100 m or taller in each city. In 2010, Chicago was ahead by about 125 buildings. Based on construction in 2011-2012 and projects soon to break ground, the discrepancy will all but disappear in a few years.

02. New York: 794
07. Chicago: 341
14. Toronto: 216

http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?...language=en-GB

For buildings 12 floors or more, Toronto has far more than Chicago. Density? If you're talking about people/square kilometre, Toronto smokes Chicago. If you're talking about buildings, Chicago is denser but the gap is closing in a hurry. Chicago is more comparable to Toronto than it is with New York.

I'm no fan of First Canadian Place, but Scotia Plaza, Royal Bank Plaza, and TD Centre stack up well to anything in Chicago. Perhaps, you should look a little closer.[/QUOTE]

Im sorry but come on man, you are biased towards Toronto, because your from there! Chicago is closer to Toronto in amount of buildings sure, but Chicago's architecture is way ahead of Toronto, not to mention all the history. Another thing, Chicago's demand is coming back, and new proposals are starting up again, once the recession is over, it should be back in the swing of things. Chicago has also been called the best city architecturally in America by the American Institute of Architects. The thing about Chicago is that almost all the buildings in the loop are good looking, their aren't really any ugly buildings.

Also None of Toronto's buildings stack up to buildings like the Sears tower, trump international, Aqua, one museum park, john hancock,311 south wacker,mather tower, aon center, the wrigley building, and many more. The buildings you mention are nice, but simple and don't really stand out. Chicago also has 28 buildings over 200m. Also, Toronto is perpendicular to the waterfront, but even that long stretch is only 2 miles, Chicago's is 7 miles in length. Btw, now I know why you were trying to put Chicago down in that other thread

[isaidso]

I only have good things to say about Chicago. I ranked it 4th in the world. How is that a put down? And to set the record straight, I don't think Toronto's skyline is as good as Chicago's. If you recall, I have Toronto in 6th or 7th.

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Toronto's skyline length of total buildings around 20 floors and up is about 2 miles. Chicago's is close to 7.13 miles, ....

I found the photo I was looking for. If you're counting that thin line of buildings along Lake Michigan to get 7.13 miles, Toronto could submit this photo in its defense:

[Dralcoffin]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

The thing about Chicago is that almost all the buildings in the loop are good looking, their aren't really any ugly buildings.

Dude, I'm biased for Chicago, but that is just silly. There are a ton of ugly 70s and 80s boxes in the Loop, and some godawful condo towers in River North. Fortunately, they tend to be hidden in the crowd.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Im sorry but come on man, you are biased towards Toronto, because your from there! Chicago is closer to Toronto in amount of buildings sure, but Chicago's architecture is way ahead of Toronto, not to mention all the history.

Also None of Toronto's buildings stack up to buildings like the Sears tower, trump international, Aqua, one museum park, john hancock,311 south wacker,mather tower, aon center, the wrigley building, and many more. The buildings you mention are nice, but simple and don't really stand out. Chicago also has 28 buildings over 200m

That's not a fair comment at all. I'm trying to answer your questions in an informative/constructive/polite/respectful way and to be as impartial as possible. It would be nice if you returned the favour. Slagging Toronto architecture/history isn't really a good way to go. I haven't insulted one Chicago building or said anything negative. Do you realize that those are Mies Van der Rohe 'boxes' in downtown Toronto? That's an I.M. Pei steel skyscraper across from it? Next to that is a Calatrava atrium? These aren't run of the mill buildings no matter what city you're from.

I'm presenting the data and you can draw your own conclusions: Toronto has 10 buildings 200m+ built, 6 under construction, and 9 on their way. Toronto's count will be up to 25 in a couple years. 28 vs. 25? I realize most of these aren't built yet, but you asked me why I'm comparing Toronto with Chicago and I'm attempting to answer your question.

If you see this as being biased, fine.

[Dralcoffin]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I found the photo I was looking for. If you're counting that thin line of buildings along Lake Michigan to get 7.13 miles, Toronto's could submit this photo in its defense:

Is that Hamilton in the foreground?

[isaidso]

Yes, it's Hamilton. It's about 60 km from Toronto, but in reality you can't see the Toronto skyline quite like that. You need a telephoto lens.

Perhaps, we can talk about New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver, Panama City, Pittsburgh, etc. and leave the Chicago/Toronto discussion for a while. It's not a Chicago/Toronto thread.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I'm trying to answer your questions and to be as fair as possible. You can draw your own conclusions.

Man! How long will this debate continue ?

Based off of polls, professional lists, what Architects have said, most people agree Chicago is one of the top 3 skylines or better, ahead of Shanghai. Also based off of all of this, everyone agrees Chicago is way ahead of Toronto.

Also the total line of actual buildings for Toronto is 2 miles, 7 for Chicago. I would also like to point out that Chicago has one big cluster of several tall buildings, then past that for a while its mostly 100m buildings or less. Look at these pics

[Dralcoffin]

One of my favorite skylines, although small, is Detroit:

image hosted on flickr

Photo by Hayward, SkyscraperPage

Detroit has some absolutely gorgeous buildings.