Canada's 10 Tallest U/C

[Maldive]

CIBC SQUARE | 241.39m | 50s | Hines | WilkinsonEyre l Phase 2 u/c

Money $hot.


urb@ndweller

just east of the creek

[TorontoDrew]

That last angle is going to be one of my favorite Urban Canyon views when it's complete.

[Echoes]

Daaaaaaaamn. The muscularity.

[WhipperSnapper]

This being Toronto, there are two residential point towers planned on top of the old building. Hopefully, never to be built. That is a really cool angle.

[caltrane74]

Heard Mizrahi, got pushed out of the One, project.

Skidgrid is taking over

[WhipperSnapper]

Means they are going to continue building

[Maldive]

Pinnacle One Yonge | 344.9m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini l u/c

SkyTower’s residential floors have 12 sides, a polygon known as an “Irregular Dodecagon”.


rdaner

mburrrrr

[Maldive]

The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners l u/c

Cladding one of the inset mechanical sections.


jer1961

Starting to form up the next floor after the recent column (and super-column) pour.


BloorMan

BloorMan

jer1961

A hawk inspects the super-tall.


jer1961

[TorontoDrew]

From zero to 3 Supertalls , nice! A fourth shoukd be u/c soon with Forma. Keep them coming until we surpass Chicago which will imo give us the official #2 skyline on the continent.

[Nouvellecosse]

It's amazing to see The One really picking up steam. It's The One I'm most excited about. Although Forma might be interesting.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

From zero to 3 Supertalls , nice! A fourth shoukd be u/c soon with Forma. Keep them coming until we surpass Chicago which will imo give us the official #2 skyline on the continent.

When the 2nd Forma tower breaks ground, the third One Yonge tower will likely be U/C too so the SuperTall count will jump to 5. That will be enough to push the Toronto skyline to #2 in my eyes.

By 300m+ Buildings, the City of Chicago is listed at 7 if one includes spires. By roof height, the total is 5 buildings. The City of Toronto will be at 5 in a few years and there's always the CN Tower. It absolutely impacts the skyline even if it's not listed as a building. By 200m+ Builidngs the City of Toronto and the City of Chicago will be knotted at 39 when buildings U/C top out. By 100m+ Buildings, the City of Toronto (349) has already moved ahead of the City of Chicago (347) but will be miles ahead soon.

SuperTalls are what one notices first, but there's more to a skyline than SuperTall count. By 2025-2026, the City of Toronto might already be ahead quantitatively.


(BY ROOF HEIGHTS)

100m+ Built or U/C
City of Toronto: 441
City of Chicago: 348

200m+ Built or U/C
City of Toronto: 39
City of Chicago: 39

300m+ Built or U/C
City of Toronto: 3 (+ CN Tower)
City of Chicago: 5

[Nouvellecosse]

I dunno... 300m+ seems like an awfully wide range when it can be anywhere from 300m to, in Chicago's case, 442m. Just going by roof height for currently built and u/c, Toronto's tallest (Sky Tower) would be the 5th tallest between the two cities while it has no built or u/c over 350m of which Chicago has 3. Sure we have more 100m+ but 100m-150m doesn't make a huge skyline impact in cities of that scale. But every extra bit of height makes a much greater difference at the top where it isn't surrounded by other stuff, and there's nearly a 100m difference between the tallest in the two cities. For me there would need to at least one quality building well over 350m to decisively surpass Chicago in terms of skyline. Especially given how iconic some of their supertalls are.

[WhipperSnapper]

Willis is 3.8 million square feet. Hancock and Trump are each around 2.75 million square feet. The One and One Yonge stand out in height. They have standard residential girths in Toronto. It's not pure domination.

Forma 2 and One Yonge 3 are just proposed.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I dunno... 300m+ seems like an awfully wide range when it can be anywhere from 300m to, in Chicago's case, 442m. Just going by roof height for currently built and u/c, Toronto's tallest (Sky Tower) would be the 5th tallest between the two cities while it has no built or u/c over 350m of which Chicago has 3. Sure we have more 100m+ but 100m-150m doesn't make a huge skyline impact in cities of that scale. But every extra bit of height makes a much greater difference at the top where it isn't surrounded by other stuff, and there's nearly a 100m difference between the tallest in the two cities. For me there would need to at least one quality building well over 350m to decisively surpass Chicago in terms of skyline. Especially given how iconic some of their supertalls are.

True, but even with Chicago's 442m, we still have the CN Tower at 553m. Even though not a skyscraper it's still a building that defines the skyline.

