The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[Coldrsx]

^showed your true color hey.

Tall towers does not mean density. Toronto has some great density, but the GTA does not.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^showed your true color hey.

Tall towers does not mean density. Toronto has some great density, but the GTA does not.

That's what I'm saying. Traynor says you need tall towers for density.

I'm saying the opposite.

Take issue with Traynor not me.

Originally Posted by Traynor

Cal... I am sorry but I have to be the voice of reason here. We all know you love Toronto and are very proud, as am I. I was born there and lived most of my life downtown. However, I still hold an objective view and know the reality that Toronto is.

Toronto may be massive... It may be very populated... It may have more highrises than any other Canadian city, but that does not equate to density.

You are overwhelmed with pride and your opinions hopelessly subjective. The spread out nature of Toronto's sprawl negates the true density it would have, if it's landmass was as restrictive as, say, Vancouver's.

You mind's eye knows all the projects built and under construction and it sees them all together. Your mind groups Hulmark Centre and Absolute World in with the CBD even though it's miles away.

If you could move all of Toronto's highrises in from the suburbs (I mean every building over 12 floors in Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke etc..) and place them all in the CBD then yes, we would have Vancouver type density. Dare I say even at the levels of Manhattan, but this is not the case.

Just take a long look at the recent Vancouver aerial and then the one you posted of T.O. Use a real OBJECTIVE eye, Cal. Look at all the space between Toronto's stuff below Bloor. Not even mentioning the vast distance between there and perhaps North York or Scarborough.

There is no open space anywhere in this picture? Can you show me? - Can't even find a — parking lot in this mess, eh?

There are buildings, buildings that ARE NOT TALL in this picture, by Coldrx's standard this is density. Not by Traynor's.

THIS IS STILL DENSITY.



Ben West Photography

[dleung]

Vancouver only looks a lot denser because of the fine scale of buildings. It'll take half a dozen Yaletown condo towers to house as many people as one of those concrete bunkers throughout Metro Toronto. That said, the DT peninsula is still the densest 6 square km in the country, and the city proper denser than Toronto's... except for a fair pre-amalgamation comparison, Old Toronto is denser than Vancouver proper, Metro Toronto is denser than Vancouver's inner-ring suburbs, and the 905 is denser than Vancouver's "zone 3" suburbs (Vancouver houses tend to be a lot more generous with yards and landscaping). And the densest 2 blocks are also in Toronto.

In terms of high-rise per capita, Metro Vancouver has 1/2 the number of highrises as Greater Toronto, but with just over 1/3 the population. But again... point towers vs commie blocks, so there's still a higher percentage of apartment dwellers in Toronto, which, combined with the dense subdivisions in the 905, more than make up for the low-densities associated with all the hydro corridors, parking lots, power centres, office parks and empty blocks of grass throughout Mississauga, Scarborough, York Region, etc...

vancouver - 739
burnaby - 151
richmond - 108
new westminster - 69
north vancouver - 56
west vancouver - 32
coquitlam - 26
surrey - 24
abbotsford - 10
port moody - 9
white rock - 4
maple ridge - 3

Metro Vancouver total - 1231

toronto - 1958
mississauga - 250
brampton - 65
burlington - 43
markham - 36
oakville - 34
richmond hill - 27
vaugahn - 26
oshawa - 15
ajax - 11
pickering - 5

Greater Toronto total - 2470

[Traynor]

With, all due respects to Cal, I am not insane, just of differing opinion... Please find me a similar Toronto telephoto shot that replicates this level of highrise density:


(Originally posted by kw5150 on page 285 of this thread, found here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=148434&page=285 )

[flar]

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Traynor

With, all due respects to Cal, I am not insane, just of differing opinion... Please find me a similar Toronto telephoto shot that replicates this level of highrise density:

At least you admit you want highrise density now. Before you were calling me out because Toronto has more Taller buildings than Vancouver.

Then it wasn't height that mattered but built out area. Which the first picture I posted shows.

[The_Architect]

It isn't really a comparison as Toronto tends to have its density along 2 axis (Yonge and the lake) which makes it hard to find one photo showing all the density of the core. Meanwhile most of Vancouver's density is along the one axis.
I'm not taking away from Vancouver's density, because I do agree it has a higher density of condo towers along the skyline shot than Toronto does, I'm just saying you can't really compare the two based on one photo.

This one shows some solid density in the Toronto core in my opinion, and it doesn't even show CityPlace or anything south of the Gardiner, which is getting more and more dense every day.

[flar]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Toronto has some great density, but the GTA does not.

It actually does have great density, although the built form is not that great from a pedestiran/transit perspective.

