Canadian Skyline Thread III

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by craner

I don’t see any of those as great losses and certainly not worth preserving at the expense of new development.

Just my opinion though.

"at the expense of new development" says it all.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Forumers have brought up city vibes/urban feel, liveliness, parks, population comparisons, etc.

Pardon me if you don't think I'm adding to the discussion with economic output. Even though Toronto is Canada's largest city and the CMA is Canada's financial capital, media centre, IT/tech capital, economic juggernaut it still has a long way to go to compare to Chicago's MSA.

I mean you have to add Montreal and Vancouver's GMP onto Toronto to compare with Chicago. That's wild!
Maybe I'm the only forumer that thinks this way. I'm okay with that.

Dubai has a glitzy Petro State skyline and had supertalls years before Toronto, but almost no one would say it's nicer than how Toronto looks for skyline or city feel

Toronto's skyline overall is still bland compared to Chicago, which makes sense since Chicago had like 3 million people before 1930 (and peaked at 3.62 million in 1950, Metro was ~5.5 million). The Golden age of skyscrapers. That's just my opinion.

Economic output is not contained to the domestic area. It's where the headquarters happens to be and Canada is comparably insignificant. Does the US feel wealthier and also poorer than Canada? I would say so. IMHO, I would say it's currently shifting further towards wealthier than poorer.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Wigs

I know you're thinking strictly in Skylines, but in my humble opinion a Metro doesn't surpass another in prominence until

- the population is higher
- the GMP is higher

If we want Toronto compared to Chicago on a world scale, these factors matter more than just buildings

I don't think I've ever visited a city and ever given any thought about it's GDP when forming an opinion on it's metro's importance.


If we started doing that you might want to rank more cities ahead of Toronto as well.

$ in USD

Toronto : $340.5 B
San Jose : $410 B
Dallas $598 B
Houston $538 B
Atlanta $473 B
Miami $471 B
Philadelphia $478
Boston $478 B
Washignton $608 B
San Fransisco $669 B
Seattle $480 B



Here is a Global City Power Index (GCPI) list done out of Japan on cities ranked.

Given the global competition between cities, the Global Power City Index (GPCI) evaluates and ranks the major cities of the world according to their “magnetism,” or their comprehensive power to attract people, capital, and enterprises from around the world. It does so through measuring 6 functions—Economy, Research and Development, Cultural Interaction, Livability, Environment, and Accessibility—providing a multidimensional ranking. The GPCI is able to grasp the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges of global cities in a continuously changing world not only through a ranking, but also through analyzing that ranking’s specific components.

Source with more info: https://mori-m-foundation.or.jp/english/ius2/gpci2/index.shtml

[WhipperSnapper]

GDP is calculable. That list you posted is all opinion. You'd probably agree on Toronto's livability however, I think we would agree that cultural interaction is curiously low (even without knowing what is meant by cultural interaction) I also remember this list having Toronto in the top 15 20 years ago far above the likes of Melbourne and Sydney

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Neither country could do what the other country did. If Canada ran deficits above 7% of our GDP, we'd default and be the next Argentina. If the US continuously brought in 12 million immigrants a year, the societal backlash could almost be civil war-like. But the US deficit policy and the Canadian immigration policy aren't sustainable in their respective countries, either. If I had to pick, I would choose the Canadian approach because at least you can stop it completely, expect some people to go back, and not have any major externalities like having to raise taxes, cut spending for major political blocs that have become accustomed to that spending, or see your credit downgrade or risk losing reserve currency status.

I think that is all true but I would argue there are other important factors. The US federal government is much larger, funds a military with global reach, and is unbelievably wasteful. We should be considerably more efficient than them.

We also could have done better at developing natural resources. Real estate is just a disaster here and maybe the only factor that strictly speaking needs to be fixed to give Canadian cities a higher standard of living than American cities.

Our immigrant selection got a lot worse too for a time (including during the "backlash" phase when some got kicked out for no good reason; probably the few who actually follow the rules while many overstayed). It wasn't just a matter of expanding the system as it worked in about 2019. I think there must have been something rotten going on with corrupt people cashing in on the fake degrees.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by craner

I don’t see any of those as great losses and certainly not worth preserving at the expense of new development.

