TheKingEast
Senior Member
Not going to get much of a fair comparison on a Toronto-based website. Toronto beats every city on the planet on this board.
|
|
|
Toronto/Chicago comparisons
- Thread starter CITY_LOVER
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
That's being silly.
This is an old thread to which some OTP trolling posts were moved.
The poster isn't remotely interested in a thoughtful comparison.
There are no 'best cities' in the world. Anyone who says so lacks a proper understanding not only about the place(s) of which they speak, but all the rest as well.
Some are clearly preferable so far as a majority of people would be concerned.
But the top, 2 tiers of cities over 1,000,000 people would be at least two dozen deep around the globe, maybe more.
All would have relative strengths and weaknesses.
Toronto is no exception.
Neither is Chicago.
But no thoughtful discussion is started with City A is so much better than City B.
Even were it true it would be inflammatory and not contributory to a positive discussion.
But in this case it isn't true when made as a blanket statement.
If the case were made that Chicago has a better sample of art deco, early to mid 20thC architecture, particularly in the mid to hirise space vs Toronto, that would be fair and true.
One could pick several other spaces in which Chicago does well.
Toronto is clearly the safer city; It has more natural heritage space (forests/ravines), the frequency and comfort of its transit is superior as well.
There are other areas that are more debatable or are perhaps an effective draw.
But I see little point in such comparisons styled in that manner.
They can be useful when they look to another city as an example of how to do a particular thing better; or to enlighten a prospective tourist or use a reference point for someone unfamiliar with a given City ( ie. its 'x' but bigger or older or w/e)
Its not useful thing when spoken w/ill-informed arrogance, insufficient evidence and the intent to malign another place or falsely lionize another.
Which was the case here, in addition to it having been completely off topic in another thread.
Jasmine18
Senior Member
Chicago looks nice but is racist corrupt place
WislaHD
Superstar
Call me biased, but I know which city I'd rather live in.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
This thread has probably gone in many directions before but maybe on a Toronto-based website it’s best to stick to anecdotal interesting things about Chicago we may have experienced that counter the image of the place for people who have never been.
Chicago is from my experience very American in the sense that it does the 1% of civilization exceptionally well and the meat-and-potatoes of civilization exceptionally badly.
Beyond the high-rise core I admire some of their middle-density streets although there is a general air of decline about the place.
Funny moments visiting the world renowned Field Museum include: The great emphasis they put at the entrance that you NOT bring your gun inside and how the massively cavernous astounding building oddly defines what a museum should look like and yet is surprising poorly suited for displaying artifacts
Chicago is from my experience very American in the sense that it does the 1% of civilization exceptionally well and the meat-and-potatoes of civilization exceptionally badly.
Beyond the high-rise core I admire some of their middle-density streets although there is a general air of decline about the place.
Funny moments visiting the world renowned Field Museum include: The great emphasis they put at the entrance that you NOT bring your gun inside and how the massively cavernous astounding building oddly defines what a museum should look like and yet is surprising poorly suited for displaying artifacts
TheKingEast
Senior Member
Are we not just talking about aesthetics? In terms of aesthetics Chicago downtown blows Toronto out of the water. Now if we want to look at crime, poverty, etc then sure...
Northern Light
Superstar
The poster who started this made a blanket statement with no limitations as to aesthetics; then went on to suggest a number of non-aesthetic considerations; some of which were pretty unreasonable.
Northern Light
Superstar
This has all been discussed before, and I don't think it requires rehashing.
People are entitled to their preferences; but not their own facts.
Lets let this thread go dormant once more unless there is a compelling reason to revive it.
People are entitled to their preferences; but not their own facts.
Lets let this thread go dormant once more unless there is a compelling reason to revive it.