[yaletown_fella]

Id estimate the 53rd floor is 181 m tall

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I dunno... 300m+ seems like an awfully wide range when it can be anywhere from 300m to, in Chicago's case, 442m. Just going by roof height for currently built and u/c, Toronto's tallest (Sky Tower) would be the 5th tallest between the two cities while it has no built or u/c over 350m of which Chicago has 3. Sure we have more 100m+ but 100m-150m doesn't make a huge skyline impact in cities of that scale. But every extra bit of height makes a much greater difference at the top where it isn't surrounded by other stuff, and there's nearly a 100m difference between the tallest in the two cities. For me there would need to at least one quality building well over 350m to decisively surpass Chicago in terms of skyline. Especially given how iconic some of their supertalls are.

300m+ is a wide range, but in this case, we're also talking about just 1 Chicago building; the Willis Tower at 443m. The other 4 are all ~350m. They will be taller than Toronto's 5 SuperTalls but countering that is the CN Tower and the sea of 100-150m buildings in Toronto.

How one views a skyline depends on what one gives more weight to. Having a strong pinnacle is what we notice first but 100-150m buildings are more impactful than we, perhaps, realize. They give a skyline meat and an urban core a bulkier appearance. Because of this, I suspect Toronto will look and feel bigger than Chicago in a few short years OR at the very least, on equal terms. Time will tell.

This was a quantitative analysis but will touch on your point regarding iconic buildings. I do value them but feel we often view them as an insurmountable trump card. Scale eventually trumps the existence of historic skyscrapers or we'd still view Detroit's skyline as better than Calgary's. This brings me to my last point. I wouldn't have said this 5 years ago but aren't we building skyscrapers that will be viewed as iconic? The One? Forma?

They will be transformative, and imo, change how people view Toronto. The Portlands will too but that's not a skyline discussion.

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

True, but even with Chicago's 442m, we still have the CN Tower at 553m. Even though not a skyscraper it's still a building that defines the skyline.

Agree. We treat it like it doesn't exist at all but it does count.

[WhipperSnapper]

Forma is still to be determined. It's not a high end development like One Bloor. Gehry and Partners designed it. They aren't the architects building it.

Foster & Partners pumps out super high rises left, right and, centre. It's in the echelons of SOM and KPF. The brand alone is not enough. One Bloor's structural engineering is definitely iconic or crazy to some. It doesn't translate into the design. I also have some concerns with the upper half having higher floor heights. The sections between mechanical floors are not going to be all the same height. In any case, it takes away from achieving iconic status.

[craner]

For me the the biggest factor favouring Chicago over Toronto is it’s longest skyline axis is parallel to the lake (Chicago) instead of perpendicular to it (Toronto).
Toronto has, and continues to close the gap rapidly. And I definitely consider the CN tower as an integral part of the skyline.

Chicago is my favourite skyline so I’m likely biased towards it but I can conceive a day that Toronto surpasses it - just hasn’t done so yet IMO.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I dunno... 300m+ seems like an awfully wide range when it can be anywhere from 300m to, in Chicago's case, 442m. Just going by roof height for currently built and u/c, Toronto's tallest (Sky Tower) would be the 5th tallest between the two cities while it has no built or u/c over 350m of which Chicago has 3. Sure we have more 100m+ but 100m-150m doesn't make a huge skyline impact in cities of that scale. But every extra bit of height makes a much greater difference at the top where it isn't surrounded by other stuff, and there's nearly a 100m difference between the tallest in the two cities. For me there would need to at least one quality building well over 350m to decisively surpass Chicago in terms of skyline. Especially given how iconic some of their supertalls are.

True. Chicago's supertalls are considerably taller than the proposed and UC supertalls in Toronto. We need a couple of 400m+ buildings to compete at the top end.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by craner

For me the the biggest factor favouring Chicago over Toronto is it’s longest skyline axis is parallel to the lake (Chicago) instead of perpendicular to it (Toronto).
Toronto has, and continues to close the gap rapidly. And I definitely consider the CN tower as an integral part of the skyline.

Chicago is my favourite skyline so I’m likely biased towards it but I can conceive a day that Toronto surpasses it - just hasn’t done so yet IMO.

The arrangement of a skyline can definitely make a big difference. One thing I find interesting about Chicago is that while in some skyline images it almost appears as if buildings are lining lake, it's surprising how much the distance from the water varies. Hancock is only around 1/3km from the shore while Sears/Willis is about 1.6km in. That's the difference between a building at New City Hall compared to where "The Hub" was proposed. They just happen to be further apart in the other direction too.

In Toronto's case, it would probably do more for the lake view to see a major development at East Harbour, something topping out at say 250m, than something 350m in the main skyline orientation. Although with the views from the east or west such as from Riverdale Park, something really tall between Queen and Dundas would make a huge difference. Currently that's a bit of a gap due in large part to hospital flight path restrictions and showing concerns around NPS. But there's a couple places something really tall could go. The Chelsea redevelopment will fill the gap a bit, and the old bus terminal site would be perfect since the sick kids flight path just misses it to the north. And there wouldn't be any shadows cast on NPS since the sun only shines from the east, south, and west. Something 375m would be perfect there.

But anyway, definitely interesting to hear various views on the topic.