Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's been one of the most vocal if not the most vocal Toronto naysayers on these forums.. Every post about T.O is in some way or another an attempt at 'knocking' it down a few notches. The last time if ever he was in Toronto was probably 1995.
Toronto has a massive, but sprawling skyscraper core...it's like 3 main nodes that are linked, but sprawl at the same time. Chicago is really just one main node. Both are large, however Toronto's is probably larger in area because of how sprawly it is.
In that picture in the foreground, that could be a downtown area, then in the background is where the real CBD is and then you have the condo buildings off to the right. Impressive.
T.O doesn't have a linear skyline at all so its hard to capture the size of the core in any one pic.. The best way to see how massive the core really is through aerial shots.
Toronto has a massive, but sprawling skyscraper core...it's like 3 main nodes that are linked, but sprawl at the same time. Chicago is really just one main node. Both are large, however Toronto's is probably larger in area because of how sprawly it is.
In that picture in the foreground, that could be a downtown area, then in the background is where the real CBD is and then you have the condo buildings off to the right. Impressive.
While the buildings aren't of the spectacular heights of what you see downtown, I think it's worth bringing up the lakefront, which is built up with high rises. Here are some pictures:
Yeah that's my feeling too. Greater Detroit showed that it stabilized a year ago and by all early indications, it appears to have grown from that stabilization too. Greater Chicago on the other-hand has embraced mediocrity fully, when it comes to growth.
This will be the first decade since 1890 that an area not named Greater Chicago finishes as the fastest grower in the Midwest by raw population growth (the Twin Cities Area). That's if things stay like they are right now.
One can find support for whatever they want, Red John.
^great post. i think Detroit will grow in the near future, but Chicago will grow with it, along with Pittsburgh and cleavland. its time for the rust belt to come back!
While the buildings aren't of the spectacular heights of what you see downtown, I think it's worth bringing up the lakefront, which is built up with high rises. Here are some pictures:
The photo really shows how the highrises die out rather quickly away from Lake Michigan. The same thing happens in Toronto, where the height rapidly diminishes when moving away from Yonge st. For example, at Yonge/Eglinton, there are multiple skyscrapers plus quite a few 40+s buildings under construction/proposed, but a sheer 5 minutes walk to the east or west, you are among a sea of single family homes on tree lined streets.
Honestly, neither Chicago or Toronto's density is that impressive. A city doesn't need a ton of skyscrapers to be dense, and honestly skyscrapers do very little to increase density. It is the SFH outside the core that kills overall density instantly and more than offset any higher density created by highrises in the center. European and Asian cities don't have many of SFHs, which is why even those without many tall buildings (such as Tokyo or Barcelona) show higher urban density.
European cities like Paris and Barcelona are extremely impressive. 5+ story buildings literally create a canopy across the entire cityscape except public and greenspaces.
I always thought if I asked the question if Paris looked more dense than Chicago(despite same populations), people would vote for Paris even though it doesn't have the skyscraper core of Chicago.
I wish American cities were more like European cities. I can't think of one city in America where 6+ story buildings cover a large portion of the cityscape except Manhattan.
The photo really shows how the highrises die out rather quickly away from Lake Michigan. The same thing happens in Toronto, where the height rapidly diminishes when moving away from Yonge st. For example, at Yonge/Eglinton, there are multiple skyscrapers plus quite a few 40+s buildings under construction/proposed, but a sheer 5 minutes walk to the east or west, you are among a sea of single family homes on tree lined streets.
Honestly, neither Chicago or Toronto's density is that impressive. A city doesn't need a ton of skyscrapers to be dense, and honestly skyscrapers do very little to increase density. It is the SFH outside the core that kills overall density instantly and more than offset any higher density created by highrises in the center. European and Asian cities don't have many of SFHs, which is why even those without many tall buildings (such as Tokyo or Barcelona) show higher urban density.
I haven't taken a look at the zoning ordinances myself, but I've always heard that the high rises outside of downtown have to be relegated to the lakefront, and that they aren't allowed to extend inland.
As for Chicago's overall density, it depends where you are. I personally like the density of much of the North Side, but the West and South Sides can be different animals. It's like that for a variety of reasons, but a simplistic overview has to do with population loss, the bungalow belt, and the fact that the city starts looking more suburban the further out you go. For example, you can be in a populated area of the West Side, but there can be a full sized Target, with a parking lot, in a complex that houses many other stores and looks like it should be in the suburbs. There's also empty lots to take into account from homes that were abandoned and subsequently torn down, in addition to former industrial dead zones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
European cities like Paris and Barcelona are extremely impressive. 5+ story buildings literally create a canopy across the entire cityscape except public and greenspaces.
