Future Canadian Skylines - Page 171

Spring2008 · #1 Posted **Oct 14, 2015, 10:35 PM**

I think TO will surpass Chicago in a few years for #2 spot in NA. Also building a pretty big lead on all the other Cdn cities with Van/Cgy 2nd and third, though Van will continue to pull away as #2 with the super luxury boom while lots of Cgy proposals continue to sit in limbo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

Here is my newest future Toronto render, with as many 122 metre + (400 feet) towers as I could manage to fit in, and a bunch were completely or partially lost when other towers were added in, so there are actually more than what I labeled. There are approximately 80 - 90 towers added in or altered by myself. (buildings under construction for instance)

Original photo credit, from July 11, 2015:

My render:
[IMG]

[/IMG]

With buildings labeled:
[IMG]

[/IMG]

caltrane74 · #2 Posted **Oct 11, 2015, 11:58 PM**

Slowly, but surely, the Toronto Skyline is beefing up.

Good work Koops!

Beedok · #3 Posted **Oct 12, 2015, 12:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Slowly, but surely, the Toronto Skyline is beefing up.

Good work Koops!

Are Shanghai and Dubai the only cities you don't consider slow?

caltrane74 · #4 Posted **Oct 12, 2015, 2:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

Are Shanghai and Dubai the only cities you don't consider slow?

Well they are fast paced cities, that's for sure. Dubai is Super-Luxury and Shanghai is Super-Huge.

ainvan · #5 Posted **Oct 12, 2015, 6:56 AM**

Wow! Toronto in the future!

leftimage · #6 Posted **Oct 14, 2015, 3:19 AM**

Must-watch video showing the Quad windsor project in Montreal... too many towers to count.... and they used legos!

• Video Link

SkahHigh · #7 Posted **Oct 14, 2015, 10:46 PM**

I will repeat this: TO will not surpass Chicago until it gets at least one tower over 300m. Chicago has 4 (including a 450m tower)... I have a lot of respect for the Toronto skyline but it still needs to get to the next level. The bones (150m-200m) are being massively built, now TO needs some supertalls.

caltrane74 · #8 Posted **Oct 14, 2015, 11:10 PM**

It's not only super-talls, Toronto doesn't have the same quality of buildings as Chicago.

Chicago has been a big-league (world city) for a much longer time than Toronto. Toronto, just got into the big leagues about 10-to 15 years ago. Maybe????

Chicago has been a major-league city for 120 years or so, so they've been building quality high-rises all that time. It will take a while for us to catch up, but we will have them beat on density at some time in the next 10 years to 15 years.

Black Star · #9 Posted **Oct 14, 2015, 11:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I will repeat this: TO will not surpass Chicago until it gets at least one tower over 300m. Chicago has 4 (including a 450m tower)... I have a lot of respect for the Toronto skyline but it still needs to get to the next level. The bones (150m-200m) are being massively built, now TO needs some supertalls.

Agree....some peoples kids don't get this.

Beedok · #10 Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 12:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I will repeat this: TO will not surpass Chicago until it gets at least one tower over 300m. Chicago has 4 (including a 450m tower)... I have a lot of respect for the Toronto skyline but it still needs to get to the next level. The bones (150m-200m) are being massively built, now TO needs some supertalls.

Not really needed. A much more solid skyline can still win.

softee · #11 Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 12:33 AM**

^^ There are three supertalls in the pipeline and of course Toronto already has that little 554 metre freestanding structure that has got to count for something.

SkahHigh · #12 Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by softee

^^ There are three supertalls in the pipeline and of course Toronto already has that little 554 metre freestanding structure that has got to count for something.

The CN Tower is indeed very iconic, but Chicago has the Willis Tower and the John Hancock (plus the very impressive Trump Tower) which makes the city recognizable. Again, I'm not trying to bring down Toronto, but it won't be equal or bigger than Chicago until it gets two or three supertalls. TO can be included in that conversation though, which really is a compliment to the city's skyline.

Let's compare both skylines (future TO with current Chicago)

Toronto 2020:

Chicago 2014:

Don't forget that Chicago will keep building a few 200m+ towers until 2020.