Just my opinion though.

Buildings like these might be nothing special in an older city, but in the context of Calgary are fairly exceptional. Historic buildings of this scale or quality might comprise 1% or so of the city's building stock. Regardless of what the exact figure is though, it's clearly an inconsequential amount; and preserving this tiny handful of properties wouldn't provide any barriers or disincentives to new development in the grand scheme of things.

It's inaccurate to suggest that it's a choice between having new development or maintaining heritage buildings. If these particular buildings were off limits to development, a different set of properties simply would have been purchased for the developments. And it's not as if Calgary has a shortage of non-historic building lots.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I don't think I've ever visited a city and ever given any thought about it's GDP when forming an opinion on it's metro's importance.


Here is a Global City Power Index (GCPI) list done out of Japan on cities ranked.

Given the global competition between cities, the Global Power City Index (GPCI) evaluates and ranks the major cities of the world according to their “magnetism,” or their comprehensive power to attract people, capital, and enterprises from around the world. It does so through measuring 6 functions—Economy, Research and Development, Cultural Interaction, Livability, Environment, and Accessibility—providing a multidimensional ranking. The GPCI is able to grasp the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges of global cities in a continuously changing world not only through a ranking, but also through analyzing that ranking’s specific components.

That global index is rather subjective, and isn't based on comparative numbers though. I mean power can be measured in many ways, not just the ones they are using. Don't get me wrong, I like some of those cities near the top of the list, like Amsterdam for example, but I don't think of it as one of the most 'powerful' cities.

[Calgarian]

Do we have those numbers for other Canadian cities? Calgary always claims to have a Canadian quality of life with an American level of wealth.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Wigs

IMHO, Toronto won't officially surpass Chicago until the Gross Metropolitan Product is higher.

Population and GDP are significant metrics but represent the few areas where Chicago is still ahead. By most metrics Toronto moved ahead of Chicago a while ago. It will ruffle feathers, but Toronto is a noticeably more vibrant and cosmopolitan place and has been for a good 20+ years. Globally, Toronto zoomed in front and is the higher profile city. People in Chicago just haven't realized it yet.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Population and GDP are significant metrics but represent the few areas where Chicago is still ahead. By most metrics Toronto moved ahead of Chicago a while ago. It will ruffle feathers, but Toronto is a noticeably more vibrant and cosmopolitan place and has been for a good 20+ years. Globally, Toronto zoomed in front and is the higher profile city. People in Chicago just haven't realized it yet.

I don't think Chicago should be considered all that vibrant. Was talking to a person from Chicago a few months ago, and he said Chicago doesn't have anything like downtown Vancouver. He was surprised to see people out and about on a Tuesday night. And if you look on streetview, you get the impression Chicago isn't all that lively. At least in concentrations the way you see in the bigger Canadian cities.

[cranes]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

KW needs more bunching of its towers.

There's some bunching, but generally speaking, KW's towers are being built/proposed all along the ION LRT corridor. There's a concentration between: 365 Albert St, Waterloo (University of Waterloo Station) to 475 King Street E, Kitchener (Kitchener Market Station). Sometime this quarter-century, a mini-version of this Toronto Yonge Street high-rise video could be made for KW.

• Video Link

Kitchener-Waterloo

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/28743602/411-741-king-street-w-kitchener

The Bright Building @ 741 King St W, Kitchener. Closest ION: Grand River Hospital Station

Looking 'West/North' towards Uptown Waterloo + Northdale University District. The 365 Albert Street Quintuplets "The Hub" are visible in the background.










Downtown Kitchener

[Echoes]

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

You almost never hear about Denver on SSP.

It has a nice, if somewhat underwhelming skyline given its metro size. Calgary's skyline is perhaps triple the depth/breadth of Denver's.


And like Otac, I have only set foot in the Illuminati Airport of Denver, changing flights with a four hour layover. Ate overpriced Shake Shack food. Good stuff, but the price is ridiculous.

What is Shake Shack? It sounds like it should be a kids play place like Chuck E Cheese. It would be great if it was located beneath the demonic blue Mustang Blucifer’s 🞵🞵🞵🞵:

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Do we have those numbers for other Canadian cities? Calgary always claims to have a Canadian quality of life with an American level of wealth.