TheSixLover
New Member
Chicago's skyline is a facade once you actually get in the city its over, Toronto actually feels like a big city. Toronto has the second most high rise buildings in North America, only behind NYC. In 3 years time, Toronto will surpass Chicago for the 2nd most skyscrapers in North America. Toronto has the better food scene, Toronto doesn't shut down after 10pm. Toronto has wayyy less crime, More Diversity, More trees, Can't forget healthcare. Chicago is the city that invented the skyscraper and then gave up and became a 2nd tier city, O'hare has been called the worst airport in the US. Chicago and NYC were head-to head in the skyscraper battle during the 20th century and now look, It's being beaten by a city that just started actually building.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
I mean, people post pictures of buildings and we argue the merits of its aesthetics. No one really talks about anything beyond that. It's like people arguing about the board, security, etc. Anyways, if you went to a Chicago board the numbers would be skewed that way so these debates are useless.
3Dementia
Senior Member
I know this thread has wandered in many different directions, and this is not intended as a simple city vs. city post. It’s a response in part to media reports like “Toronto set to over-take Chicago in Skycrapers” which I’m betting often use a 100 metre or taller “yard” stick. For the record, I love Chicago, but just not warts at all. This post also touches on my scraper pet-peeve: CTBUH’s maze of height criteria that often raises more questions (and arguments) than answers.
INTRO:
Like many others, I remain befuddled with The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat’s (CTBUH) height criteria* and definitions. They don’t even define a “skyscraper” despite running a website ironically called the “SkyscraperCentre.com”. This is the ruler they use:
1. Tall: 50 meters+ (165 feet)
2. Supertall: 300 meters+ (984 feet)
3. Megatall: 600 meters+ (1,968 feet)
So what’s a skyscraper then? I have made my choice below, but it’s up to you. Here a some examples of what I characterize as the CTBUH Muddled Height Index:
1. One World Trade Center has a roof that tops out at 417m (plus a 10m donut), yet its glorified (Canadian-built) antenna, held up with guy wires, has earned it an official height of 541 metres (much-beloved 1776 feet).
2. Chicago’s Willis/Sears has a roof height at 442m (CTBUH’s “official” height) but has it 2 enormous free-standing masts that top out at 527m. But the masts don’t count because they are functional not architectural… huh? BTW when is a mechanical penthouse 'architectural'? When it's pretty?. So 1 WTC has a 417m roof and Willis has a 442m roof. Which 'building' looks taller? Pictures don’t lie IMO.
While skyline favourites are of course subjective, and even statistics are open to interpretation (like I’m doing), media stories I mention earlier like “Toronto Passes Chicago In Skyscrapers”, are often met with derision outside of The Six. Of course CTBUH has no official name for a 100m "building metric" (but you can search it like the media likes to do).
Brief Tangent using the media’s preferred 100m metric with my +/- 1m rider:
100m or taller (+/- 1m):
Built and Under Construction
TORONTO 333 (Source: CTBUH) + 23 (Source: SSP) = 365 (note: Toronto also has a huge lead in 100m or taller proposals)
CHICAGO 337 (Source: CTBUH) + 13 (Source: SSP) = 350
Personally I think (and many might agree) that a “skyscraper” is 150 metres+. For this post I am using a baseline of 150m plus/minus 1 metre - it seems a bit silly to me if half a dozen buildings .3m short of this 150m threshold don’t get counted, so even though close only counts in horeshoes, it counts here too
.
EDIT: Please note there is an error in my chart below - CC3 is actually 376m to the tip of its spire.
TORONTO = 119 skyscrapers (using my 150m +/- 1 metre metric)
CHICAGO = 105 skyscrapers (using my 150m +/- 1 metre metric)
So Toronto will one day be the number 2 skyline in North America imo. My forecast of 14 more legit skyscrapers than Chicago, a half dozen distinct tall, dense, and growing clusters in a vast ebbing and flowing skyline from North York to the lake... and the tallest free-standing structure in North America (553m), which some folks like to ignore because it’s not considered a “building”... but it has been and remains a skyline-changer in almost every Toronto photo - for me CN mitigates the absence of a plus 400m monster like Willis (Sears), and it belongs in a skyline discussion.
