The Toronto skyline has crossed a big threshold

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by edale

Not sure how an entire city can or can't be iconic...that seems to be quite a reach.

I'd definitely say the CN Tower is an iconic landmark in Toronto. It's the image that immediately comes to mind when I think of the city. I largely agree with MrNYC that Toronto needs a couple more decades to settle into its relatively new status as a global city of importance. They have lots of tall buildings, but almost nothing that the average Joe (or even above average) would recognize, save for the CN Tower. I think the modernist city hall comes close, maybe the TD complex...both moreso for architecture nerds, though.

When you think of iconic structures or places, there really aren't many that are known internationally. For my city (LA) I would say the only truly iconic/instantly recognizable landmarks are the Hollywood sign, maybe Disney Concert Hall, Capital Records building, mayyybe the US Bank Building?

No there really aren't that many. Speaking of skyscrapers only, there's only a handful of them worldwide that most people would instantly recognize. Maybe a dozen or so. As for LA, there are plenty of world famous landmarks, but not a single skyscraper that would merit worldwide recognition. The skyline might be more recognizable, but only because it appears as a stand in for "generic American metropolis" in countless commercials.

[badrunner]

Here are the two skyline shots posted earlier:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/erocketship7/44618201742

ACV_1464 by photolitherland, on Flickr

Chicago is instantly recognizable due to its iconic skyscrapers.

If Toronto didn't have the CN tower, would you even know what you were looking at? Not a single skyscraper stands out.

[Steely Dan]

^ thank you for re-posting those; such magnificent shots!

with all of the hype surrounding "the coasts", how did the shores of the great lakes become home to the 2nd and 3rd largest skylines on the continent?

there must be something in all of that glorious freshwater.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ thank you for re-posting those; such magnificent shots!

with all of the hype surrounding "the coasts", how did the shores of the great lakes become home to the 2nd and 3rd largest skylines on the continent?

there must be something in all of that glorious freshwater.

I don't really know much about Toronto's history, I should learn more.

But Chicago's obviously explains how it rose to become such an economic powerhouse. And not being on the east coast played a huge role in that.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Chicago is instantly recognizable due to its iconic skyscrapers.

If Toronto didn't have the CN tower, would you even know what you were looking at? Not a single skyscraper stands out.

Sure, and if you take away its pair of most instantly recognizable skyscrapers it also becomes not so instantly recognizable. See what a pointless exercise this is?

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

with all of the hype surrounding "the coasts", how did the shores of the great lakes become home to the 2nd and 3rd largest skylines on the continent?

there must be something in all of that glorious freshwater.

In Canada's case at least, the coast was never as important. Canadian society has always been centred on the St. Lawrence river, of which Lake Ontario is an extension.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Sure, and if you take away its pair of most instantly recognizable skyscrapers it also becomes not so instantly recognizable. See what a pointless exercise this is?

Not if you're actually following this thread. If you go back to the previous page you'll see that this little tangent started with this comment by Maldive:

Originally Posted by Maldive

The notion that Toronto needs some iconic skyscrapers is a bit ridiculous unless old news doesn't count.

[suburbanite]

Toronto's skyline is attributable in large part to just being the most established non-French city circa 1960. At that point, the fact that it was on Lake Ontario wasn't important.

Why Toronto was the largest city outside of Quebec before that point is a different story. Geographic separation from the rest of the population centers kept somewhere like Halifax or St. John from becoming a dominant coastal city. Getting goods upriver to Montreal makes much more sense. Southwestern Ontario has the most quality farmland of Anglo-Canada and Toronto is in a good position to act as the hub.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

In Canada's case at least, the coast was never as important. Canadian society has always been centred on the St. Lawrence river, of which Lake Ontario is an extension.

Yeah, also Canada's population center didn't quite shift as far west as the US, over its history so it's still kind of noticeable that Toronto is at the Great Lakes "end" of the St. Lawrence valley, of which Canadian settlement started at.

On the map, it's really prominent that while the US concentration of population shifted far more to the midwest and then the west, population-wise, Canada still sticks closer to its "source" region (though the shift from Montreal to Toronto does reflect a population shift west).

It also is notable that the western US/midwestern US is way more connected to one another and to the east than its Canadian counterparts. The US was way more able to settle the "west" from people "back east" than Canada was.

[M II A II R II K]

Spires and antennas also help buildings to stand out.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Spires and antennas also help buildings to stand out.

true, it does help the chicago skyline's recognizability that it is book-ended by two giant towers each with a pair of tall and distinctive double antennas.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Sure, and if you take away its pair of most instantly recognizable skyscrapers it also becomes not so instantly recognizable.

yep. the CN tower is toronto's iconic tower, just as sears and hancock are for chicago.

take away sears and hancock from the chicago skyline and you end up with a rather anonymous blob of skyline very similar to what you'd get for toronto if you take away the CN tower.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

true, it does help the chicago skyline's recognizability that it is book-ended by two giant towers each with a pair of tall and distinctive double antennas.

Even despite all the activity going on near Aon with the huge new towers going up, Sears and JHC are still prominent in their respective locations.

[M II A II R II K]

And they’re not boring boxes with distinctive shapes.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Yeah, also Canada's population center didn't quite shift as far west as the US, over its history so it's still kind of noticeable that Toronto is at the Great Lakes "end" of the St. Lawrence valley, of which Canadian settlement started at.

On the map, it's really prominent that while the US concentration of population shifted far more to the midwest and then the west, population-wise, Canada still sticks closer to its "source" region (though the shift from Montreal to Toronto does reflect a population shift west).

It also is notable that the western US/midwestern US is way more connected to one another and to the east than its Canadian counterparts. The US was way more able to settle the "west" from people "back east" than Canada was.

US centers (hence my user name):

wikipedia.com

Harder to find varous non-snarky Canadian centers on a map....

MACLEANS

However, I thought that I read that Toronto REALLY IS close to being the population center of Canada.

[M II A II R II K]

Iqaluit will be up and coming and a magnet for immigrants with its developing arts and culture scene.

[lio45]

Canada's population center has to be north of Toronto by a fair bit, but it could well be very close to being due north of it.

[softee]

The best way to see the whole skyline is from the West on the Etobicoke shoreline.



Toronto, Canada by Ben, on Flickr

[osmo]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Toronto's skyline is attributable in large part to just being the most established non-French city circa 1960. At that point, the fact that it was on Lake Ontario wasn't important.

Why Toronto was the largest city outside of Quebec before that point is a different story. Geographic separation from the rest of the population centers kept somewhere like Halifax or St. John from becoming a dominant coastal city. [...]

Halifax was kept down due to politics and not geography. Canadian government denied Halifax the snow to trade and do business easily with its natural economic partners in Boston and the UK. Federalist's forced Halifax to engage in expensive commerce with the rest of Canada and the city never reached it's full potential as a result. It is strange how Canada does not have an alpha city on its eastern coast.

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps there’s hope for Halifax yet as a beach tourist destination particularly if the weather gets warmer down the line.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by osmo

Halifax was kept down due to politics and not geography. Canadian government denied Halifax the snow to trade and do business easily with its natural economic partners in Boston and the UK. Federalist's forced Halifax to engage in expensive commerce with the rest of Canada and the city never reached it's full potential as a result. It is strange how Canada does not have an alpha city on its eastern coast.

At Confederation Halifax was already smaller than Montreal, Quebec City, and Toronto. Ontario already had more than 4x the the population of Nova Scotia at that point. Sorry, but geography is exactly the reason that Halifax is relatively small today.

[M II A II R II K]

Who knows how different it could have been if Nova Scotia remained the 14th American colony.