Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by niwell

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.

This is how I've always felt. Toronto packs more into a smaller area since it's really all we've got to work with given our smaller prewar frame. Chicago gives you a plethora of options, but they are more spread out and are often a little thinner at ground level.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Chicago gives you a plethora of options, but they are more spread out and are often a little thinner at ground level.

It's interesting to compare this feel to density statistics. It is easy to draw boundaries that don't match how areas function and most boundaries cover nondescript areas with low-ish densities that don't imply much of anything (this blob is 4k per sq km, that blob has a bit less industry and is 7k per square km). You need to understand the transportation and look almost at a block level.

I don't think American cities generally allow enough infill and intensity of infill to create new busy pedestrian-oriented areas. And their transit tends to be mediocre at best. Then again, they tend to have more interesting and distinct commercial destinations than Canada (often with tons of structured parking).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

This is how I've always felt. Toronto packs more into a smaller area since it's really all we've got to work with given our smaller prewar frame. Chicago gives you a plethora of options, but they are more spread out and are often a little thinner at ground level.

This is one of my major frustrations about our cities. We have so much difficulty in expanding our urban "frame" beyond what we inherited from the pre-war era.

We people grow, our frame grows with us. But when our cities grow, their frames often don't causing them to have ridiculous and awkward proportions.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

This is one of my major frustrations about our cities. We have so much difficulty in expanding our urban "frame" beyond what we inherited from the pre-war era.

The inherited stuff also tends to get destroyed in cities with more development pressure because the urban core footprint doesn't change much. Not unusual at all in many cities for a 19th century storefront building to be less protected than a 50's bungalow.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

This is one of my major frustrations about our cities. We have so much difficulty in expanding our urban "frame" beyond what we inherited from the pre-war era.

We people grow, our frame grows with us. But when our cities grow, their frames often don't causing them to have ridiculous and awkward proportions.

It's not really unique to us though. It's pretty much a byproduct of the Western development model post WW2. We are just unfortunate that Canada was such a small country when we were actually building interesting cities, and boomed during one of the worst eras of development practices. Even in Europe, they build out more sustainably and it's preferable to sprawl, but I still don't really have any strong desire to walk around the outer suburbs of Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

[Nouvellecosse]

True that it's not unique to us, but the problem is the most serious for those of us with the greatest percentage of post war growth. So I'd argue that the severity of the issue is somewhat unique to a us although also faced by a few places in the US and Australia.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by niwell

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.

On SSP there's often a sort of zero-sum perspective whereby the population in 1945 is used as the baseline for urbanity. In reality of course, a lot has happened over the past 78 years - and many cities have lost urbanity while others have gained. So while Chicago's urban core is still a larger geography than Toronto's in 2023, Toronto's is healthier & more vibrant.

The other factor to consider is that Canada was generally a bit slower to get on the suburban development bandwagon, while development patterns have diverged further in recent years, so "post-war" doesn't mean exactly the same thing. I'd hazard a guess that the proportion of people living in cohesive urban neighbourhoods in Chicago today is maybe 1.5-2x higher than in Toronto now, despite having had 5x the population in 1945.


Also agree re. Grant Park. It looks great from the air, but it's not a particularly human-scaled park at street level, and is bisected by too many wide, fast-moving roads to make for a pleasant environment.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

On SSP there's often a sort of zero-sum perspective whereby the population in 1945 is used as the baseline for urbanity. In reality of course, a lot has happened over the past 78 years - and many cities have lost urbanity while others have gained. So while Chicago's urban core is still a larger geography than Toronto's in 2023, Toronto's is healthier & more vibrant.

I'd argue you could use pre-1945 population as a baseline for potential urbanity. What cities have done with that potential is extremely varied, but most of us aren't going to argue that Mississauga or Scarborough Town Centre help to tip the scales in Toronto's favour. What does help is that everything we had at that point is largely intact and continuing to intensify and add vibrancy.

[O-tacular]

Cool view of Calgary's East Village showing the next parcels to be developed. Lots of potential for the central parking wasteland. Plans in place for a mixed use development in the centre but no build permits yet.



https://calgary.skyrisecities.com/forum/...s-discussion.27153/page-453#post-1896697

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Chicago has more than twice the GDP of Toronto. It has four stock markets that dwarf the value of Toronto's single stock market.

I totally get what you're saying about Chicago, but I had to double check this because it didn't add up. Toronto has three stock exchanges, the most valuable of which is the TSX, 10th in the world with a market cap of US$3.25 trillion. Chicago also has three exchanges, the largest of which has a market cap of $13.13 billion. That's a tiny fraction of Toronto.

