Canada's 10 Tallest U/C

[Coldrsx]

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.

Toronto does not touch Chicago and never will... and Justin Bieber told me to never say never.

Chicago's history, era impact and living legends are way beyond anything that it could touch.

[koops65]

We're talking about the number of skyscrapers, not their history...

[WhipperSnapper]

We're talking skylines here.

Chicago is a major regional hub in the most influential nation for the past 50 plus years and Toronto is the hub for non francophones in an increasingly irrelevant country. Comparing legends, history, etc. is apples to oranges.

Toronto's skyline can overtake Chicago statistically within our lifetimes. It will come from residential that continues to lower standard of living in order to be obtainable in this overvalued bubble.

[Nouvellecosse]

Chicago doesn't have a lot of really large historic skyscrapers the way NYC does with ESB, Chysler, AIG, etc. so while they make a big impression at street level, they have very little impact from a skyline perspective. Just a fleeting glimpse from certain angles here and there. The row of historic mid/high rises lining the waterfront parks along S. Michigan Ave is a beautiful feature from some angles. But that is still one feature from only certain angles. The part of the skyline that's visible in most skyline shots isn't that much older than the conspicuous parts of the Toronto skyline. And Chicago has added lots of new stuff over the last couple decades too.

While the vast majority of Toronto's skyscrapers were built in the last 20 years, we can't forget that a huge chunk of Chicago's buildings are just as new. Chicago has 53 built and U/C 150m+ buildings since 2004 meaning over 1/3 of its 150m+ skyline was added in the last 20 years. And the age difference will continue to narrow over time as they both grow. Sure, the oldest buildings in the Chicago skyline will always be older, but as time goes on the age difference will become an increasingly smaller percentage of their total ages. A building built 50 years ago is 5x older than one built 10 years ago. But after a decade, the older building is only 3x older. And over time the ratio keeps getting smaller. Today we often see buildings from the 1800s with decades between their ages as being basically the same age. For instance, a building completed in 1820 compared to one from 1860 often don't seem like strikingly different things based on their ages. In Chicago's case, all of the buildings with a roof height of 200 or more metres were built since 1969. Toronto's two first 200m+ roof heights were from 1967 and 1972.

[WhipperSnapper]

Few can distinguish a tower built in 1909 to one built in 1939 but, they damn well can distinguish one built in 1929 to one built in 1969 and that's not going to change 100 years from now. Architectural eras are timeless.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Few can distinguish a tower built in 1909 to one built in 1939 but, they damn well can distinguish one built in 1929 to one built in 1969 and that's not going to change 100 years from now. Architectural eras are timeless.

Sure, but that's a distinction between radically different styles. And as I mentioned, little of Chicago's visible skyline was built before the modernist era. Most older stuff is buried in the mass of newer taller structures. There's certainly a difference between say, international and POMO or Brutalism but they're much more subtle, iterative differences than the radical departure you see between styles like Deco and Gothic compared to Modernist. How radically different a building like Commerce Court West from (1972) will look compared to TD Terrace (2023) to people in 100 years is yet to be seen. A 50 year difference may seem like a lot, but I suspect it will largely depend on the trajectory that prevailing styles take from now until then.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by koops65

We're talking about the number of skyscrapers, not their history...

Numbers are important, but Chicago is on another level, come on now.

Distinctive, definitive, diverse.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Sure, but that's a distinction between radically different styles. And as I mentioned, little of Chicago's visible skyline was built before the modernist era. Most older stuff is buried in the mass of newer taller structures. There's certainly a difference between say, international and POMO or Brutalism but they're much more subtle, iterative differences than the radical departure you see between styles like Deco and Gothic compared to Modernist. How radically different a building like Commerce Court West from (1972) will look compared to TD Terrace (2023) to people in 100 years is yet to be seen. A 50 year difference may seem like a lot, but I suspect it will largely depend on the trajectory that prevailing styles take from now until then.

