The Toronto skyline has crossed a big threshold

[Zapatan]

Comparing Toronto to NY is a huge stretch, but in terms of 150-200 meter buildings it'll soon be at least pretty close to (if not surpass) Chicago.

Chicago's top 5 buildings are still considerably taller, with 5 buildings in the 350-400+ meter range. The CN Tower counts for something but not really a legit building.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by badrunner

They're like McMansions in the sense that they are cookie cutter designs that you pick out of a catalog.

Nah, the whole aspect of McMansions is that it combines the "Mc" (generic, cookie-cutter) with "mansion" (large, showy, ostentatious). If it's just the cookie-cutter element that would make them more like normal cookie-cutter suburban housing and Toronto's situation actually makes for a decent comparison with cities who have fast population growth resulting in a proliferation of new detached houses. The main difference is that in Toronto's case the centralized element makes the housing more sustainable from a land and energy usage standpoint and makes for a healthier core.

But when it comes down to it, you can observe the "cookie-cutter" element in pretty much every city with rapid population and housing growth. Whether it be in the form of inner city tenements, endless similar-looking rowhouses, detached suburban houses, commie-block highrises, or downtown condo skyscrapers it's very difficult (impossible?) for very high volume construction to be combined with significant differentiation. You can even see it with cities who had a large office boom within a single era being saturated with similar international-style boxes or corporate POMO instance.

[badrunner]

It's not that deep. From wiki:

"McMansion is a pejorative term for a large "mass-produced" dwelling, constructed with low-quality materials and craftsmanship, using a mishmash of architectural symbols to invoke connotations of wealth or taste, executed via poorly imagined exterior and interior design"

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Comparing Toronto to NY is a huge stretch, but in terms of 150-200 meter buildings it'll soon be at least pretty close to (if not surpass) Chicago.

Chicago's top 5 buildings are still considerably taller, with 5 buildings in the 350-400+ meter range. The CN Tower counts for something but not really a legit building.

Perhaps Toronto will surpass Chicago numberwise. But don't underestimate Chicago, if their numerous megadevelopments, Lincoln Yards, the 78, One Central and others come into fruition, they will still be very formidable.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That's largely due to population decline in large swaths of town, particularly a decline in the demographic that has heavily ridden the bus.

That doesn't take away from the fact that access to transit as well as close proximity to large numbers of high-paying jobs has been one of the driving factors behind Chicago's "unlock the suburban wealth and bring it to the core" boom. It's just its own animal--but I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for how transit shaped the region, Chicago's central area highrise boom would never have been so dramatic.

At least for now, foreign capital has not been a significant driver of residential highrise construction in Chicago.

Chicago has an incredible transit legacy (for North America) and we've just been coasting on the strength of that.

But, I think there's just unique cultural factors at play. We invented the skyscraper (arguably) and since the earliest days of the city, there's been a deep pool of developers, architects, and contractors who specialize in the construction of tall buildings. That knowledge has now diffused around the world, but we have an unusually deep bench (again, for North America) and a population that is just conditioned to expect more highrise growth downtown or along the lakefront. Time and again, political leaders have stood up to allow the growth of highrises to continue, which is why we aren't like Washington, Boston or San Francisco (which also have strong transit legacies). The growth of highrises is essentially self-sustaining, unlike other cities where every highrise is a battle and/or negotiation. Also, we have a huge mass of residents who either live in highrises or, if not, consider it absolutely normal to live in a highrise. This group of residents crosses class lines, so highrises aren't de facto seen as the provenance of the rich. Nobody is complaining about "speculators sitting on empty highrise units" or "foreign oligarchs laundering money". Hell, Edgewater is the perfect example of this... Sheridan Road is packed with highrises filled with middle-class residents... it may have been glitzy at one point, but now it's just a comfortable, lived-in highrise neighborhood.

It seems Toronto has now achieved a similar status, so congrats to them.

[Steely Dan]

^ really, really great post. agree with all of it, particularly the "culture" angle.

some places really do just seem more predisposed to building lots of really tall buildings than others; they have a "culture of skyscrapers". it's probably a big reason why 71% of all of the 500+ footers that have been built in the US/canada over the past 2 decades have been built in just 4 metro areas: NYC, Toronto, miami, and chicago. the US/canada is a huge place with dozens of cities that can and do build skyscrapers, but to have such an overwhelming concentration of the typology in just 4 of those cities is something that really stands out.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ really, really great post. agree with all of it, particularly the "culture" angle.

some places really do just seem more predisposed to building lots of really tall buildings than other places; they have a "culture of skyscrapers". it's probably a big reason why 71% of all of the 500+ footers that have been built in the US/canada over the past 2 decades have been built in just 4 metro areas: NYC, Toronto, miami, and chicago. the US/canada is a huge place with dozens of cities that can and do build skyscrapers, but to have such an overwhelming concentration of the typology in just 4 of those cities is something that really stands out.

Other than New York, isn't much of what's going up in Chicago, Miami and TO mostly residential? The reason why Houston went from a top 3-4 city on the US in terms of high rises to not even on the list is we slowed down on commercial and really behind the curve on residential where as they seem to be booming in other cities; mainly Chicago, Miami and TO. Even Austin is building like crazy.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Other than New York, isn't much of what's going up in Chicago, Miami and TO mostly residential?

% of 500+ footers built over the past 5 years that are "residential" usage:

miami: 90%
toronto: 80%
new york: 77%
chicago: 60%

source: SSP database

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It seems Toronto has now achieved a similar status, so congrats to them.

