Chicago vs Toronto SkyLine (highest, NYC, development, living)
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.
They're not going to be "on par" since they're different cities. There are buildings in Toronto for which Chicago has no analogue as well, and while Chicago still comes ahead, to call Toronto's collection "junk" or even insignificant is disingenuous.
Aesthetically the lake view skyline shot of Toronto is iconic, with the CN Tower, Skydome, and skyscrapers being overlooked by the Toronto Islands. Chicago has a nicer collection of buildings for sure, but the composition is not to my preference over Toronto from that particular angle.
Furthermore as much as you may hate condos, what's worse is residential towers from the 70s and 80s which make up the bulk of Chicago's residential skyscrapers. In fact aside from a few notable buildings that you mentioned, the bulk of Chicago's skyline is unsightly punch hole facade 70s and 80s residential and office towers. I find it funny you complain about glass condos but ignore this fact.
What is the one iconic view of Chicago's skyline, on all the postcards? Please post.
You can see why people compare these two cities, but at the same time they are quite different as well. I think in the coming decade downtown Toronto will surpass Chicago in scale if it hasn't already. Certainly in the metro there is no comparison as far as highrises go.
"downtown Toronto will surpass Chicago in scale if it hasn't already."
This is why you lose all credibility.
Complete or Topped Out (CTBUH, Skyscraper Center)
300m+
Chicago: 7
Toronto: 0
250m+
Chicago: 15
Toronto: 6
200m+
Chicago: 32
Toronto: 23
150m+
Chicago: 126
Toronto: 69
Do they not teach math in Canada? Chicago has more buildings than Toronto in every category (even 100m+).
Not only does Chicago have quantity, it has quality.
There's a reason only the most biased Canadians are voting for Toronto in the poll (which is getting crushed by the way)
I agree that there is a major drop-off at Dearborn and that area feels nothing like the area east of State. But I think it’s not so much for lack of highrises as it is for all the surface lots and drive-throughs. I am guesstimating there is still between 30 and 50 surface lots in River North and there is simply insufficient demand for new residential housing in that neighborhood to have new highrises fill all of them (at least near term). As soon as these surface lots get filled up — be it with midrises or highrises — you will not feel this kind of drop off because the transition will be much more cohesive and street-level feel will remain more consistent. That area needs streetwalls much more than skyscrapers. For example, if you walk south from the heart of Midtown Manhattan, you will hardly sense any difference in street-level feel or energy level as you walk below 34th Street even though you go from an area with nothing but skyscrapers to one with very few.
I hear ya and definitely you make valid points. Desnifying River North and creating streetwalls would add a lot of energy/intensity and increase the feel of it's scale as it's extremely disjointed and even suburban in quite a few areas. Though I believe it matters what those streetwalls consist of and the West Loop/Fulton Market is wildly popular and dense but you don't feel like you are downtown in a skyscraper jungle. You definitely feel as if you've left the "downtown." I realize there's a ton of low-hanging fruit at the moment and developers can swoop up land on the cheap and make huge profits with low-slung luxury units.
I am merely saying I don't want to see River North relegated to a majority midrise neighborhood with the odd 30-40 story tower here and there. Many lots on Erie, Ontario, Huron, Superior, etc. are being filled with 10-15 story luxury buildings. These ultimately house NIMBY's that will fight for their views, complain about traffic and argue skyscrapers are out of scale with the environment. The more of them they build the more West Loop/Fulton Market the development process will become where a thousand guidelines must be taken into consideration. An example is the 450' tower under construction on Grand that had to be setback to midblock with a massive podium fronting the intersection and a pocket park because they protected the views/demands of Sexton's residents.
A developer proposed this 60 story glass tower on Superior but the Alderman shot it down over traffic concerns without even a meeting or a study. A building like this on Superior as far west as Wells/Orleans would be an absolute game changer by creating a substantial new peak pretty distant from anything even approaching that height. https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/3/6/...tel-skyscraper
Skyscrapers can also integrate well with the street given the base has active uses like retail or liner units rather than blank walls and podiums that are obvious parking structures. It's not a given that they destroy street vibe. 465 N. Park and SoMi did a great job with their podiums/base while Old Town Park is atrocious. I more than anything want the skyline/downtown to expand to the point Chicago completely overwhelms you. Enough with the spacing and vistas providing the ability to view a building's architecture unobstructed. Hyper-density and height is the direction I want to see the core go as there are plenty outer neighborhoods for mid-rise growth and townhome blocks. Perhaps if Aldermanic Privilege is really ended with the new mayor development in Chicago sees an end of the antiquated, corrupt, convoluted process that has plagued us forever. That 60 story tower above that was denied would actually get a vote by the zoning/planning committee rather than an Alderman saying no for any arbitrary reason and dying on their desk.
Last edited by IronWright; 06-01-2019 at 08:46 PM..
I hear ya and definitely you make valid points. Desnifying River North and creating streetwalls would add a lot of energy/intensity and increase the feel of it's scale as it's extremely disjointed and even suburban in quite a few areas. Though I believe it matters what those streetwalls consist of and the West Loop/Fulton Market is wildly popular and dense but you don't feel like you are downtown in a skyscraper jungle. You definitely feel as if you've left the "downtown." I realize there's a ton of low-hanging fruit at the moment and developers can swoop up land on the cheap and make huge profits with low-slung luxury units.