It kinda seemed like that when I lived there. However with rising rents and housing prices not as much anymore.

I know folks in Toronto (Montreal, Vancouver) make some absurd salaries, but in Calgary it really seemed like people overall earned more and at younger ages than they would in Canada's largest cities. I recall a Dutch employee of a major firm saying "Calgary is the only city I'm aware of where you can reach VP status and already make a high salary in your 20s". His fellow Dutch colleague quipped "it's funny, because it's not far off from the truth".

For some of my friends at the time it was truly living the Canadian dream. In 2025, it doesn't seem as accessible as it was back then with the way the overall cost of living has risen in a short period of time.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by logan5

I don't think Chicago should be considered all that vibrant. Was talking to a person from Chicago a few months ago, and he said Chicago doesn't have anything like downtown Vancouver. He was surprised to see people out and about on a Tuesday night. And if you look on streetview, you get the impression Chicago isn't all that lively. At least in concentrations the way you see in the bigger Canadian cities.

I was in Chicago for a week last year and I would have to agree with you. For the size of Chicago, it doesn't feel as vibrant as Toronto or Montreal for sure. I could also see how it would feel less vibrant than Vancouver too.
So much of its population and retail is spread out over a huge area and their downtown also has a much larger ratio of office buildings to residential than the big 3 Canadian metros.
I spent a lot of time wandering around downtown a couple of times on week nights and on a Saturday, and was very quiet. The vibrancy seems to be pinpointed to certain specific areas that are not really near each other. My friend took me to a few different places around the city. Wrigleyville, North Rush, Michigan Ave, A neighborhood called Bridgeport. They all have some decent vibrancy, but there far apart from each other. So many streets seemed to be completely absent of people.
Not to dump on Chicago, but I was surprised how quiet it was for such a large city.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by Wigs

It kinda seemed like that when I lived there. However with rising rents and housing prices not as much anymore.

I know folks in Toronto (Montreal, Vancouver) make some absurd salaries, but in Calgary it really seemed like people overall earned more and at younger ages than they would in Canada's largest cities. I recall a Dutch employee of a major firm saying "Calgary is the only city I'm aware of where you can reach VP status and already make a high salary in your 20s". His fellow Dutch colleague quipped "it's funny, because it's not far off from the truth".

For some of my friends at the time it was truly living the Canadian dream. In 2025, it doesn't seem as accessible as it was back then with the way the overall cost of living has risen in a short period of time.

A business associate of mine was a co-op student at one of the energy companies in Calgary in the mid 2000's. He was making so much money on his work term that he was able to buy a BMW.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

A business associate of mine was a co-op student at one of the energy companies in Calgary in the mid 2000's. He was making so much money on his work term that he was able to buy a BMW.

I believe it. I had friends in their 20s that owned an Audi, another owned a Mercedes. Cars in that "luxury" car market most higher income Canadians aren't able to justify until well into their 40s, 50s or 60s.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

What is Shake Shack? It sounds like it should be a kids play place like Chuck E Cheese. It would be great if it was located beneath the demonic blue Mustang Blucifer’s 🞵🞵🞵🞵:

That can't be real and exist in an airport. Why would some person think a blue horse with glowing red eyes and a huge, conspicuous 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 with some alien-like creature crawling towards it is an appropriate sculpture for anywhere, and who would pay for that vulgar disgrace?! If anything, it might work in a rodeo-themed S&M club, but if I were the airport, I would remove it forthwith.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by Gresto

That can't be real and exist in an airport. Why would some person think a blue horse with glowing red eyes and a huge, conspicuous 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 with some alien-like creature crawling towards it is an appropriate sculpture for anywhere, and who would pay for that vulgar disgrace?! If anything, it might work in a rodeo-themed S&M club, but if I were the airport, I would remove it forthwith.

I thought the same thing. It's strange taste for a public sculpture. Even the demon eyes, I can sort of get, but the backside portion, like wtf? lol.

[O-tacular]

You mean to tell me that this sculpture unsettles you and looks ominous and possibly demonic? But why?