Building Boom Set to Vault Toronto Past Chicago in Skyscraper Rankings
 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...er-ranks-chart

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...4kE/800x-1.png
Image was taken from the above referenced link.

yeah, but for skyscrapers over 910 feet, Chicago still kicks Toronto's maple-leafy butt!

:D

it is pretty cool seeing all the activity in Toronto, though.

:cheers: <-- Molson

Toronto has long had a lot more 20+ story buildings than Chicago, so this is just another jump in its continuing evolution.

But far more interesting to me than the penis measuring is the fact that North America's 2nd and 3rd largest skylines are in the interior, on the shores of the great lakes, and not on the over-hyped coasts.

There's gotta be something in the water.

Chicago still has more supertalls and better architecture overall.

IF Toronto has all of its proposals built (not counting what is already under construction), which is a dubious proposition, I would still put Chicago as having the more impressive skyline for a number of contextual reasons:

A—greater height
B—greater visual concentration
C—better architecture
D—more variation in architecture
E—significantly more skyscrapers underneath this article’s arbitrary boundary - for most people, 150 meters is WAY above the boundary line for what they’d consider a skyscraper... official metrices by cloistered academics be damned - for which points A-D also apply
F—and the fact that, well, Toronto won’t be far enough ahead of Chicago at all at that point on the simple, arbitrary, and totally unjustified metric used by this article (12 towers, or 8% of Chicago’s existing + under construction + proposed tower stock over 150 meters... far less than the difference between NYC and Chicago) for Toronto to say that it unambiguously has a bigger skyline (AKA because it is ambiguous, context matters).

Conclusion: at best Toronto can say it is tied with Chicago.

Also: Toronto’s archetypal tower in the park style is an urban typology of which I am very much not a fan. Skyscrapers often DO NOT equal high quality urbanism. Yay for Toronto, the Miami of Canada.

Houston really dropped the ball. Can't let those upstarts on the west coast overtake us.

Re Great Lakes: Good point!.. North America is lucky to have these inland oceans..Ditto for the Mississippi and St. Lawrence . Some great interior (2 -3 world) cities came to be because of, and helped to spread out the influence away from the coasts. Anyways, OT. Good for Toronto!

The vast majority of new 150+ metre skyscrapers in Toronto are being built in the urban core, with underground parking and street fronting retail at their bases, not tower in park style (although there are some still going up in the boroughs) and certainly nothing like what you see in a typical Miami condo tower.

Most of the shorter new hi-rises and mid-rises throughout the city are also being built up against the street with underground parking and street fronting retail at their base. Again, not like Miami.

Lots of problems with this.

-There is no such thing as "proposed", so not point to comparing "proposed" between cities. It's completely meaningless. Take away the "proposed" and Toronto isn't close.

-When talking about skylines, it makes no sense to weight all towers equally. In this article ranking the Burj Khalifa is weighted with the same skyline contribution as a random 492 ft. commieblock. Nonsensical. There's also no consideration given to architectural attributes, bulk, and setting.

-The Chicago skyline is intensely centralized, the Toronto skyline is intensely decentralized. So the Chicago skyline looks so much bigger than the Toronto skyline, because it is. But obviously Toronto has vastly more towers outside the core.

This has probably been true for a very long time. ;)

Am I to understand that according to this bar chart that LA is about to soon overtake Houston too? :rolleyes:

Going by the development threads and database on this very forum over the last 10+ years, most proposals in Toronto seem to get built (albeit often with some revisions), and while it's true that Toronto has hundreds of tall towers spread throughout the city and suburbs, the vast majority of 150+ metre skyscrapers currently under construction/proposed are in the urban core.

I'm sure this is right, but again, "proposed" is a meaningless term. You cannot compare "proposed" buildings across cities with any degree of accuracy because there's nothing apples-to-apples objective.

Is it a building announced in the press? Or a secret assemblage, verifiable through air rights transfers? Or a building with official permits? Or a zoning change for the purpose of new development? Or a financed site? How do you standardize when every city has different zoning/building requirements? There's no definition.

For example, new towers in NYC are not infrequently built with no new building permits. They're built as technical "alterations" of the previous building, as it's frequently advantageous in terms of zoning. How do we compare such wildly different development frameworks?

