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.
Finally, a correction from that post on Toronto surpassing Chicago in skyscrapers.... .I don't go into length, girth measurements ..... Sure it is expected Toronto may surpass Chicago in skyscrapers. It zones for at least high-rises alone anyway? So it is kinda inevitable in its fast growth with immigration of a lot of professionals preferred as policy of Canada. But YOU'LL want a WIN NOW for even skyscrapers it seems? Again... If you want 6.5sq/miles of core? Then
I knew Chicago still had the skyscraper total. But I did not go for the jugular to claim it was already Toronto (in a post of some ridicules stats I can't find now).... maybe they had tome to remove it proven it was off? . Other clearly fact-checked did they not? At least Mr Burns made it clear in past threads ..... Toronto surpasses ALL US major cities but NYC. Others circle around it till they anger and you know what they really believe. Americans who vote Chicago are biased against Canada and won't listen to Toronto's claims of arrival and surpassing you want noted it seems or inferred (that word again)....
Why would you go for the jugular when I explained why you shouldn't. Here is why - Toronto is a metro and so is Chicago so in Metro numbers no, Chicago may not actually have more. In the city proper yes it has more than Toronto but not by an extraordinary number. Toronto has way more skyscrapers U/C and approved as well as proposed and it is getting very close so you could go for the jugular but it will be inevitable Toronto will exceed Chicago in that metric. Highrises count too and Toronto has way more so on the whole I would actually say Toronto is the more vertical city.
Also it wasn't finally a correction. If you read in the actual thread where you brought that up and Fitzrovian provided stats from Emporis and SkyscraperCenter, I agreed based on best available info that in the city proper of Chicago there are more Skyscrapers than city proper of Toronto. I looked further however and determined that the GTA has quite a bit more in its metro area which is part of its contiguous urbanized area. I also counted the number of U/C and approved in both Toronto and Chicago for scrapers and by a ratio of 2.5:1 Toronto is building more so I see the way the wind is blowing and I think you do too. Fact is the number of scrapers T.O is building it is easy to lose track. There is always something being built all over the place. I don't even know if Emporis or the other site is even 100 with this but right now I have no better source. I think I might look locally however as locals know better than a website/company located in the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
If you believe Toronto should win this poll and thread? Just say it. So Toronto wins Density too? Just say it.... But ilk not a fan of super density like parts of NYC. There is a point it gets too much congestion to me.... just saying. Good density with some green-space too, trees too I prefer. So to boast density doesn't win if a great urban built exist with a bit less. It's then all good.
I don't typically go for 'wins' in here. I provide information to get people thinking. Toronto's core is urban. Period - whether it is more so or less than with the rest of these cities is really not something that is easily determined as there are subjective factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
Kinda a rant here. I said Toronto zones and wants high-rises over other URBAN HOUSING like Town-houses Chicago gets new developments of. I also said Chicago doesn't zone for ONLY high-rises in new construction. I said NOTHING on MATERIALS LIKE BRICK, COLOR (COLOUR). I said OTHER THEN HIGH- RISES Chicago allows other Urban housing to still be built in its core and citywide.
No you just don't listen. I as well as others have provided you with information that Toronto DOES NOT just zone for highrises. There are lots of high density townhome and mid-rise developments happening all over Toronto. If you believe that or not is not my issue it is yours. If you don't want to believe what we are telling you than research it yourself otherwise if people familiar with the city keep correcting you maybe it is because you're wrong. Ever think of that - where is the lightbulb emoji
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
I noted just in the South Loop are many townhouse developments they won't give you the density of all high-rises.... but they are a urban form and offer VARIETY to live by the Loop of skyscrapers and ability to have a private green-space with a low-rise townhouse too. Or old buildings to loft living or high-rises (yes I know Toronto has these). Seems I have to add a Yes Toronto has some as not to be accused of inferring it has none? Or no Brownstones as someone mentioned..... THANKS FOR NOTICING CHICAGO'S DIVERSITY IN EVEN A HIGHRISE CAN BE BRICK TOO like in my picture I posted showed ..... my point was town-housing not materials high-rises are built of.
What are you saying here exactly. I don't really know other than to say what I've said in the previous paragraph again. Hopefully it actually sinks in this time. Do you need me to give you more links to repurposed lofts/churches/industrial buildings in Toronto into housing. If so i'll fire away.
Why would you go for the jugular when I explained why you shouldn't. Here is why - Toronto is a metro and so is Chicago so in Metro numbers no, Chicago may not actually have more. In the city proper yes it has more than Toronto but not by an extraordinary number. Toronto has way more skyscrapers U/C and approved as well as proposed and it is getting very close so you could go for the jugular but it will be inevitable Toronto will exceed Chicago in that metric. Highrises count too and Toronto has way more so on the whole I would actually say Toronto is the more vertical city.
