Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8609015)

What zoom did you take that Toronto pic with? 300mm? Ft. Niagara is not that close.

Same with Chicago, where was that taken from?

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8609026)

the chicago shot is from Indiana Dunes National Park, ~30 miles over the water from downtown chicago, similar to the distance across lake ontario from fort niagara to downtown toronto.

both shots no doubt required a fairly powerful zoom lens (and some clear dry air to boot) because the chicago skyline looks nowhere close to that large from the dunes with the naked eye.

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8608652)

It's not that deep. From wiki:

"McMansion is a pejorative term for a large "mass-produced" dwelling, constructed with low-quality materials and craftsmanship, using a mishmash of architectural symbols to invoke connotations of wealth or taste, executed via poorly imagined exterior and interior design"

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin (Post 8608831)

To be fair, Toronto probably achieved a similar status 50 years ago. High-rises* are by far the most common housing typology in the city, accounting for nearly 45% of total housing units - most of which were built in the 60s-80s. The difference is now they're just getting taller.


*Or rather, buildings over 5 stories. But really, there aren't a whole lot of residential buildings here in that 5-10 storey sub-highrise range.

Originally Posted by skysoar (Post 8608609)

I have been to Toronto and have always been impressed with their skyline. But I would say its not New York or Chicago impressive, and for some reason I don't feel it ever will be. Its something unique about the N.Y and Chicago skylines beyond their numbers, that is hard to describe but you know it when you see it.

Originally Posted by Nite (Post 8608244)

i find it hard to show the size of Toronto Skyline in pictures but video does it better justice

Flying into Toronto's Island Airport from a couple of months ago
• Video Link

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8608231)

I don't know...Toronto's buildings all look alike for most part..the architecture is not good and looks cheap (Miami'ish)...just building a ton of residential buildings with mediocre architecture is nothing to aim for... Chicago at least has some highlights in architecture during its building boom cycles (not including its art deco collection which are unmatched in north american by any city outside of NYC)...not saying there all winners but there is usually a handful of excellent designs. Does anyone have the stats comparing Chicago's office market size to Toronto?

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8609182)

I like to call it the "connective tissue" that makes walking in these cities an experience... like someone mentioned the mix of architecture styles and the smaller buildings and street fronts that give it an active and exciting feel... Toronto just doesn't have that on the same scale as Chicago or NYC. Dubai has a similar effect...lots of tall buildings but not the downtown vibe that active storefronts and street level activity.

Originally Posted by Quixote (Post 8609189)

Here's an idea that's probably been suggested a few times prior:

Decommission that airport and restore it to park space. It's a no-brainer.

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8609182)

I like to call it the "connective tissue" that makes walking in these cities an experience... like someone mentioned the mix of architecture styles and the smaller buildings and street fronts that give it an active and exciting feel... Toronto just doesn't have that on the same scale as Chicago or NYC. Dubai has a similar effect...lots of tall buildings but not the downtown vibe that active storefronts and street level activity.

Originally Posted by Nite (Post 8609249)

No need for that, the Toronto islands are already one of the largest urban parks in the work. Expanding them to include the airport doesn't benefit anyone.

https://hub-smartcoverage-prod-stati...1.original.png

Originally Posted by Quixote (Post 8609270)

You're kidding. You would rather have the airport than more park space? The airport handles less than 3 million passengers a year... very inconsequential. Why not build an even larger secondary airport (if the concern is straining Pearson's capacity) to the northeast of Scarborough along the existing railroad ROW?

That the Toronto Islands already provide lots of park space is beside the point. This is an opportunity to make the city even better than it already is.

Originally Posted by Nite (Post 8609252)

You clearly have never been to Toronto if you think Chicago has a more exciting street life. Only NYC beats Toronto in street life in North America

Originally Posted by edale (Post 8609292)

^I've always thought Toronto lacked in the iconic park category. New York has Central Park, Montreal has Mount Royal, Chicago has Millennium Park, Vancouver has Stanley, LA Griffith, SF Golden Gate, London Paris, Madrid...all have at least one famous park. I don't have a park that comes to mind when I think of Toronto.

Originally Posted by edale (Post 8609292)

^I've always thought Toronto lacked in the iconic park category. New York has Central Park, Montreal has Mount Royal, Chicago has Millennium Park, Vancouver has Stanley, LA Griffith, SF Golden Gate, London Paris, Madrid...all have at least one famous park. I don't have a park that comes to mind when I think of Toronto.

Originally Posted by edale (Post 8609292)

^I've always thought Toronto lacked in the iconic park category. New York has Central Park, Montreal has Mount Royal, Chicago has Millennium Park, Vancouver has Stanley, LA Griffith, SF Golden Gate, London Paris, Madrid...all have at least one famous park. I don't have a park that comes to mind when I think of Toronto.

Originally Posted by Nite (Post 8609389)

Millennium Park, Chicago: 10 Ha