I am merely saying I don't want to see River North relegated to a majority midrise neighborhood with the odd 30-40 story tower here and there. Many lots on Erie, Ontario, Huron, Superior, etc. are being filled with 10-15 story luxury buildings. These ultimately house NIMBY's that will fight for their views, complain about traffic and argue skyscrapers are out of scale with the environment. The more of them they build the more West Loop/Fulton Market the development process will become where a thousand guidelines must be taken into consideration. An example is the 450' tower under construction on Grand that had to be setback to midblock with a massive podium fronting the intersection and a pocket park because they protected the views/demands of Sexton's residents.
A developer proposed this 60 story glass tower on Superior but the Alderman shot it down over traffic concerns without even a meeting. A building like this on Superior as far west as Wells/Orleans would be an absolute game changer by creating a substantial new peak pretty distant from anything even approaching that height.
Skyscrapers can also integrate well with the street given the base has active uses like retail or liner units rather than blank walls and podiums that are obvious parking structures. It's not a given that they destroy street life. 465 N. Park and SoMi did a great job with their podiums/base while Old Town Park is atrocious. I more than anything want the skyline/downtown to expand to the point Chicago completely overwhelms you. Enough with the spacing and vistas providing the ability to view a building's architecture unobstructed. Hyper-density and height is the direction I want to see the core go as there are plenty outer neighborhoods for mid-rise growth and townhome blocks. Perhaps if Aldermanic Privilege is really ended with the new mayor development in Chicago sees an end of the antiquated, corrupt, convoluted process that has plagued us forever. That 60 story tower above that was denied would actually get a vote by the zoning/planning committee rather than an Alderman saying no for any arbitrary reason and dying on the desk.
Chicago will have a third Super-Tall observatory in the AON Center completed in 1974.
It will have a exterior glass elevator and approved to build by the city for a 2020 completion.
Right next to Millennium Park it expects to be a success. But all three are expected to survive
in the rising tourism in Chicago.
As a an ex-Torontonian, I can say with all objectivity that Chicago wins hands-down...……..it really isn't much of a competition.
As much as I absolutely love the CN Tower which is a truly a beautiful structure and the Eiffel is the only tower that eclipses it in the world, it doesn't change the fact that Chicago's skyline is larger, more dramatic, and has a better variety of architecture. Toronto may one day have many more taller buildings at the rate the city is growing and the dizzying rate they are putting up towers in the city, I still just don't think it will ever match the majesty of Chicago's skyline.
Yes, Aldermanic prerogative has been ended on paper but in practice it's yet to be seen. There is still a question whether the other bodies will simply side with the Alderman and vote accordingly based on their pressure. So say Reilly or King come out against a project and then the committees or city council vote with those Alderman then their powers are still in tact. I'll believe it's over when projects they strongly oppose are granted permits.
On June 5th there is a community meeting for a proposed 18 story building in Fulton Market at 1111 W. Carroll with the developers and Alderman Burnett. That is definitely the old way of doing business. The community organization will hold things up demanding height and design changes with more meetings down the line while the Alderman leans on the developers to accommodate them etc. bringing the process to a crawl. If Aldermanic privilege is over then I don't know why this is necessary anymore since this has always been a fundamental element of prerogative to bring the concerned parties together where the Alderman weighs his options and gives his blessing to move forward or not. I thought it would change to where they submit their proposal with the city and a legislative body would have control over the process leaving the Alderman out of the equation.
Related's supertall proposal for the former Chicago Spire site was shelved for over a year now by Alderman Reilly over not wanting a hotel component in the project and demanding that the base be redesigned. If Alderman can still force these kinds of changes and push back a project years then the executive order is useless. Related should theoretically be able to submit their original proposal now and see how it fares but they are still in the redesign stage making all the changes Reilly requested.
Last edited by IronWright; 06-02-2019 at 12:11 PM..
"downtown Toronto will surpass Chicago in scale if it hasn't already."
This is why you lose all credibility.
Complete or Topped Out (CTBUH, Skyscraper Center)
300m+
Chicago: 7
Toronto: 0
250m+
Chicago: 15
Toronto: 6
200m+
Chicago: 32
Toronto: 23
150m+
Chicago: 126
Toronto: 69
Do they not teach math in Canada? Chicago has more buildings than Toronto in every category (even 100m+).
Not only does Chicago have quantity, it has quality.
There's a reason only the most biased Canadians are voting for Toronto in the poll (which is getting crushed by the way)
When you take in account how many tall buildings are currently under construction in Toronto compared to Chicago, my math skills tell me that within a few years Toronto will pull ahead in the number of 150+ metre buildings, and be far ahead in the number of 100+ metre buildings.
The supertalls are coming, 1 is currently under construction, and 5 more are on the way. Of course there's also the CN Tower which should not be discounted and is still taller than Chicago's tallest. Can you not look into the the very near future and see what is inevitable?
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.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/53557327/AERIAL_IMAGE.0.jpg)
