The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! II

[koops65]

[IMG][/IMG]
credit: Don Komarechka, http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkom/6971339648/

[Rico Rommheim]

Funny how Toronto's skyline evolved into a "T" shape. I wonder why that is...

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Funny how Toronto's skyline evolved into a "T" shape. I wonder why that is...

It's the shape of the Yonge Street subway line meeting perpendicularly with the lake shore. If you follow Yonge all the way north to Finch you'll see clumps of density at almost every stop; St. Clair, Davisville, Eglinton, North York Centre.

[Martin Mtl]

Frank's Crazy Universe

[Dwils01]

Some Toronto from a little while ago.








All pictures by me.

[MexiQuebecois]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Frank's Crazy Universe

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Frank's Crazy Universe

That is a beautiful pic, but something about the angle or the scale makes the skyline look smaller than it really is. Or is it just me?

[Martin Mtl]

It's always been a difficult angle, but I thnik it's still a beautiful shot.

A row of 20 storey towers are being build along the canal, so that shot will be completely different in 4-5 years.

[Mike K.]

Let's call this a lucky shot. While taking skyline photos of Victoria, a Nav Canada Bombardier aircraft swooped in low above downtown.

[kw5150]

SO glad that ignatiuff thread was FINALLY closed.

What was it about anyway? It sounded like modern day civil war on that thread.

[The Gibbroni]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Funny how Toronto's skyline evolved into a "T" shape. I wonder why that is...

All 2 of the subway lines.

[The Gibbroni]

Originally Posted by kw5150

SO glad that ignatiuff thread was FINALLY closed.

What was it about anyway? It sounded like modern day civil war on that thread.

dleung can explain why... in 5 languages! Waterlooson is busy having his catheter replaced.

[MTLskyline]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

It's always been a difficult angle, but I thnik it's still a beautiful shot.

A row of 20 storey towers are being build along the canal, so that shot will be completely different in 4-5 years.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will be different in a good way. Those short towers will probably mostly block the taller (and more attractive) buildings behind, making the skyline look worse from that perspective.

[G.S MTL]

Toronto doesn't look that big in those pics.... I don't get it.... Chicago apparently has less highrises but it looks massive.....

[Nouvellecosse]

1. Toronto has far more highrises, while Chicago has far more skyscrapers. "Highrises" only have to be around 12 stories or 35m tall in order to meet the criteria defined by Emporis.com. "Skyscrapers" are often described as being at least 152m/500 ft tall (a minimum of over 4x the minimum height of a highrise). About 10% of Chicago's highrises meet the skyscraper criteria, while less than 2% of Toronto's highrises do so.

2. Toronto's buildings are spread out throughout the city with 1/2 or more being outside downtown. so they do not make pictures of downtown appear more impressive. The vast majority of Chicago's fewer but generally larger buildings are downtown.

[Chadillaccc]

But with all the new buildings going up hopefully by the time the boom is over the number of scarpers vs. highrises will be at least 5% since we're getting beasts like Ten York, 90 Harbour (x3 over 150m right?), Ice(x2), Aura... and a hell of a lot more haha.

I think one of the most impressive aspects of the Toronto metropolitan area is that you have this massive core of skyscrapers in the center of the city, tons of mini cores throughout the city, and then in Mississauga you have a (albeit obviously suburban) great massive core of scrapers in its own right. Plus all the other cities in the metro area either already have cores of highrises or are planning massive redevelopments of their respective downtowns.

I know Chicago and its metro have urban cores... but really it's nothing on the scale of Toronto's metro area.


I wonder when they will start referring to it as the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area. The distance between the cities is very similar to Seattle and Tacoma, yet those two cities are far more integrated than Toronto and Hamilton.

[davidivivid]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/midumas/6557069971/sizes/l/in/pool-896869@N21/


Québec, Québec par flume, sur Flickr

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

But with all the new buildings going up hopefully by the time the boom is over the number of scarpers vs. highrises will be at least 5% since we're getting beasts like Ten York, 90 Harbour (x3 over 150m right?), Ice(x2), Aura... and a hell of a lot more haha.

I think one of the most impressive aspects of the Toronto metropolitan area is that you have this massive core of skyscrapers in the center of the city, tons of mini cores throughout the city, and then in Mississauga you have a (albeit obviously suburban) great massive core of scrapers in its own right. Plus all the other cities in the metro area either already have cores of highrises or are planning massive redevelopments of their respective downtowns.

I know Chicago and its metro have urban cores... but really it's nothing on the scale of Toronto's metro area.


I wonder when they will start referring to it as the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area. The distance between the cities is very similar to Seattle and Tacoma, yet those two cities are far more integrated than Toronto and Hamilton.

For anyone not familiar with the distribution of high rises around Toronto and its inner suburbs, it's worthwhile to examine this SkyscraperPage Map.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

But with all the new buildings going up hopefully by the time the boom is over the number of scarpers vs. highrises will be at least 5% since we're getting beasts like Ten York, 90 Harbour (x3 over 150m right?), Ice(x2), Aura... and a hell of a lot more haha.

Once all the buildings currently under construction have topped out, the then 41 500 fters will be more than 2%, and if one assumes all the 35 500 ft buildings currently proposed get built, they would bring it up to 3.3%, so there will definitely be a noticeable difference in photos. In order for Toronto to make 5% it would need as many 500 ftrs as Chicago, which has 109 built or under construction vs 76 for all the built, under-construction, and proposed in the Toronto database.

Building 68 more 500 footers in this boom may be a bit of a challenge. But of course, Toronto doesn't need to match Chicago's numbers to look as impressive. It just needs noticeably more than it has. There are plenty of examples of cities looking larger and more impressive than you'd expect based on their "stats"

[Ramako]

It may be difficult to meet that percentage if we also keep building sub-500 footers, but what difference does the percentage make? Looking as big as Chicago is just a matter of building more in absolute numbers.