Also it wasn't finally a correction. If you read in the actual thread where you brought that up and Fitzrovian provided stats from Emporis and SkyscraperCenter, I agreed based on best available info that in the city proper of Chicago there are more Skyscrapers than city proper of Toronto. I looked further however and determined that the GTA has quite a bit more in its metro area which is part of its contiguous urbanized area. I also counted the number of U/C and approved in both Toronto and Chicago for scrapers and by a ratio of 2.5:1 Toronto is building more so I see the way the wind is blowing and I think you do too. Fact is the number of scrapers T.O is building it is easy to lose track. There is always something being built all over the place. I don't even know if Emporis or the other site is even 100 with this but right now I have no better source. I think I might look locally however as locals know better than a website/company located in the U.S.
I don't typically go for 'wins' in here. I provide information to get people thinking. Toronto's core is urban. Period - whether it is more so or less than with the rest of these cities is really not something that is easily determined as there are subjective factors.
No you just don't listen. I as well as others have provided you with information that Toronto DOES NOT just zone for highrises. There are lots of high density townhome and mid-rise developments happening all over Toronto. If you believe that or not is not my issue it is yours. If you don't want to believe what we are telling you than research it yourself otherwise if people familiar with the city keep correcting you maybe it is because you're wrong. Ever think of that - where is the lightbulb emoji
What are you saying here exactly. I don't really know other than to say what I've said in the previous paragraph again. Hopefully it actually sinks in this time. Do you need me to give you more links to repurposed lofts/churches/industrial buildings in Toronto into housing. If so i'll fire away.
We are in a thread on Urban cores. Toronto does zone areas (and is adding) for high-rises and skyscrapers. Some areas its changing to mid-rises allowed especially outside the core.
It effectively works to get virtually all high-rises vs other developments. Exceptions involve more special permission. My pictures showed right by the Loop town-housing that is fairly new. I do think less that close to the core or in it will be less likely.
- element of the Plan was the focused creation of high-rise development areas, with five areas of the city zoned for big increases in density. In particular, increased density throughout downtown Toronto is strongly encouraged, with developers facing fewer legal and bureaucratic roadblocks to high-rise development in the urban core.
- In addition to downtown, however, four other zones were identified for sharp increases in residential and commercial density. The Yonge and Eglinton and North York Centre areas were zoned for skyscraper development, and have since seen a large number of new condos built over the last decade, broadening Toronto’s property tax base and providing a boost in development fees collected.
Farther afield, Scarborough Centre and Etobicoke Centre—the “downtowns” of Toronto’s east and west former municipalities—were also zoned for high-rise development, and are experiencing some new density.
No one said it was all of Toronto.... I referred to the core. For new construction permitted. Overall the policy works to gain the zoned heights preferred in that area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
The generally accepted area for Toronto's Downtown is 6.5 sq miles with approximately 240K to 250K people and is adding about 12K people per year just within the DT core. That however is not the urban core which is much larger. I'd say Old Toronto is more of an urban core which is 800K people in 37 sq miles with a population density of 21256 per sq mile making Old Toronto more densely populated than the city of S.F. It probably is more now due to a Stats Canada undercount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Burns
The commercial portion of downtown Toronto is relatively small compared to the rest of the core, it no longer defines downtown Toronto like it does for so many North American cities including Chicago and Philadelphia.
Chicago defines a CBD. Google street-view doesn't even define a downtown anymore fore it. They use to do just the Loop to the lakefront. Philly has its Center City like forever defined. Some extend that as a Greater CC in claiming its core and even into its University area to claim more people in its core then Chicago's. Why claiming a 6.5 sq/miles is more Philly“s Greater CC border then Chicago's city sight official CBD border that the US has no uniform code for so still subjective.
I use the city's CBD as downtown unless other cities claim theirs much greater in threads. Clearly Chicago's financial district is the bigger. But clearly not just downtown region for a few decades. Chicago excludes even Old Town just north of its CBD and only a couple blocks in of its Gold Coast and excludes the South Loop region.
I said I was done posting in these threads of Toronto in..... give it a break as others are. I need to do it.
Too hard for what? Should all concede Toronto really is the Greatest vs all vs. US cities but NYC? I don't think I degraded Toronto at all. I complemented aspects of Chicago's core and should see Toronto has it, more of, building more and bigger, more vast, more urban, more growth, best Core..... enough said for thread. Other city posters already had enough inferring Greatness over the rest.....
You obviously have not spent much time in many of these cities. The fact that you think that Boston has better nightlife than Chicago just speaks huge volumes about this, not to mention the fact that you think it has better shopping (not that it's bad in Boston). It's not about trying to do anything - it's about being informed, and frankly - as someone who's spent a fair amount of time in these cities (Toronto though I haven't spent nearly as much time in as the others), it's obvious you just aren't at all informed and not nearly as much as you think you are. Trust me - not just a Chicago thing, just overall your rankings are just bizarre and indicative of someone who hasn't actually spent much or any time in almost any of these places.
I really feel that shopping in Boston is better and easier to do. Boston is more compact and everything can be easily reached. For nightlife, Boston has a more attractive scene for college students and young singles in their twenties. I agree that Chicago is a great city, but I would rather live in Boston.
- In addition to downtown, however, four other zones were identified for sharp increases in residential and commercial density. The Yonge and Eglinton and North York Centre areas were zoned for skyscraper development, and have since seen a large number of new condos built over the last decade, broadening Toronto’s property tax base and providing a boost in development fees collected.