I could be wrong, since finance isn't really my thing. But here's a list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges

Anyway, I also agree with you that Chicago and Toronto are very different cities. Chicago has this muscularity that Toronto doesn't, and it's also a very spacious, distinctly Midwestern city. Toronto is more Londonesque: cluttered, cramped, messy in a very dynamic and vivacious way.

[GeneralLea]

Beautiful image of Calgary. While it'll be great to see those gaps filled in, the skyline is still quite incredible as is. The variety and depth of the core always impresses me about Calgary.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Cool view of Calgary's East Village showing the next parcels to be developed. Lots of potential for the central parking wasteland. Plans in place for a mixed use development in the centre but no build permits yet.



https://calgary.skyrisecities.com/forum/...s-discussion.27153/page-453#post-1896697

There's so much progress that has been made in the East Village and Victoria Park, but I also wonder why it seems to be going so slowly. I know the economy hasn't been great in Calgary but the city is still growing very quickly. Is it because the lot sizes are so big?

[Luisito]

When it comes to it's skyline, Calgary punches above it weight. It has a very nice skyline for a city of its size.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

There's so much progress that has been made in the East Village and Victoria Park, but I also wonder why it seems to be going so slowly. I know the economy hasn't been great in Calgary but the city is still growing very quickly. Is it because the lot sizes are so big?

Developers buy parcels and seem to sit on them forever. See the prime real estate at the Westbrook TOD in front of the mall. It was bought by Matco and has sat as a field for like a decade.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

I totally get what you're saying about Chicago, but I had to double check this because it didn't add up. Toronto has three stock exchanges, the most valuable of which is the TSX, 10th in the world with a market cap of US$3.25 trillion. Chicago also has three exchanges, the largest of which has a market cap of $13.13 billion. That's a tiny fraction of Toronto.

I could be wrong, since finance isn't really my thing. But here's a list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges

Anyway, I also agree with you that Chicago and Toronto are very different cities. Chicago has this muscularity that Toronto doesn't, and it's also a very spacious, distinctly Midwestern city. Toronto is more Londonesque: cluttered, cramped, messy in a very dynamic and vivacious way.

I shouldn't venture into finance topics like this. I don't know enough to interpret the info I find.

I like your short and pithy comparative descriptions of Chicago and Toronto.

[Nouvellecosse]

Chicago seems very "classic" in that it has a distinct, cohesive style that everything both old and new fits into. The black white and grey, big block structures, lots of straight lines (both architecture and streets). It feels like basically the same city across the decades and centuries with the changes mostly juet being additions to what was already established. Toronto on the other hand seems more eclectic and perhaps erratic in its style. And while there are plenty of remnants of the past, the modern city seems completely different in character and essence compared to prior iterations.

There are things I prefer about each. Chicago definitely seems more complete aesthetically whereas with Toronto there's a sense that it's impossible to know where it'll end up. It feels like in 50 or 100 years Chicago will be the same but with more and taller skyscrapers while Toronto could be unrecognizable which feels exciting but uncertain.

[J.OT13]

https://www.ledroit.com/2023/01/05/ottaw...en-2023-297471540cfc5ae29da47a661f66ec39

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

I totally get what you're saying about Chicago, but I had to double check this because it didn't add up. Toronto has three stock exchanges, the most valuable of which is the TSX, 10th in the world with a market cap of US$3.25 trillion. Chicago also has three exchanges, the largest of which has a market cap of $13.13 billion. That's a tiny fraction of Toronto.

Not an expert either but Chicago's financial sector seems to be more centred around futures exchanges, which arose due to it's prominence as an agricultural distribution centre (read: railways). IIRC the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is the largest in the world. Like all regional American hubs there's also a big insurance presence.

But yeah, it doesn't really have the type of finance that places like NYC, London and even Toronto have. Toronto is also the low-key largest mining investment centre in the world, though that's not necessarily anything to be proud of.

Agreed with your comparison of the two cities - Chicago is very midwestern in a way that Toronto isn't. TO kind of straddles traditional Eastern and Great Lakes cities with a London aesthetic.

Chicago also has a lot more stuff like this in otherwise nice urban neighbourhoods - everything is very spread out and wide: https://goo.gl/maps/Sr471ns1YbXbBeM9A

[Maldive]

Bet you didn’t know the Mississauga skyline is next to the lakefront (long zoom ;-). Tallest are M1 and M2 u/c.


drum118

Humber Bay skyline is right of center, Mississauga in the distance on the left.


drum118

[905er]

That's the BEST Mississauga skyline pic I've seen .. at least in a very long time. Can't wait to see how much bigger it'll get in the next 5 years.

Thanks for posting!!