I keep hearing "Toronto is coming close to Chicago" but I dont see it

[koops65]

You are illustrating your point very poorly... you are showing miles upon miles of low rise. The density is there, I'm not disputing that, but the huge difference is that, in Toronto, there are high-rises ALL OVER THE WHOLE CITY...

[kolchak]

The West Loop - a lot of which is a designated historic district. Much of the available land for new construction is really south and southwest of downtown. I'm not saying Toronto will not fill in and be huge, just that the fill in in most of inner Chicago (the industrial far South Side not withstanding as I noted earlier) happened long ago. Actually there is land around the edge of the central core that was occupied by factories and railroads long demolished that is available but in the denser inner neighborhoods not so much. OK OK NOW I'm done - Just having fun of course ;-)


IYOChicago

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by koops65

You are illustrating your point very poorly... you are showing miles upon miles of low rise. The density is there, I'm not disputing that, but the huge difference is that, in Toronto, there are high-rises ALL OVER THE WHOLE CITY...

Look, I have not said that Toronto isn't big - just that its more sprawling in nature. Chicago is just an older denser city block by block in terms of development patterns - and that creates a different feel to the skyline and to the streets. I visited Toronto with my dad when I was fifteen on a weekend. It was cool then but I see the pics of it now and am astonished. There is no taking away from the fact that it is booming.

That being said, it just doesn't feel as urban as Chicago in some ways - and the block by block density of Chicago's older neighborhoods contributes to this. The skyline density is affected as well.

[kolchak]

And to stay on Skyline topic, again Toronto's recent growth is indisputable. However, how much is there that's like this in Toronto?

[koops65]

Originally Posted by kolchak

Look, I have not said that Toronto isn't big - just that its more sprawling in nature. Chicago is just an older denser city block by block in terms of development patterns - and that creates a different feel to the skyline and to the streets. I visited Toronto with my dad when I was fifteen on a weekend. It was cool then but I see the pics of it now and am astonished. There is no taking away from the fact that it is booming.

Toronto has LESS sprawl than Chicago. Toronto has a higher over all density than Chicago does. Toronto fits into a smaller geographic area than Chicago does. I'm not sure if you're making this stuff up now...

[isaidso]

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Kolchak is right that Toronto feels less built up than Chicago outside its CBD. Chicago has been a significantly bigger city up until very recently. Toronto is now filling in all over its core (outside the CBD).

That Toronto has high rises all over metro is a valid point and I'd also argue that saying Chicago feels more urban can be rebutted due to the multi nodal nature of metro Toronto. Chicago may feel more built up outside the CBD than Toronto but Toronto can feel like a larger city because you see high rise clusters in the distance in every direction.

Chicago and Toronto may both be Great Lakes cities of similar size but I do think the similarities tend to end there.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by kolchak

And to stay on Skyline topic, again Toronto's recent growth is indisputable. However, how much is there that's like this in Toronto?

Quite a lot these days ....unless you're referring to the era in which it was built. Toronto's buildings of that age tend to be much much smaller in scale.

[kolchak]

Quite a lot these days ....unless you're referring to the era in which it was built. Toronto's buildings of that age tend to be much much smaller in scale.

I was referring to the intact street wall of 19th century era skyscrapers.

My point here is to say simply that the density patterns of Chicago development are reflected directly in the skyline - which rises gradually into dense clusters in the center of the city with skyscrapers from every decade since the 1880's. The juxtapositions of the buildings, the sheer street walls of architecture meeting flush at the sidewalk present a MUCH MUCH different physical environment than Toronto's modern cityscape.

Toronto is growing very fast and the multi nodal (I love that) nature of the city makes it very urban in many ways. But not the same as Chicago.

[kolchak]

I have mentioned already that a big chunk of Chicago city proper is taken up by enormous tracts of land that once held the Union Stockyards, factories and steel plants the size of towns on the South Side. Once this is removed from the equation then you have a better handle on any comparison if you want to start exploring the metrics of population and urban density between the two cities.

Here, just one example, is the US Steel South Works site then and now:


Wikimapia


ChicagoBusiness.com

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by kolchak

I was referring to the intact street wall of 19th century era skyscrapers.

My point here is to say simply that the density patterns of Chicago development are reflected directly in the skyline - which rises gradually into dense clusters in the center of the city with skyscrapers from every decade since the 1880's. The juxtapositions of the buildings, the sheer street walls of architecture meeting flush at the sidewalk present a MUCH MUCH different physical environment than Toronto's modern cityscape.

Toronto is growing very fast and the multi nodal (I love that) nature of the city makes it very urban in many ways. But not the same as Chicago.

The Toronto stuff from that era usually didn't get much bigger than this photo of King East near Yonge Street:



Yonge/King today:


Courtesy of tayloronhistory

[kolchak]

Those are great! The second shot reminds me of San Francisco near Montgomery Street.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by kolchak

Those are great! The second shot reminds me of San Francisco near Montgomery Street.

Yes I love that part of town as well. So Toronto does have some pre-War structures like that but they've long been hidden by larger modern towers in the skyline. A lot of it ends up like this below:

EY Tower by Marcus Mitanis, on Flickr

EY Tower by Marcus Mitanis, on Flickr

EY Tower by Marcus Mitanis, on Flickr

EY Tower by Marcus Mitanis, on Flickr

[kolchak]

Those doors are just georgous! Pardon my ignorance but what building is that?

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by kolchak

Those doors are just georgous! Pardon my ignorance but what building is that?

Never mind found it 😉

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Beedok

But Toronto is way less sprawling that Chicago (or pretty well any other American metro)?

Look past the skyline and Chicago is low rise sprawl forever. Toronto meanwhile has high density apartment towers all over the place.

It's lowrise. (well, midrise too) It's not lowrise sprawl. Those low to moderate density tower in park(ing lot) apartment communities around Toronto are sprawlier. Typically they are set far back in the middle of the property with a long circular driveway up to the main entrance. Retail is also typically set far back from the boulevard with parking space in between.

[koops65]

From the Great Canadian Skyline thread

For easy comparison. The tallest towers are at a similar scale...

[IMG][/IMG]
Source

[IMG][/IMG]
Source[/QUOTE]

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by koops65

From the Great Canadian Skyline thread

For easy comparison. The tallest towers are at a similar scale...

[IMG][/IMG]
Source

[IMG][/IMG]
Source

[/QUOTE]

This is a great comparison shot - one can clearly see how much more densely and tightly clustered the Chicago skyline is

It also shows how both skylines look from very far away - but move in a little closer and you have more 'meat' to compare. The beautiful symmetry of older tighter urban planning like the flush shoulder to shoulder pre-war South Michigan Avenue streetwall opposite Grant Park. This rare and unique high rise architecture will never be built again and really only exists in a couple of cities in the world.


from "The Plan of Chicago at 100: 15 Views of Burnham's Legacy for a New Century"

[SallyVu]

Toronto is indeed coming close to Chicago with so many condos coming up in downtown with in 10 years we will be right up ahead with skyscrapers. I live near The One Condo which is almost in completion, then there is another one going to the west https://theonecondosvip.ca/ which will be about 80 storeys I heard and then there is another application at every corner. So to me it seems we will surpass Chicago in due time.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by SallyVu

So to me it seems we will surpass Chicago in due time.

In terms of skyline it does seem more like 'when' than 'if' at this point. In terms of global profile the 2 cities likely switched positions a while ago.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's lowrise. (well, midrise too) It's not lowrise sprawl. Those low to moderate density tower in park(ing lot) apartment communities around Toronto are sprawlier. Typically they are set far back in the middle of the property with a long circular driveway up to the main entrance. Retail is also typically set far back from the boulevard with parking space in between.

It doesn't change that Chicago has a way worse sprawl issue. Chicago's urban area has only a little more than half the density of the GTHA. People were asking why Toronto is more sprawly, but it isn't. It's a newer build form, so things are different, but Chicago's developments of the same age are almost certainly worse if it has so much more sprawl and yet so much more historic density.

A city is made overall automatically better or worse by this, but when people say a city has a trait is doesn't then it's worth trying to correct folks.