I always thought if I asked the question if Paris looked more dense than Chicago(despite same populations), people would vote for Paris even though it doesn't have the skyscraper core of Chicago.
I wish American cities were more like European cities. I can't think of one city in America where 6+ story buildings cover a large portion of the cityscape except Manhattan.
Paris has a similar population but in a much smaller area. Paris is about 41 square miles; Chicago is 234. Paris, physically speaking, is 20 square miles smaller than the city of St. Louis, and St. Louis isn't considered to be a physically large city. I get what you're saying though, and I'm definitely not knocking Paris or its density.
As for Manhattan, I actually prefer Chicago's density to an extent. I love visiting NYC, but sometimes Manhattan can feel suffocating. I've personally always enjoyed being able to be surrounded by towering skyscrapers in downtown Chicago, but then being able to hop on the L, going 10-15 minutes away from downtown, and then being surrounded by smaller apartment buildings and SFH on tree lined streets that remain in walkable areas. I always felt it was a refreshing change, but I know that not everyone feels the same way.
European cities like Paris and Barcelona are extremely impressive. 5+ story buildings literally create a canopy across the entire cityscape except public and greenspaces.
I always thought if I asked the question if Paris looked more dense than Chicago(despite same populations), people would vote for Paris even though it doesn't have the skyscraper core of Chicago.
I wish American cities were more like European cities. I can't think of one city in America where 6+ story buildings cover a large portion of the cityscape except Manhattan.
this is Barcelona and Paris see from the sky. Barcelona is a perfect grid system except Avenida Diagonal that cuts through the city. Paris' buildings radiates from the arc de triumph but don't follow a grid. Both cities are highly dense with almost no highrises. If there are perfect urban planning, these two are.
I was walking on the streets in Barcelona last month, and was amazed at how well designed the entire city is.
Americans may want such great density and vibrancy, but are they willing to give up their large single family homes with yards and parking?
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,283,359 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
European cities like Paris and Barcelona are extremely impressive. 5+ story buildings literally create a canopy across the entire cityscape except public and greenspaces.
I always thought if I asked the question if Paris looked more dense than Chicago(despite same populations), people would vote for Paris even though it doesn't have the skyscraper core of Chicago.
I wish American cities were more like European cities. I can't think of one city in America where 6+ story buildings cover a large portion of the cityscape except Manhattan.
Yes, but America was the land of single homes for most. Though Row homes ruled in some Eastern cities. Singles to 3-flats ruled in other American cities. Then suburban sprawl took over. In Europe, many of the 5+story multi-dwellings, were higher-end and from a era architecture was over the top decorative. Manhattan Tenements were not. Not Everyone wants to live in a Apartment complex? Many in the US want a front green space, backyards for children and pets and patios, and even garages.
Why botticelli , wants to go into threads to lessen American and Canadian cities even? Is a personal satisfaction it seems?
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
The photo really shows how the highrises die out rather quickly away from Lake Michigan. The same thing happens in Toronto, where the height rapidly diminishes when moving away from Yonge st. For example, at Yonge/Eglinton, there are multiple skyscrapers plus quite a few 40+s buildings under construction/proposed, but a sheer 5 minutes walk to the east or west, you are among a sea of single family homes on tree lined streets.
Honestly, neither Chicago or Toronto's density is that impressive. A city doesn't need a ton of skyscrapers to be dense, and honestly skyscrapers do very little to increase density. It is the SFH outside the core that kills overall density instantly and more than offset any higher density created by highrises in the center. European and Asian cities don't have many of SFHs, which is why even those without many tall buildings (such as Tokyo or Barcelona) show higher urban density.
We could MOCK many European big cities for using few trees and green space, in these 5+story apartment after apartments neighborhoods? Like Paris. You view American and Canadian cities, from above? You see trees all through neighborhoods in most of our cities. Not so much in Paris, but for its boulevards? But of course the architecture is beautiful.
Plenty of Italian immigrants came to the US and attained to buying and building single family homes and raised families on them in cities to suburbs and small towns.
Chicago is still one of the densest US cities These is the Higher density Chicago neighborhoods lined with trees
NOW OVER THE CITY AND ALL THE TREES Looking toward Downtown Chicago. Compare to European cities with few like the Barcelona one. But its suburbs do.
Attached Thumbnails
Last edited by steeps; 03-17-2015 at 12:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