Farther afield, Scarborough Centre and Etobicoke Centre—the “downtowns” of Toronto’s east and west former municipalities—were also zoned for high-rise development, and are experiencing some new density.
Those areas are Toronto's satellite skylines, not the core. Naturally they will be zoned for highrises. This is unlike the Chicago metro which drops off rapidly in highrises and density beyond the downtown core.
In Toronto beyond the downtown core looking north (yonge/eglinton, North York), east (scarborough TC), and west (Etobicoke/humber bay, Mississauga) you will see satellite highrise communities and they are all poised to grow.
No one said it was all of Toronto.... I referred to the core. For new construction permitted. Overall the policy works to gain the zoned heights preferred in that area.
The core is where the subway is and you will always zone for density along the subway lines.
Quote:
Chicago defines a CBD. Google street-view doesn't even define a downtown anymore fore it. They use to do just the Loop to the lakefront. Philly has its Center City like forever defined. Some extend that as a Greater CC in claiming its core and even into its University area to claim more people in its core then Chicago's. Why claiming a 6.5 sq/miles is more Philly“s Greater CC border then Chicago's city sight official CBD border that the US has no uniform code for so still subjective.
I use the city's CBD as downtown unless other cities claim theirs much greater in threads. Clearly Chicago's financial district is the bigger. But clearly not just downtown region for a few decades. Chicago excludes even Old Town just north of its CBD and only a couple blocks in of its Gold Coast and excludes the South Loop region.
I said I was done posting in these threads of Toronto in..... give it a break as others are. I need to do it.
A photo of my residential neighborhood in yorkville area, a small slice of urban toronto.
This is not a commercial area. Those are not commercial buildings. I don't think you will find any other city in this thread comparable.
I really feel that shopping in Boston is better and easier to do. Boston is more compact and everything can be easily reached. For nightlife, Boston has a more attractive scene for college students and young singles in their twenties. I agree that Chicago is a great city, but I would rather live in Boston.
You have definitely not spent a lot of time in Chicago, if any at all - at least in the last 5 years. Pretty apparent, especially with what you say about nightlife. If you know anything about nightlife in Chicago, you wouldn't even be mentioning this. And compactness? You cannot compare entire city boundaries - you compare various districts and that takes actually knowing what you're talking about which is obvious you don't. Nice try though.
You have definitely not spent a lot of time in Chicago, if any at all - at least in the last 5 years. Pretty apparent, but okay.
Why can't someone have this opinion? It's like someone can't possibly prefer Boston's shopping and nightlife to chicagos. Just let people have their opinions. I love strolling the back bay more than Michigan Ave. I prefer the colonial architecture, patios, narrow streets. I enjoy the shopping experience better even if Chicago offers more brands.
Why can't someone have this opinion? It's like someone can't possibly prefer Boston's shopping and nightlife to chicagos. Just let people have their opinions. I love strolling the back bay more than Michigan Ave. I prefer the colonial architecture, patios, narrow streets. I enjoy the shopping experience better even if Chicago offers more brands.
Nothing in their statement was phrased about being their personal preference. If it was, then whatever -
everyone has their own opinions and that's fine.
I'm reading this differently though - stating that Boston's nightlife is more geared towards people in their 20s (or college even) than Chicago's is a rather ridiculous statement when you actually know the nightlife of Chicago. There's a lot of different scenes, but I mean this is pretty much a common fact that the biggest nightlife areas of town are geared towards people in their 20s in Chicago - multiple nightlife areas.
Why can't someone have this opinion? It's like someone can't possibly prefer Boston's shopping and nightlife to chicagos. Just let people have their opinions. I love strolling the back bay more than Michigan Ave. I prefer the colonial architecture, patios, narrow streets. I enjoy the shopping experience better even if Chicago offers more brands.
Exactly! Boston is a more pleasant urban experience with more fun things to do and a more European feel. In addition, the architecture in Boston is gorgeous. If I want skyscrapers, I would go to NYC. There is very little unique (other than certain museums and the lakefront) about Chicago. It feels like a smaller, less crowded, worse NYC. Yet it doesn’t feel as refreshing or beautiful as Boston or, say, Paris. In addition, the residential architecture of Chicago is pretty gross, IMO. Parts of Boston have bad architecture, but it has more historical, quaint neighborhoods. Is Boston the best city in the US? No. But it definitely is on my list.
My list:
NYC
SF
Boston
Philly
Chicago
Miami
DC
LA
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.
. Other clearly fact-checked did they not? At least Mr Burns made it clear in past threads ..... Toronto surpasses ALL US major cities but NYC. Others circle around it till they anger and you know what they really believe. Americans who vote Chicago are biased against Canada and won't listen to Toronto's claims of arrival and surpassing you want noted it seems or inferred (that word again)....
THANKS FOR NOTICING CHICAGO'S DIVERSITY IN EVEN A HIGHRISE CAN BE BRICK TOO like in my picture I posted showed ..... my point was town-housing not materials high-rises are built of.