Commerce Court West and TD Terrace do reflect distinct eras. The modernist era peaked over 50 years. Most people don't like it. There's some confusion with overlapping styles however, most people will separate Brutalism from International correctly. Going back 100 years, they will also be able to separate streamlined Art Deco from pervailing styles 25 years earlier like Baroque, Beaux Arts, etc. I don't think time is as much a factor from distinguished periods.

Note: looking at buildings individually than as a skyline collective. Style blends together in collectives. It takes something like Willis or Empire State to stand out in a skyline in the same manor as looking at these towers individually.

[caltrane74]

If Toronto continues to build at this rate it will pass Chicago sure enough.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Numbers are important, but Chicago is on another level, come on now.

Distinctive, definitive, diverse.

Everything that makes Chicago's skyline distinctive, definitive, etc. was built 60 years ago. Everything built since the turn of the century is on par with Toronto. This is a numbers game. To infer Toronto can't surpass Chicago in consideration of how much that gap has closed in the past 25 years is expectedly Coldrsx. It could happen in as little as 15 to 20 years should Toronto get back on it's trajectory. I don't see a huge 400 metre tower in Toronto's future but, it's more than capable of matching Chicago in 1000 foot supertalls; passing Chicago in 900 footers and, matching in 800 footers

The skyline will increase the number of skyscrapers by 25% in the next 3 to 4 years. It will be radically larger and closer to Chicago's. There's a lot of future skyline resources out there. Unfortunately, they always include proposals.

[niwell]

Indeed. Chicago has the history and collection of incredible towers from the latter half of the 20th century. Most new stuff is pretty unremarkable, and generally worse at street level than what's being built in Toronto. It's hard to gauge without walking the streets but the sheer number of parking podiums and blank walls is jarring, even in comparison to the many lackluster ground-level CRUs in Toronto.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Commerce Court West and TD Terrace do reflect distinct eras. The modernist era peaked over 50 years. Most people don't like it. There's some confusion with overlapping styles however, most people will separate Brutalism from International correctly. Going back 100 years, they will also be able to separate streamlined Art Deco from pervailing styles 25 years earlier like Baroque, Beaux Arts, etc. I don't think time is as much a factor from distinguished periods.

Note: looking at buildings individually than as a skyline collective. Style blends together in collectives. It takes something like Willis or Empire State to stand out in a skyline in the same manor as looking at these towers individually.

You're clearly talking about people who are educated on architectural styles. I'm talking about the average person who would be viewing a skyline. Most people will look at something like Commerce Court North and say that it's an "old" or "historic" building (aka from a forgone era) and look at Commerce Court West and say it's a modern (contemporary) office tower. They'll be able to tell that it isn't as new as TD Terrace, but it won't seem like a totally different era. And to be clear, I didn't say they don't reflect different eras, I just disagree that they're distinctly different eras.

Commerce Court West and TD Terrace don't even look radically different even to me in our present day and I have more architectural knowledge than the average person. When I compare them to Commerce Court North vs Commerce Court West it's a totally different thing even though the time gap is actually a decade bigger with the former vs the latter. The differences aren't really any greater than you'll see between different building designs of the same style. The differences in style are more subtle.

[WhipperSnapper]

I disagree. People will not know Brutalism from International style. They will identify examples of each style as different styles and Commerce Court West and TD Centre as the same style. Sorry, I see major differences between 160 Front and Commerce Court West and the average person will easily identify that these were built in different lifetimes. Perhaps if you said Scotia Plaza and 160 Front. Even so, the rose coloured granite stands out as a an era identifier as much as the all glass expressionism topped with LED light bars.

Maybe I give people too much credit. The average person are a lot more savvy about design trends than my parent's European influenced generation that bought furniture in their mid 20s to last the rest of their lives.

