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.
Toronto has the largest collection of Victorian architecture in North America.
Toronto is larger than San Francisco, so probably; I do think that Metro San Francisco has a larger collection of Victorian architecture than Toronto's metro.
10 Tallest Buildings in these Four (u/c inclusive)
1) Chicago: Sears Tower 1,451'
2) Chicago: Trump International Hotel & Tower 1,389'
3) Chicago: Vista Tower 1,186' (u/c)
4) Chicago: Aon Center 1,136'
5) Chicago: John Hancock Center 1,128'
6) San Francisco: Salesforce Tower 1,070' (nearly t/o)
7) Chicago: The Franklin - North Tower 1,007'
8) Chicago: Two Prudential Plaza 995'
9) Toronto: First Canadian Place 978'
10) Chicago: 311 South Wacker Drive 961'
Chicago destroys the competition in height. And my poor Washington can't even compete because of height limits.
I can agree with Chicago as the best, DC I don't know anything about, but putting SF above TO is bias and wrong. Toronto has a very large and diverse architectural roster compared to SF, including many heritage buildings similar tho those you've shown for Chicago.
But hey American cities are always above Canadian cities on here even for no good reason.
Mr. Burns,
You should really lose the inferiority complex. Both you and Mr. Jun have this very unnatural, almost desperate, instinctive urge to pounce at anyone who doesn't agree with you. I didn't even say anything about Toronto but my mere praise of Chicago led you to whine (what you wrote in bold above). You sound like the small child who's jealous of the attention the new baby sibling is getting. Anytime the conversation moves, even slightly, toward talking about Chicago or San Francisco's strengths, you feel compelled to whine about how unfair it is.
It's almost as if your self-worth as an individual is based on convincing strangers on the Internet how great your city is. At the best of times, I think maybe you're just a B-list troll. But at other times, it just comes off as incredibly sad. I still remember you arguing that Toronto was the greater city because it had greener trees than San Francisco. Who argues that? Very embarrassing.
I find the best strategy is to be open about your city. I love Washington, its nature, its trees, its neo-classical structures, the gorgeous, educated people with JDs and yachts, the cupcake stores, the Ethiopian restaurants, the new culinary star chefs moving in, the rowhouses, the history, the power. But I'm also very open about its negatives (high crime in the African American NE, feckless and inefficient city government, lack of vision, cost of living, crappy nightlife). Have you ever once admitted to any faults for Toronto? Living in denial about the world is not healthy. And admitting your city is not perfect is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength. You've lost all credibility on this thread because all you do is crow about how perfect everything is. And it comes off as really fake. The best way to build trust is to be honest.
You should really lose the inferiority complex. Both you and Mr. Jun have this very unnatural, almost desperate, instinctive urge to pounce at anyone who doesn't agree with you. I didn't even say anything about Toronto but my mere praise of Chicago led you to whine (what you wrote in bold above). You sound like the small child who's jealous of the attention the new baby sibling is getting. Anytime the conversation moves, even slightly, toward talking about Chicago or San Francisco's strengths, you feel compelled to whine about how unfair it is.
It's almost as if your self-worth as an individual is based on convincing strangers on the Internet how great your city is. At the best of times, I think maybe you're just a B-list troll. But at other times, it just comes off as incredibly sad. I still remember you arguing that Toronto was the greater city because it had greener trees than San Francisco. Who argues that? Very embarrassing.
I find the best strategy is to be open about your city. I love Washington, its nature, its trees, its neo-classical structures, the gorgeous, educated people with JDs and yachts, the cupcake stores, the Ethiopian restaurants, the new culinary star chefs moving in, the rowhouses, the history, the power. But I'm also very open about its negatives (high crime in the African American NE, feckless and inefficient city government, lack of vision, cost of living, crappy nightlife). Have you ever once admitted to any faults for Toronto? Living in denial about the world is not healthy. And admitting your city is not perfect is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength. You've lost all credibility on this thread because all you do is crow about how perfect everything is. And it comes off as really fake. The best way to build trust is to be honest.
What are you on about, I contended your placing of Toronto last in your ranking of these cities for architecture, a ranking I assume you determined based on your limited knowledge of Toronto architecture to cityplace condos.
Toronto has flaws and people point them out, I have no comment on truths, but when you're wrong I will comment to contend, and people here are often wrong on many Toronto things.
You didn't know that Toronto has the largest collection of Victorian architecture in North America, including the largest continuous neighbourhood of Victorian architecture in North America, yet you're ranking Toronto versus these other cities in architecture. "Toronto is all glass condos, so last it goes". I can let you squalor in your ignorance or teach you something.