Have fun. Cheers.
POST-SCRIPT: Some CTBUH Data Notes, Questions and Observations (Supertalls as defined by CTBUH):
1. SPIRES/ARCHITECTURAL TOP VS ROOF HEIGHT
Chicago Franklin Center - built - 270m roof + arch top/spire = 307m (4 wafer-thin, nearly invisible toothpicks on the roof make it a CTBUH "spire" Supertall)
Toronto The Hub - proposed - 258m roof + arch top/spire = 304m (thx cbtuh ;-)
Toronto CC3 - proposed - 302m arch top (curtainwall screen) + spire = 376m (hey it counts for One WTC lol ;-)
2. ANOMOLIES - CTBUH HIGHER ARCHITECTURAL TOP/ROOF REPORTED
CTBUH - 55 Lakeshore East B proposed -304m (Note: already included @299m in my supertall total, using +/- 1m)
* reported on UrbanToronto and SSP Diagrams as 299m - *CTBUH may have added in a 5m mechanical penthouse (?)
CTBUH - 55 Lakeshore East C proposed -304m
* reported on UrbanToronto and SSP Diagrams as 290m. This CTBUH data may be just out of date.
Skyscraper Center (CTBUH) LINK
INTRO:
Like many others, I remain befuddled with The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat’s (CTBUH) height criteria* and definitions. They don’t even define a “skyscraper” despite running a website ironically called the “SkyscraperCentre.com”. This is the ruler they use:
1. Tall: 50 meters+ (165 feet)
2. Supertall: 300 meters+ (984 feet)
3. Megatall: 600 meters+ (1,968 feet)
So what’s a skyscraper then? I have made my choice below, but it’s up to you. Here a some examples of what I characterize as the CTBUH Muddled Height Index:
1. One World Trade Center has a roof that tops out at 417m (plus a 10m donut), yet its glorified (Canadian-built) antenna, held up with guy wires, has earned it an official height of 541 metres (much-beloved 1776 feet).
2. Chicago’s Willis/Sears has a roof height at 442m (CTBUH’s “official” height) but has it 2 enormous free-standing masts that top out at 527m. But the masts don’t count because they are functional not architectural… huh? BTW when is a mechanical penthouse 'architectural'? When it's pretty?. So 1 WTC has a 417m roof and Willis has a 442m roof. Which 'building' looks taller? Pictures don’t lie IMO.
While skyline favourites are of course subjective, and even statistics are open to interpretation (like I’m doing), media stories I mention earlier like “Toronto Passes Chicago In Skyscrapers”, are often met with derision outside of The Six. Of course CTBUH has no official name for a 100m "building metric" (but you can search it like the media likes to do).
Brief Tangent using the media’s preferred 100m metric with my +/- 1m rider:
100m or taller (+/- 1m):
Built and Under Construction
TORONTO 333 (Source: CTBUH) + 23 (Source: SSP) = 365 (note: Toronto also has a huge lead in 100m or taller proposals)
CHICAGO 337 (Source: CTBUH) + 13 (Source: SSP) = 350
Personally I think (and many might agree) that a “skyscraper” is 150 metres+. For this post I am using a baseline of 150m plus/minus 1 metre - it seems a bit silly to me if half a dozen buildings .3m short of this 150m threshold don’t get counted, so even though close only counts in horeshoes, it counts here too
.EDIT: Please note there is an error in my chart below - CC3 is actually 376m to the tip of its spire.