[The_Architect]

Geez Flar how did you find that pic?! That is insane..

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by flar

[http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/endsnodds/00266.jpg

Thanks Flar.

Mind you this photo is not zoomed into the same level of Traynor's but I'm pretty sure he gets the point. Also gets the point that even the smallest/shortest towers in Toronto would be giants to the Vancouver Towers.

[flar]

I took that pic when I lived in Hamilton, from the mountain, about 60km away. Maybe tonight I'll crop it for more detail.

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

At least you admit you want highrise density now. Before you were calling me out because Toronto has more Taller buildings than Vancouver.

Then it wasn't height that mattered but built out area. Which the first picture I posted shows.

Cal, I think YOU are insane. My position on this recent topic has not changed one iota since it began. I think you have trouble divining meaning from the written word.

You read something and group words together to make one meaning and jump to conclusions before you have allowed the true meaning to sink in. Then you remark on that... Then later you may glance back and decide it meant something else, then post on the latest incarnation. Reading your posts over time shows this to be a constant truth.

[caltrane74]

It's ok to call me crazy cause you can't win this one Traynor.

I won't hold it against you.

[Traynor]

Perhaps my view of Toronto is tainted as well but it does not seem as dense as Vancouver to me.

You can crop the downtown area of these two pics to represent the same square mileage and see what you get.


(http://www.flickr.com/photos/lopoulin/4072322541/)


(Posted my Delirium on page 297 of this thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=148434&page=297 )

[c@taract_soulj@h]

Personally, I think all the new condos in downtown Toronto make it look ugly as sin. You can't even see the SkyDome anymore because it's shrouded by these horrid monstrosities (that includes you, Maple Leaf Square!). Maybe visible from the Gardiner but that's about it. If you covered the roof of the dome in graffiti, no one would really notice.

This type of "Vancouverism", indeed works in Vancouver, SF, hell...even Halifax. Keyword here though is coast, not lake! Anyone get where I'm coming from? The awesome scenery can back up the numerous condos. Toronto..eh..mainly has skyscrapers from the 80s-90s to draw your attention away. I live in Hamilton and can't bare the day where all I see is condo after condo. Toronto is running out of room but why the hell compact a 3-5 km stretch with as many people as you can?

I understand developers want...need...want to make money but really, they could care less if they built on top of the 9th hole of St. George golf course, just as long as they make that extra buck.

Although a few look nice in place, but Toronto's taking it a way too far like a kid in a candy store with a million bucks and the sad part is, this glass tower — will be there for decades on end

My case in point: ................................

Originally Posted by Delirium

photo by Susan Gittins on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/susangittins/5203381540/

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Traynor

Perhaps my view of Toronto is tainted as well but it does not seem as dense as Vancouver to me.

You can crop the downtown area of these two pics to represent the same square mileage and see what you get.

You're two pictures are taken from totally different distance perspectives.

Nice try though!





phototouring

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

You're two pictures are taken from totally different distance perspectives.

Nice try though!

No they aren't! Are you drunk?

Mine are at very similar scales. Look at a building in the centre of each picture. They are the same scale... as compared to your example.

[caltrane74]

Your picture is taken from so far away, it makes Toronto look like it has 5 buildings and a giant —.

Might be your perspective, but it is not a true represenation.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Traynor

Cal... I am sorry but I have to be the voice of reason here. We all know you love Toronto and are very proud, as am I. I was born there and lived most of my life downtown. However, I still hold an objective view and know the reality that Toronto is.

Toronto may be massive... It may be very populated... It may have more highrises than any other Canadian city, but that does not equate to density.

You are overwhelmed with pride and your opinions hopelessly subjective. The spread out nature of Toronto's sprawl negates the true density it would have, if it's landmass was as restrictive as, say, Vancouver's.

If you could move all of Toronto's highrises in from the suburbs (I mean every building over 12 floors in Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke etc..) and place them all in the CBD then yes, we would have Vancouver type density. Dare I say even at the levels of Manhattan, but this is not the case.

Just take a long look at the recent Vancouver aerial and then the one you posted of T.O. Use a real OBJECTIVE eye, Cal. Look at all the space between Toronto's stuff below Bloor. Not even mentioning the vast distance between there and perhaps North York or Scarborough.

Oh, not this again.

Toronto is denser than Vancouver by any measure other than municipal boundary.

[Traynor]

Allow me to bring the scale to exact proportions...

Look carefully at Shangri-la Vancouver at 200 meters and then compare to known 200 meter buildings in Toronto's CBD.



I REST MY CASE!

Square mile for square mile... Toronto may have way more highrises but they are all over the place and not downtown in the same density levels as Vancouver's.