WhipperSnapper · #13 Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 1:33 AM**

Need a ton more density. Don't need supertalls and quality in terms of individual towers doesn't matter.

Spring2008 · #14 Posted **Oct 17, 2015, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Need a ton more density. Don't need supertalls and quality in terms of individual towers doesn't matter.

To me TO looks really close to Chicago in terms of density already and the much higher recent construction activity will continue to benefit TO. I do agree about the inferior overall quality, though not 100% sold that TO needs supertalls in order to match, but supertalls are unavoidably coming to TO regardless.

As of last yr, TO had the third highest office space u/c in North America just ahead of Cgy and the most new condo sales ahead of NY. I believe the condo market has even accelerated even more this yr. There's definitely demand on both sides if the city starts approving.

WhipperSnapper · #15 Posted **Oct 17, 2015, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spring2008

To me TO looks really close to Chicago in terms of density already and the much higher recent construction activity will continue to benefit TO. I do agree about the inferior overall quality, though not 100% sold that TO needs supertalls in order to match, but supertalls are unavoidably coming to TO regardless.

As of last yr, TO had the third highest office space u/c in North America just ahead of Cgy and the most new condo sales ahead of NY. I believe the condo market has even accelerated even more this yr. There's definitely demand on both sides if the city starts approving.

Chicago's core skyline is still much bigger in every sense. High rise development in Toronto is spread out to nearly every corner of the city. In Chicago, it's concentrated to a few neighborhoods. It wouldn't take much for Chicago to begin to widen that distance once again.

munchymunch · #16 Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 1:07 AM**

^ This is with the major proposals only, some massing is a little of like the two buildings to the left of Trump are a little tall.

cred to JuanPaulo

Klazu · #17 Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 1:32 AM**

What an epic skyline Chicago has. Only Trump is a huge letdown.

ainvan · #18 Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 1:33 AM**

As a Torontonian who travels often to Chicago, I have to admit that TO's skyscapers are still well below Chicago in terms of quality and awesomeness.

You got this "wow" feeling when you're in Chicago. I suspect the city's layout and the distribution of supertalls in Chicago contribute to that feeling. TO has many tall buildings, but they're tightly clustered in a few spots. When you're on street level in Chicago, you can see the supertalls on your right, on your left, etc. Not to mention the quality of the buildings and different architectural styles in Chicago.

TO still has a long way to go for #2, but we're getting there

WhipperSnapper · #19 Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ainvan

As a Torontonian who travels often to Chicago, I have to admit that TO's skyscapers are still well below Chicago in terms of quality and awesomeness.

You got this "wow" feeling when you're in Chicago. I suspect the city's layout and the distribution of supertalls in Chicago contribute to that feeling. TO has many tall buildings, but they're mostly clustered in a few spots. When you're on street level in Chicago, you can see the supertalls on your right, on your left, etc. Not to mention the quality of the buildings and different architectural styles in Chicago.

TO still has a long way to go for #2, but we're getting there

Chicago has history. What they have accomplished over the past 20 years is no better than Toronto and, I would even say beneath Toronto. Has nothing to do with the respective bests too. It's all about the crap.

Beedok · #20 Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 1:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ainvan

As a Torontonian who travels often to Chicago, I have to admit that TO's skyscapers are still well below Chicago in terms of quality and awesomeness.

You got this "wow" feeling when you're in Chicago. I suspect the city's layout and the distribution of supertalls in Chicago contribute to that feeling. TO has many tall buildings, but they're tightly clustered in a few spots. When you're on street level in Chicago, you can see the supertalls on your right, on your left, etc. Not to mention the quality of the buildings and different architectural styles in Chicago.

TO still has a long way to go for #2, but we're getting there

On foot is where Toronto really suffers. Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver all feel a lot closer at street level than they should with the population difference. If you're in a vehicle (bus, cab, plane, car, etc.) Toronto destroys all comers in Canada (and being such an endless sea it's probably able to handle Chicago), but slowed down to walking and it loses that oomph. The clumps are too tight and too far apart (Ottawa has the exact same issue).