TORONTO AND CHICAGO COMPARISON
By the 150 Metre Numbers
Wrapping up - My subjective choice: In the near future, Chicago will still have taller buildings than Toronto ( 400m is not impossible in The Six eventually), but for fun I decided to add in just 25% of the Toronto proposals (24 skyscrapers) and 25% of the Chicago proposals (3 skyscrapers), to arrive at my informal built-construction-proposed snapshot:By the 150 Metre Numbers
TORONTO = 119 skyscrapers (using my 150m +/- 1 metre metric)
CHICAGO = 105 skyscrapers (using my 150m +/- 1 metre metric)
So Toronto will one day be the number 2 skyline in North America imo. My forecast of 14 more legit skyscrapers than Chicago, a half dozen distinct tall, dense, and growing clusters in a vast ebbing and flowing skyline from North York to the lake... and the tallest free-standing structure in North America (553m), which some folks like to ignore because it’s not considered a “building”... but it has been and remains a skyline-changer in almost every Toronto photo - for me CN mitigates the absence of a plus 400m monster like Willis (Sears), and it belongs in a skyline discussion.
Have fun. Cheers.
POST-SCRIPT: Some CTBUH Data Notes, Questions and Observations (Supertalls as defined by CTBUH):
1. SPIRES/ARCHITECTURAL TOP VS ROOF HEIGHT
Chicago Franklin Center - built - 270m roof + arch top/spire = 307m (4 wafer-thin, nearly invisible toothpicks on the roof make it a CTBUH "spire" Supertall)
Toronto The Hub - proposed - 258m roof + arch top/spire = 304m (thx cbtuh ;-)
Toronto CC3 - proposed - 302m arch top (curtainwall screen) + spire = 376m (hey it counts for One WTC lol ;-)
2. ANOMOLIES - CTBUH HIGHER ARCHITECTURAL TOP/ROOF REPORTED
CTBUH - 55 Lakeshore East B proposed -304m (Note: already included @299m in my supertall total, using +/- 1m)
* reported on UrbanToronto and SSP Diagrams as 299m - *CTBUH may have added in a 5m mechanical penthouse (?)
CTBUH - 55 Lakeshore East C proposed -304m
* reported on UrbanToronto and SSP Diagrams as 290m. This CTBUH data may be just out of date.
Skyscraper Center (CTBUH) LINK
As to the inevitable troll replies, everyone knows you think everything built locally is crap, but I challenge you to post something on topic instead.
On second thought spam away (I need to improve my reaction anyway).
On second thought spam away (I need to improve my reaction anyway).
Attachments
Last edited:
Mercenary
Active Member
Don't think GTA will ever surpass the Greater Los Angeles area in population or GDP.
It will probably pass Chicagoland in GDP and population by 2030 to become the 3rd most powerful city in North America excluding Mexico City.
Contra
Senior Member
Already larger population than the city of Chicago (2.7m) but it gets fuzzy when you compare Metros. Though their Metro population is larger by about 3 million people, the physical area is also about 5x as big.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Toronto's CMA is smaller than it should be if you ask me anyway, which makes the difference smaller. Oshawa, Whitby, Bowmanville, and Burlington are firmly part of the GTA, but are excluded as they are parts of other CMAs that existed prior to Toronto growing to the size it is today.
Hamilton might be able to be included as well, but that's more murky. Waterdown is an easy inclusion if you ask me, but downtown Hamilton is a little tougher to justify.
Those additions spit out a CMA of about 7.1 million in 2019.. which while smaller than Chicago's urbanized area population of 8.6 million, isn't far behind.
Hamilton might be able to be included as well, but that's more murky. Waterdown is an easy inclusion if you ask me, but downtown Hamilton is a little tougher to justify.
Those additions spit out a CMA of about 7.1 million in 2019.. which while smaller than Chicago's urbanized area population of 8.6 million, isn't far behind.
Mercenary
Active Member
Yeah. Toronto in 10 years will be the 3rd largest metro area in North America with the 2nd largest skyline and 3rd biggest GDP maybe.
But don't think Toronto will go any higher than that.
LA metro population is 13 million while New York is about 20 million.
GDP wise, New York is at 1.7 trillion, LA is 1 trillion, Chicago is 700 Billion and Toronto is at 360 Billion currently.
Toronto should be able to pass Chicago's GDP in 10 to 15 years if current trends hold but not sure if it can go beyond that.