Have to agree with Adma here. "Lowrise" Toronto is much more interesting. I find the urban fabric of towerless European cities far more intriguing, and if we look at where the vibrancy exists in our own city, it certainly isn't where the tallest condos have been built. Even this concept of podiums has been poorly done in my opinion (the TIFF building being a great example). I have no problem with increased density, and I understand entirely why tall condos are financially more desirable from the developers standpoint, but we haven't done it all that well yet. And as much as we don't need a Haussmann-esque standard put in place, I think there's something to be said for building at a more human scale.
That is a spot on analysis of the predicament at hand. It really is quite easy to become enthralled by the exuberance of tall (300 metre plus) skyscrapers. Toronto, still being as young as it is developmentally, doesn't exactly require the construction of supertalls, wherein smaller buildings would suffice to increase the density of particular areas.
Comparing Toronto to Chicago, people tend to forget that Chicago is a) an older city with a richer history of architecture and high rise development, b) contains about 3 million more residents in its metropolitan area (9 million in Chicago vs. 6 million here), and c) it's high rise buildings are centralized to the Loop only. Areas like MCC, STC and NYCC don't exist in Chicagoland. Outside of the Loop, their urban area is a sprawling suburban paradise, with exceptionally low densities. In Toronto's defence then, if we were to follow the same urban development and incorporate all the high rises of the aforementioned suburban areas, numerous 1,000 footers would most likely be present within our downtown core.