If you ever visit here I can take you to the distillery district or to cabbage town and show you. On our way back you can admire the CN Tower, which is the tallest structure in North America (and the entire Western Hemisphere) and taller than everything in Chicago.
Last edited by Mr. Burns; 12-09-2016 at 11:33 PM..
What are you on about, I contended your placing of Toronto last in your ranking of these cities for architecture, a ranking I assume you determined based on your limited knowledge of Toronto architecture to cityplace condos.
Toronto has flaws and people point them out, I have no comment on truths, but when you're wrong I will comment to contend, and people here are often wrong on many Toronto things.
You didn't know that Toronto has the largest collection of Victorian architecture in North America, including the largest continuous neighbourhood of Victorian architecture in North America, yet you're ranking Toronto versus these other cities in architecture. "Toronto is all glass condos, so last it goes". I can let you squalor in your ignorance or teach you something.
If you ever visit here I can take you to the distillery district or to cabbage town and show you. On our way back you can admire the CN Tower, which is the tallest structure in North America and taller than everything in Chicago.
Yawn. More angry, unhinged ranting. I state my opinion and you have to have an aneurysm because you lack self-control.
Since when does Toronto having (supposedly) more Victorian architecture mean it leads the pack in architecture? Chicago is a leader in Art Deco and Post-Modernism, Washington is a leader in Colonial Style and Neo-Classical Architecture and San Francisco leads in Queen Anne and Beaux-Arts.
What makes Victorian architecture the be-all-and-end-all of architecture? And certainly considering the blight and proliferation of low-quality cookie-cutter abominations, a lot of the old stunners in Toronto are hidden behind walls of architectural mediocrity.
Here's San Francisco. So much diversity and creativity in architectural styles. So much color. Beautiful!
What are you on about, I contended your placing of Toronto last in your ranking of these cities for architecture, a ranking I assume you determined based on your limited knowledge of Toronto architecture to cityplace condos.
Toronto has flaws and people point them out, I have no comment on truths, but when you're wrong I will comment to contend, and people here are often wrong on many Toronto things.
You didn't know that Toronto has the largest collection of Victorian architecture in North America, including the largest continuous neighbourhood of Victorian architecture in North America, yet you're ranking Toronto versus these other cities in architecture. "Toronto is all glass condos, so last it goes". I can let you squalor in your ignorance or teach you something.
If you ever visit here I can take you to the distillery district or to cabbage town and show you. On our way back you can admire the CN Tower, which is the tallest structure in North America (and the entire Western Hemisphere) and taller than everything in Chicago.
He should have stated the CN Tower is the tallest "free standing" structure in North America. Not supported by guy wires.
CN tower is the 9th tallest free standing structure in the world at 553 m or 1815 ft.
Tallest free standing structure in the United States is One World Trade Center ...
It's 10th, at 546 m or 1776 ft.
Yes, he should have stated that. But we all now that Mr. Burns posts first and asks questions later. He hyperventilates when anyone posts an opinion he disagrees with and then proceeds to quickly cast aspersions and type factoids. Which is why I've stopped believing his "facts." It's either purposefully disingenuous or he did not pay accuracy its due diligence.
PS: One World Trade Center is 1,776' as a building, but 1,792' as a structure. Antennas don't count for building height measures, but they do count for structural height. Sears Tower is a building of 1,450' but a free-standing structure of 1,729'. The John Hancock Center is a building of 1,127' but a free-standing structure of 1,500.' Just wanted to make that clear.
New York's future tallest building U/C (Central Park Tower) has a small chance of being a structure of 1,795' or even higher. We'll see how that one goes.
Yawn. More angry, unhinged ranting. I state my opinion and you have to have an aneurysm because you lack self-control.
Since when does Toronto having (supposedly) more Victorian architecture mean it leads the pack in architecture? Chicago is a leader in Art Deco and Post-Modernism, Washington is a leader in Colonial Style and Neo-Classical Architecture and San Francisco leads in Queen Anne and Beaux-Arts.
What makes Victorian architecture the be-all-and-end-all of architecture? And certainly considering the blight and proliferation of low-quality cookie-cutter abominations, a lot of the old stunners in Toronto are hidden behind walls of architectural mediocrity.
Here's San Francisco. So much diversity and creativity in architectural styles. So much color. Beautiful!
I agreed with and did not dispute your choice of Chicago and DC as number 1 and 2 for architecture (maybe DC even edges out Chicago), but I dispute your pick of SF over Toronto.
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.