It seems that several of the responses are completely misunderstanding this. The article is talking in terms of 150m+ towers and a tiny fraction of those are outside the core (certainly less than 1/10) and a tinier fraction are anything resembling towers-in-the-park. The TITP trend is mostly (entirely?) a sub 150m category from before the current boom.

commodities.

yay.

;)

If you look at the chart, the article reaches its conclusions by counting nonexistent buildings. It concludes that Toronto has more towers than Chicago due to "proposed" which is not a thing. Chicago has far more actual, real towers of that height.

And this doesn't account for the relative difference in heights. Toronto's tallest tower would be the 8th tallest tower in Chicago. Toronto has six buildings above 250m, Chicago has 16. Chicago, consistently, has more towers at 250 ft. and higher.

https://www.emporis.com/statistics/t...toronto-canada

https://www.emporis.com/statistics/t...chicago-il-usa

Chicago has essentially no towers of 150m+ outside its core (maybe there's one or two, but basically none). Toronto has quite a few, almost certainly more than 10% of the overall total. Humber Bay, Mississauga, North York, Yonge-Eglinton all have such towers. Humber Bay, alone, has far more towers of such height that all of Chicagoland excluding the core.

No clue about elsewhere, but the planning framework in Toronto, antiquated as it can be at times, is very transparent. I would consider "proposed" to be, at the very least, to be some form of planning application. Basically, anything that requires a sign illustrating proposed changes to be posted outside the site. Of course we have plenty of zoning exercises that won't come to fruition for some time as well.

This makes sense, and probably means you can compare "proposed" for Toronto, over time. But you can't compare to other cities.

In NYC, there is no such thing as a "planning application." A building is as-of-right, or it isn't. There is nothing that needs to be submitted prior to construction unless you're applying for a variance (which is rare, and rarely granted). So hypothetically any underbuilt lot outside a landmarked/special district is a potential site. But there's nothing in the regulatory process that documents proposed structures. The first required public notice is a New Building permit, but that's once construction starts.

And I'm pretty sure that zoning in Chicago is almost totally controlled by the neighborhood aldermen. So zoning is a political construct. If you want to build a 200-floor building, and the alderman supports it, you can probably do it. What's a "proposed" building in that context?

A few comments on your points above:

- No arguments with C and D above.
- Your arguments on points E and F are not correct, and they are based not on factual data but your own faulty estimates. Quick fun exercise for the lazy, go to diagrams on this website, and select Toronto & Chicago (include only built and on-construction buildings, and please include towers - I'm sure if the CN Tower was in the US, you guys would include it in the stats). After page 1 (where Chicago has 16 out of 25 buildings, you'll see it fairly even up to page 10. Toronto takes over after that, pretty much.

Your more glaring misstatement is calling Toronto, the 'Miami of Canada'. I can tell you've never been to Toronto. Outside of NYC, Toronto has arguably, along with Montreal, the most extensive, dense, fully functional and accessible urban cores in US & Canada that are served by mass transit (subways, streetcars, buses) and are fully pedestrianized. When I say 'fully functional and accessible', I mean there are basically no no-go-zones, and you can move through the entire urban fabric without being concerned for your safety.

Miami (I went to school there) is several levels below in the 'urbanity' league, to say the least. Taking about a towers in-the-park type of city.

Even if you don't have the initiative or means to travel more abroad, we live in an age when there is Google Street view. Use it.
I love Chicago, by the way.

My post was about the claim of "towers-in-the-park" and a decentralised skyline and had nothing to do with the article including proposals or not considering variations in height so none of this is relevant in a potential rebuttal. And I was so confident I was correct in the ratio of 150m+ buildings downtown vs elsewhere I went to the diagrams section and looked it up. If you search completed+ u/c Toronto highrises minimum 150m there are 102 results. I found 8 that are outside central Toronto. That's just under 8%. I'm sure if you counted Mississauga it would be higher but that isn't in Toronto, and based on the numbers cited it doesn't seem to be included in the article analysis.

I don't know what prompts you to make claims about Toronto with such confidence and certainty ("certainly more than 10%") when you clearly don't have the knowledge base to justify it. :sly: