Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by logan5

Funny that your take on this Toronto shot is so positive considering it's mostly just a bunch or generic green condos, just like Vancouver.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by shappy

source

I'm so infatuated with this area, particularly from this angle. Such an unholy melange of styles tumbling all over each other. Not beautiful, but so visually dense and engaging. Toronto to a T.

Originally Posted by shappy

source

Fugging epic.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Toronto blows Chicago out of the water on most fronts nowadays.

Whoa, let's not get carried away. There's an impressively muscular majesty to Chicago that Toronto will never have, and Toronto will probably never equal the legacy endowments in culture and the arts of Chicago. Nor will it ever match Chicago's status in the world's imagination.

I actually do mostly prefer Toronto's highrise style over Chicago's, save for the iconic view along the river and the drool-worthy apartments lining Michigan Ave along the park. But we gotta be real here.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Whoa, let's not get carried away. There's an impressively muscular majesty to Chicago that Toronto will never have, and Toronto will probably never equal the legacy endowments in culture and the arts of Chicago. Nor will it ever match Chicago's status in the world's imagination.

I agree with your sentiment except for the use of ever and never. Unless you have a crystal ball and are able to look decades ahead. Chicago's population remains almost stagnant where as Toronto's growth shows no sign of slowing. It only makes sense that as the city grows so will it's number of large and high quality structures.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I actually do mostly prefer Toronto's highrise style over Chicago's, save for the iconic view along the river and the drool-worthy apartments lining Michigan Ave along the park. But we gotta be real here.

Those old parts of Chicago are for skyscrapers and the industrial age kinda like what Rome is for classical architecture and antiquity. So that is a big caveat to have to add. Chicago also has medium scale historic neighbourhoods where Toronto is WW2-era bungalows.

But in the long run I don't know why Toronto would have to remain the smaller city or somehow more limited. Toronto will probably be more vibrant if it's not already and is likely to end up with much better modern infrastructure. The two cities will feel qualitatively different and they are not really twins at all; Chicago just happens to be a place that people in Toronto used to think of as bigger that maybe won't be so it was a yardstick.

The statistics about municipal population densities or square km of the metro areas aren't going to tell you anything you don't already know if you're vaguely familiar with both cities. The municipal borders are arbitrary and different metros have different physical arrangements and boundaries. The US cities really are physically more extensive.

[🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁]

Coincidentally came across some very nice Chicago shots by Barry Butler Photography.

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm not sure what muscular majesty infers. It's unlikely the market will return to the giant masonry structures in Chicago. Toronto is approving record floor area ratios on a weekly basis. These are capable of propelling the downtown to the densest neighbourhood in North America after decades of continued development.

The world's imgination? I find this a North American centric inflation. I never found Chicago global tourist stature higher than Toronto. It has more competition.

[TorontoDrew]

Gotta love the Hancock Tower. That's what makes the Chicago Skyline one of the best out there IMO. Chicago will always have an amazing skyline. But I'd rather live in a city with no tall buildings then one that has the racism, segregation, and violence you find in the Windy City.

[someone123]

I've noticed Chicago has a regionally variable stature that matches what you'd expect. Well known around the Midwest and West, while NYC, LA, or DC are probably better known internationally. Boston has that kind of regional feel as well with some international profile but less than the top cities. It is a bit weird as Boston is so close to NYC.

Toronto and Chicago are 2 different animals. Regional hub in the US vs. main commercial hub of Canada. Urban development during the time when most of Toronto was built was quite different from the US, with major divergence happening already by the 70's.

[WhipperSnapper]

A regional US hub is a bigger thing than the main commercial hub of Canada. Debating global economic clout is as silly as comparing the population growth rate between the city of Toronto and Milton, Ontario.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I'm not sure what muscular majesty infers.

Look at the bold, powerful symmetry of Grant Park, how city leaders carved it into the firmament against the will of industrial magnates as a gesture of civic spirit in what was the most mercantile patch of real estate on earth in the 19th century.



Look at the Merchandise Mart, the largest building in the world when it opened. That's muscular. That's not a whispy ethereal glass condo built for thirty-somethings mining likes on TikTok.



[Edit] Look at how the Sears Tower John Hancock Center takes up a whole city block, standing there like a lion contemptuous of those who fear him. I'm getting poetic here. Do any skyscrapers in Toronto take up a whole city block? No.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The world's imgination? I find this a North American centric inflation. I never found Chicago global tourist stature higher than Toronto. It has more competition.

Chicago has more than twice the GDP of Toronto. It has four stock markets that dwarf the value of Toronto's single stock market (edit: this is not correct). It was a massive culture incubator in the twentieth century. It has featured in hundreds, if not thousands, of movies and TV shows (i.e. it never pretends to be anywhere else). Michael Jordan, still the most well-known athlete worldwide, played there and is associated with Chicago. Electric blues music that spawned rock'n'roll and went around the world started there. I could go on. You literally cannot overstate Chicago's stature worldwide.

Does it get lots of international tourists? Undoubtedly not, though even so, I can't imagine why any international tourist would choose Toronto over Chicago for a week if the goal was to experience an interesting city.

I say all this as a Toronto fan-boy. I actually don't much like Chicago's midrise residential housing surrounding the loop and on the northside, even if I admit that Toronto's downtown residential stock doesn't hold a candle to it. I can wax lyrical about Toronto's charms all day. But I think we're still decades away from Toronto's qualitative precedence over Chicago in the popular imagination.

(I finished my work early and am now procrastinating for the rest of the day/evening).

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Look at the bold, powerful symmetry of Grant Park, how city leaders carved it into the firmament against the will of industrial magnates as a gesture of civic spirit in what was the most mercantile patch of real estate on earth in the 19th century.

It's the Willis Tower, c'mon we are skyscraper nerds here.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It's the Willis Tower, c'mon we are skyscraper nerds here.

Actually, I meant the John Hancock Center, my mistake. But if you were a true skyscraper nerd you would be fully accepting of the use of "Sears Tower" anyway.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by someone123

But in the long run I don't know why Toronto would have to remain the smaller city or somehow more limited. Toronto will probably be more vibrant if it's not already and is likely to end up with much better modern infrastructure. The two cities will feel qualitatively different and they are not really twins at all;

Part of my SSP mission is to combat the lazy suggestion that Chicago and Toronto are similar. "Tall buildings next to a Great Lake" is the extent of the similarity. Everything else: different.

I suppose you could ask Toronto SSPers if they think the city's infrastructure is going to pull ahead of Chicago in the near future. You would hope it would if 250,000+ people are going to be added to the city annually for the next couple of years.

[WhipperSnapper]

A return to the giant masonry buildings was a reference to Merchandise Mart. The one thing that may come close to the scale of these building is how poorly they preform

Chicago gets a massive boast just being in the US. It doesn't make sense to compare in most categories. International name recognition seems to be a more level playing field. GDP, sport teams, globally ranked medical academic institutions and its storied, influential history over the past 200 years doesn't dominant its foreigner perception. I live in the present.

Blocks come in all shapes and sizes. Toronto's First Canadian Place is a massive tower. It sits on a more massive block. I do get the aesthetics of one tower per block. It does make things feel grander, that novelty wears thin once you visit downtown Houston.

Grant Park is the all time most overrated topic on SSP (or for people against urban waterfront development) It's way too big.

[advance62]

A few Kitchener shots from the summer (by me)

Kitchener Skyline 2 by Matt, on Flickr

Kitchener Skyline 3 by Matt, on Flickr

Kitchener Skyline 6 by Matt, on Flickr

Kitchener Skyline 7 by Matt, on Flickr

Kitchener Skyline 8 by Matt, on Flickr

After sitting at a 20 floor tabletop until about 2 years ago, the new tallest (39 floors) is already set to be surpassed with 6 buildings taller than it proposed and/or under construction.

[logan5]

Chicago is more historic than Toronto, and Chicago has a great downtown (as does Toronto), but Toronto really beats out Chicago in overall vibrancy. That's very apparent once you get outside the downtown area. Such a big city, but Chicago peters out quickly.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Whoa, let's not get carried away. There's an impressively muscular majesty to Chicago that Toronto will never have, and Toronto will probably never equal the legacy endowments in culture and the arts of Chicago. Nor will it ever match Chicago's status in the world's imagination.

I actually do mostly prefer Toronto's highrise style over Chicago's, save for the iconic view along the river and the drool-worthy apartments lining Michigan Ave along the park. But we gotta be real here.

I might have gone a bit far. Chicago has far more interesting architecture, better heritage preservation and an overall nice, more organic built form IMO. But Toronto is on its way of beating Chicago in shear size.

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Gotta love the Hancock Tower. That's what makes the Chicago Skyline one of the best out there IMO. Chicago will always have an amazing skyline. But I'd rather live in a city with no tall buildings then one that has the racism, segregation, and violence you find in the Windy City.

Hancock is perfection. Sears, I can take it or leave it.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Blocks come in all shapes and sizes. Toronto's First Canadian Place is a massive tower. It sits on a more massive block. I do get the aesthetics of one tower per block.

Interesting pick considering Chicago has the same tower in its skyline.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by logan5

Chicago is more historic than Toronto, and Chicago has a great downtown (as does Toronto), but Toronto really beats out Chicago in overall vibrancy. That's very apparent once you get outside the downtown area. Such a big city, but Chicago peters out quickly.

Well Chicago's prewar core is also massive compared to Toronto, so if you're talking absolute distance, Chicago stays urban and vibrant for longer than Toronto as you move away from downtown. 12 km away from The Loop can put you in a neighbourhood like Lincoln Square (but also Englewood in the other direction), whereas in Toronto you're almost at Sherway Gardens. Chicago also offers the best bang for your buck in terms of urbanity in North America. Imagine what a detached like this would go for in Toronto, 2-minute walk away from a subway station and a commercial strip akin to something like the Junction in Toronto. These are selling for $800k USD.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Grant Park is the all time most overrated topic on SSP (or for people against urban waterfront development) It's way too big.

This. It's good for events I suppose but most of the time it's kind of a dead zone in the central city - barring the touristy areas around the Bean of course. I go to Chicago fairly often (for fun) and only bothered with Grant Park the first time around.




The Loop has bigger and more impressive buildings than Toronto but also feels more open and airy - Toronto really packs them into a small area. Magnificent Mile is on another level but again I don't really bother going to that area of the city when I visit.

Chicago is "urban" over a far larger area than Toronto, full stop. This shouldn't really be surprising - if we include the metro area it was probably 5x the population in 1945. Effectively 5x the population of Montreal too. Though it's also probably accurate to say that Toronto's "urban" area outside downtown is both more intact and densely built - even compared to nicer areas of Chicago. Commercial streets like Milwaukee are still pretty gappy between El stations.