To be fair, Toronto probably achieved a similar status 50 years ago. High-rises* are by far the most common housing typology in the city, accounting for nearly 45% of total housing units - most of which were built in the 60s-80s. The difference is now they're just getting taller.


*Or rather, buildings over 5 stories. But really, there aren't a whole lot of residential buildings here in that 5-10 storey sub-highrise range.

[Maldive]

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

1. 1975 - First Canadian Place had the gall to not see the future "supertall" club. Only 298m.

But it was the tallest building in the world outside of NYC and Chicago.

2. Royal Bank Plaza-acres of (real) gold -2,500 oz-imbued serrated glazing in 2 towers. Still haven't seen anything like it.

3. 1967 - Toronto Dominion Centre. Sorry NYC and other cities, still the greatest collection of Mies' work in the world (especially the banking pavilion)

4. 1985 -Scotia Plaza. 902 feet (too short again) of beautiful Red Napoleon Granite that looks as good today as when built.

5. 1972 -Commerce Court. One of Pei's early masterpieces though a measly 57 storeys. Visited by architects and engineers from around the world trying figure how a tower with its height/width ratio could stay standing.

Etc etc etc.

So does "iconic" only mean height?

Toronto has a couple of "real" supertalls underway so the city can join this meaningless club... they're good too.. but nothing like the collection of truly iconic skyscrapers now largely hidden by the construction explosion underway.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Nah, the whole aspect of McMansions is that it combines the "Mc" (generic, cookie-cutter) with "mansion" (large, showy, ostentatious). If it's just the cookie-cutter element that would make them more like normal cookie-cutter suburban housing and Toronto's situation actually makes for a decent comparison with cities who have fast population growth resulting in a proliferation of new detached houses. The main difference is that in Toronto's case the centralized element makes the housing more sustainable from a land and energy usage standpoint and makes for a healthier core.

But when it comes down to it, you can observe the "cookie-cutter" element in pretty much every city with rapid population and housing growth. Whether it be in the form of inner city tenements, endless similar-looking rowhouses, detached suburban houses, commie-block highrises, or downtown condo skyscrapers it's very difficult (impossible?) for very high volume construction to be combined with significant differentiation. You can even see it with cities who had a large office boom within a single era being saturated with similar international-style boxes or corporate POMO instance.

There's developer stamping out the same residential highrise design in several cities; Skyhouse. We have three in Houston alone and they're all the same. They are very nice and I'd live there but they probably fit the high rise equivalent of a mcmansion...many of which are also very nice. I am sure Skyhouse is far from alone where developers recycle designs from market to market.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

% of 500+ footers built over the past 5 years that are "residential" usage:

miami: 90%
toronto: 80%
new york: 77%
chicago: 60%

source: SSP database

As solid majority. No surprise at Miami.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Maldive

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

1. 1975 - First Canadian Place had the gall to not see the future "supertall" club. Only 298m.

But it was the tallest building in the world outside of NYC and Chicago.

2. Royal Bank Plaza-acres of (real) gold -2,500 oz-imbued serrated glazing in 2 towers. Still haven't seen anything like it.

3. 1967 - Toronto Dominion Centre. Sorry NYC and other cities, still the greatest collection of Mies' work in the world (especially the banking pavilion)

4. 1985 -Scotia Plaza. 902 feet (too short again) of beautiful Red Napoleon Granite that looks as good today as when built.

5. 1972 -Commerce Court. One of Pei's early masterpieces though a measly 57 storeys. Visited by architects and engineers from around the world trying figure how a tower with its height/width ratio could stay standing.

Etc etc etc.

So does "iconic" only mean height?

Toronto has a couple of "real" supertalls underway so the city can join this meaningless club... they're good too.. but nothing like the collection of truly iconic skyscrapers now largely hidden by the construction explosion underway.

I quite like the TD Canada Trust Tower in Toronto as well. Though the green TD logo on the spire looks tacky - as if someone stuck a post-it there.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if it's all about global capital seeking safe haven, then why has chicago built 50 new 500+ footers over the past 2 decades?


there's more to the story here than the overly simplistic hot takes being offered in this thread.

Isn't Chicago's newest supertall a result of Chinese investment?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

Isn't Chicago's newest supertall a result of Chinese investment?

Dalian Wanda was one of the initial investors in the Vista Tower project (then known as "Wanda Vista"), but the chinese government crackdown on capital fleeing the country forced them to sell their stake in the project to Triple Five Group, a canadian shopping mall development company.

[photoLith]

Here's a view I got of the Toronto skyline from Fort Niagara, NY in March.

ACV_1464 by photolitherland, on Flickr

[Steely Dan]

^ stupendous!!!

toronto's skyline is now more or less analogous to those "across the lake" shots of chicago.





The Great Lakes: we may have long cold winters, but at least we grow our cities really damn tall!



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

[suburbanite]

Wow, I think that's the best across the lake shot I've seen of Toronto. Fantastic job!

I love the Great Lakes.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Maldive

So does "iconic" only mean height?

No, it means towers that stand out and/or have international recognition. The majority of people wouldn’t be able to identify the towers you raise, let alone correctly name what city they are located in.

That doesn’t downplay the large amount of construction, but pretty much all of it has been non-descript, conservative in design and of little merit from an architectural and engineering perspective.

[JManc]

What zoom did you take that Toronto pic with? 300mm? Ft. Niagara is not that close.

Same with Chicago, where was that taken from?

[M II A II R II K]

Chicago from 28 miles in the middle of the lake.