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.
At least half of the highrise units there are empty .. the only desperate motivation happening there is padding one's wealth .. the following 45-minute televised documentary peeling the shroud off of the city's dirty secret still stands, as there's been no follow-up revealing whether the problems there have been mended:
So I had to repost trainover's post ---for Torontonians to address it here? Will many have continual issues for owners in years to come? Puting down mostly SF now and Chi-town. Won't address Toronto's own issues. Besides, China builds this in a few new cities. Some yet to be inhabited. But established cities still maintain their value. Even in the US in cities that lost much in past decades of declines. But renewing nicely now and preserving historical grandeur a new city can't touch and adding new.
Toronto's 200-299m towers do not have good designs, as that 'Condo Game' documentary from the CBC demonstrated.
I don't agree with this.
First the CBC documentary focused mainly on Cityplace condos, which IIRC did not have any 200m+ buildings. Cityplace is one development, by one developer (Concorde).
The only 200m+ building that has had construction issues has been the L-tower, and mainly with construction delays and complaints of poor workmanship by residents.
Still, design wise the L-tower looks pretty cool off Union Station.
And rises like a futuristic monument over some of the more eclectic neighborhoods.
Aura at College Park with its unique light feature has been a very successful addition to the skyline, main complaints have been around the podium not attracting enough business for business owners.
The ICE twin towers (both over 200m) too have been successful additions to the skyline, and they are well built.
And they have their own unique light feature.
Right next door are another pair of 200m+ twin towers under construction, Harbour Plaza residences, looking damn fine with their unique balcony designs:
All hail densification:
One Bloor East, another very well built, very promising design:
And already impactful:
Last edited by Mr. Burns; 10-11-2016 at 10:07 PM..
Sorry, but outside of Aura, those all look sub-par. Which isn't to say they aren't improvements to the skyline. But design-wise, they are nowhere close to Acqua, Salesforce, Steinway, Verre, or many of the towers going up down south. As always, when it comes to design, Calgary and Montreal vastly outdo Toronto and Vancouver, which have rather ugly skylines from up close.
But I digress. This San Francisco/Toronto banter is getting old.
I want to talk about my city's core, the Beltway. There are few cities, if any, that can match the architectural grandeur of Washington DC. And few cities have such a repertoire of iconic structures.
For a tourist, no city can compete with Washington outside of New York. The sights, sounds and neighborhoods are endless.
The metro area now has 6.1 million and the CSA is at 9.6 million, bigger than both San Francisco and Toronto and almost bigger than Chicago. It will become North America's 4th megacity by 2022.
Although, San Francisco City Hall has a larger dome than the US Capitol bldg, and is more elegant imHo.
This is beautiful, but not as iconic. Your building belongs to San Francisco...the Capitol building belongs to the country. Sounds kind of corny to say that, but there's more than meets the eye, here.
Did you just write everything on google translate?
Snobby or cross-eyed, which are yout? Both?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123
Relax. It's not even built yet, and you are already throwing mud? Nice.
Why be bossy? Do you dislike another's bemusement by claims you amass so much as to become accusatory like this? Must you really write mud while that very suburb`s own programme of snow clearance has yet to be promoted to outright removal?
The contrast of the photos being shared's telling. The uppermost batch could hail from any one of a dozen or more overseas cities while the following ones are readily identifiable.
Currently the Major League Baseball teams of all four cities are in the heat of the MLB postseason:
Oddly enough, this year in the National League (NL) of the MLB, the top 5 teams (so basically the ones that made it into the postseason) were in America's top 5 cities; New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington.
Anyhow, back to this thread, there is a 50% (or greater) chance that the winner of the World Series this year will be a team from one of these four cities; Chicago, Washington, Toronto, and San Francisco.
As of today, 3 of the cities in this thread (Toronto, Chicago & Washington DC) are still in 2016 MLB playoff contention.
Chicago eliminated SF last night.
Does DC fit all of the criteria "the best", though? I think it fits much of the criteria laid out by the OP, but there is more than "so much to see and do." I think DC would be a good choice for a visit, but not sure I would want (or could afford), to own a nice home, and live comfortably there. I think it's not a hands-down win for any of these cities, as each has something over the others, in at least a couple of the categories.
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.