[Nouvellecosse]

People will know Brutalism from International style primarily because of the difference in materials, which is one of the main ways people distinguish between pre and post war styles since masonry materials became rare post war. And people will also probably notice the trend toward everything being blue glass and they'll place that ahead of actual style differences. So they would see something like Boston's Hancock in the same category as the new CIBC towers rather than international style towers like FCP. They will simply see it as a particular colour and material becoming more common for buildings of the same general styles in the later part of the same era.

But yes, you definitely give the average person too much credit. I've talked to a wide variety of people on these topics, and even for fairly educated people, if they aren't educated about design and aesthetics the typical conversation goes more like, "I like that one because it's sleeker" or "That one has a cooler colour" or "That one looks too plain and needs more detail". For a typical person looking "at a glance," Commerce Court West would be less similar to Scotia Plaza or FCP than it would be to 160 Front because of the colours and materials. And at a quick glance, I agree. It takes longer to apprehend architectural details than to notice differences in colours and materials.

[hipster duck]

Speaking about brutalism, is there a name for that style of building from the late 1960s to the early 1980s that used pre-cast concrete panels on the exterior, but international style massing?



It's not quite brutalism - it doesn't have raw concrete. And it's doesn't really have the curtain wall and exposed steel of International style modernism.

There are hundreds of these buildings, tall and small, in every Canadian city. I personally find this to be very drab, and the nadir or skyscraper design.

[DZH22]

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.

Sears Tower (or Willis for the younger crowd) is 527m to the antenna. They also have a 457m antenna with the Hancock Building. However, I'll take roof height (or crown height) any day over comparing how high a stick gets. Sears Tower, an actual building, is 10x more impressive than the CN Tower and yes I have seen them both in person.

In my eyes Toronto still has a ways to go to overcome Chicago's top level firepower. The current set of supertalls isn't going to be enough because they're still below Chicago's.

This is just talking pure height too. Architecturally, forget about it, Chicago in a blowout.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Sears Tower (or Willis for the younger crowd) is 527m to the antenna. They also have a 457m antenna with the Hancock Building. However, I'll take roof height (or crown height) any day over comparing how high a stick gets. Sears Tower, an actual building, is 10x more impressive than the CN Tower and yes I have seen them both in person.

In my eyes Toronto still has a ways to go to overcome Chicago's top level firepower. The current set of supertalls isn't going to be enough because they're still below Chicago's.

This is just talking pure height too. Architecturally, forget about it, Chicago in a blowout.

I don't think he was arguing that the CN tower was equally "impressive" as the Sears Tower (whether he thinks it or not I don't know). More that having the same number of supertalls but with the tallest being shorter, the CN tower would provide a sort of "top up" or equalizer with the extra height. Whether or not that would work of course depends on the type of skyline elements one finds attractive and impressive. Something being "impressive" just means it's the type of thing a typical person is impressed by. But on an individual level it's ultimately in the eye of the beholder. So maybe you finding one more impressive than the other is a typical reaction or maybe you're an outlier. You seeing them both in person does nothing to address that.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Speaking about brutalism, is there a name for that style of building from the late 1960s to the early 1980s that used pre-cast concrete panels on the exterior, but international style massing?

It's not quite brutalism - it doesn't have raw concrete. And it's doesn't really have the curtain wall and exposed steel of International style modernism.

There are hundreds of these buildings, tall and small, in every Canadian city. I personally find this to be very drab, and the nadir or skyscraper design.

I would personally just call it international style. I've never heard of a rule that requires international style to have those things.

[Maldive]

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



skycandy

skycandy

HPA’s signature curves.


skycandy

skycandy

skycandy

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Sears Tower (or Willis for the younger crowd) is 527m to the antenna. They also have a 457m antenna with the Hancock Building. However, I'll take roof height (or crown height) any day over comparing how high a stick gets. Sears Tower, an actual building, is 10x more impressive than the CN Tower and yes I have seen them both in person.

In my eyes Toronto still has a ways to go to overcome Chicago's top level firepower. The current set of supertalls isn't going to be enough because they're still below Chicago's.

This is just talking pure height too. Architecturally, forget about it, Chicago in a blowout.

Bingo.