Canada's 10 Tallest U/C

[WhipperSnapper]

It's a silly post offering insight requiring further analysis.

Living in One Yonge and M3 could be similar in nature. IIRC, One Yonge has a much better transportation system which is paramount to any semblance of quality of life in these mega monoliths. However, to equate one with the other is delusional. Downtown Mississauga is a universe away from Downtown Toronto.

[905er]

Originally Posted by Doady

Two supertalls in a shitty suburb, promoting a mediocre suburban lifestyle. Sad how backwards Canada is going.

it's not shitty. It may not be your ideal, it's not even my ideal...but its come a long way from fields. It didn't have the benefit of being an established city for centuries, it literally sprouted out of nowhere and nothing, and it's making attempts to rectify a lot of the errors made during it's infancy. Just wish folks would consider being a little more respectful before trashing some forumer's hometowns. To classify a place as "shitty" is an umbrella term which overlooks a lot of charming neighbourhoods throughout the city.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by 905er

it's not shitty. It may not be your ideal, it's not even my ideal...but its come a long way from fields. It didn't have the benefit of being an established city for centuries, it literally sprouted out of nowhere and nothing, and it's making attempts to rectify a lot of the errors made during it's infancy. Just wish folks would consider being a little more respectful before trashing some forumer's hometowns. To classify a place as "shitty" is an umbrella term which overlooks a lot of charming neighbourhoods throughout the city.

One could argue the fields were better then the current built form. The Owners of
Square One mall must be so happy the city decided to build a vertical suburb around it. We can never get back that class 1 farmland. Most of Canada is Class 6 or higher. I'd rather move to Oshawa then Missassauga. At least that town has the potential as it still maintains a true central urban core.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by Doady

Two supertalls in a shitty suburb, promoting a mediocre suburban lifestyle. Sad how backwards Canada is going.

Which supertalls are you referring to?

[WhipperSnapper]

The two in the shitty suburb of downtown Toronto.

Mississauga offers lifestyles that aren't popular on these forums. You gotta accept that and keep level headed However, the post does offer insight that these 70 storey towers going up in Mississauga City Centre aren't different from the 70 storey towers going up in downtown Toronto. They are slightly more affordable but the community is a fraction of what you have available in downtown Toronto and will remain so. That's hardly a great strategy.

MCC is improving with the new development. Young and Eligible has the subways and tall building aficionados cling to them like white on white. The local community declines with each development built, More people, less open space and sharing a stagnant number of amenities.

[niwell]

^Indeed. I can't imagine any lifestyle benefits offered by a supertall in MCC. There's nothing inherently wrong with Mississauga but you better believe if I'm choosing to live there it's not to be in a massive tower and all that comes along with it (elevators...).

I understand the reasoning from a land economics perspective but in a rational world they wouldn't be the first choice for additional density in these areas. I mean, I still wouldn't want to live in One Yonge (or Bloor for that matter) but there's much more of a case to be made in those locations.

[WhipperSnapper]

It's an opportunity lost for the 905 to intensify with improved walkability and better multi use integration but, retain the suburban roots that made them highly successful. MCC is the City Centre. It should be higher density and high rise. EXO and it's taller sequel is beyond high rise

Same developers as Toronto. Same Ford administration. As of right zoning with no municipal height limits

[GeneralLea]

Concord Sky is starting to poke above street level. I took these two days ago
An Early December Street walk by Draulerin Photographics, on Flickr
An Early December Street walk by Draulerin Photographics, on Flickr

[Gresto]

Thanks for the update, GeneralLee. This one is rising under the radar.

[caltrane74]

Lol a 300 meter tower rising under the radar.

[Maldive]

Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners l u/c

Early Merry Christmas to Frank Gehry… after a long and winding road for this project. Crane on its way soon for Phase 1 as the crane base was just installed.


Red Mars

Voila! Crane installed.


citylights

Pretty small site for a 263 metre skyscraper.


Red Mars

UT


The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners l u/c

They were already pouring walls last Friday after Wednesday’s floor pour and now forming the next floor. Fast work.


BloorMan

Earlier:

BloorMan

skycandy


Johnny Au


Pinnacle One Yonge | 344.9m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini l u/c

Working late.


mburrrrr

mburrrrr

Massive transfer slab at the top.


rdaner

[travis3000]

We have some huge skyscrapers under construction right now in Toronto that will transform the skyline.

One Yonge Sky Tower= 1130ft
The One= 1077ft
Concord Sky= 984ft
Forma Phase 1= 863ft

Pretty impressive in this economy, I don't think anywhere in North America has this much tall action u/c right now. Maybe NYC?

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by travis3000

We have some huge skyscrapers under construction right now in Toronto that will transform the skyline.

One Yonge Sky Tower= 1130ft
The One= 1077ft
Concord Sky= 984ft
Forma Phase 1= 863ft

Pretty impressive in this economy, I don't think anywhere in North America has this much tall action u/c right now. Maybe NYC?

NYC absolutely does. There's at least one 1500 ft skyscraper going up.

Toronto building more and higher than Chicago at present, so firmly number 2 in North America.

[TorontoDrew]

According to the diagram page here Toronto has 149 buildings 150m or taller built or u/c, Chicago has 134. I know a few forumers consider 200m to be the cut off for a building to be a skyscraper where Chicago used to dominate Toronto. Toronto now has 41 built or u/c 200m or taller and Chicago has 41. Chicago still has Toronto beat with 300m plus towers with 5 built verses Toronto's current 2 u/c, 3 if you include the corner of Concord sky that's 300.6m tall. But if both cities maintain their current growth rates Chicago is going to really start lagging behind T.O.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

According to the diagram page here Toronto has 149 buildings 150m or taller built or u/c, Chicago has 134. I know a few forumers consider 200m to be the cut off for a building to be a skyscraper where Chicago used to dominate Toronto. Toronto now has 41 built or u/c 200m or taller and Chicago has 41. Chicago still has Toronto beat with 300m plus towers with 5 built verses Toronto's current 2 u/c, 3 if you include the corner of Concord sky that's 300.6m tall. But if both cities maintain their current growth rates Chicago is going to really start lagging behind T.O.

I get 124 buildings for Toronto and 139 for Chicago for 150m and over. For 200m and over I get 39 for Toronto and 38 for Chicago.

When I search I have only "highrise" selected in structure type, I have built and u/c for status (but not on hold), and I order by "official height" and drawing selection "all buildings"

I'm curious what you're selecting to get 149 of 150m and over for Toronto.

[WhipperSnapper]

149 is greater Toronto and pinnacle height

[TorontoDrew]

Nouvellecosse, I had each city sett at 200m or greater or 150m or greater. Turned of on hold and made tge roof the height to go by.

[Nouvellecosse]

Hmm, it must be metro area then because when I changed from official height to roof height it actually dropped Toronto from 124 down to 123 and lowered Chicago down to 134.

[koops65]

Maybe that's because several towers had spires that put them into skyscraper status.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by koops65

Maybe that's because several towers had spires that put them into skyscraper status.

Yes Chicago seems to have a lot more buildings with spires so it makes sense that their number would drop more than Toronto's when going from official height to roof height.