Toronto needs more 300m+ Towers

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I'd rather have more innovative design in a greater variety of styles instead of having a few more shitty tall green glass condos. I would basically say grow up, caring about the height of skyscrapers is a dick measuring contest.

Of course it is. But I like it.

 

[adma]

In "looking for love", some people desire intimacy and harmony. Others just want big dicks.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

true. very true.

 

[Translude15]

not totally true. while chicago may entirely lack the high-rise nodes of toronto, it's pre-war density span is far larger. there are kensington markets at keele and eglinton, essentially. their equivalent of sheppard resembles dundas or queen right outside of the core.

Yes that is correct. Chicago proper is a smaller entity than Toronto itself, yet contains a larger population and thus, a higher population density. As a whole however, Chicago proper (2.8 million) makes up a much smaller portion of the urban area than Toronto does with the GTA. The suburban settlements outside of Chicago are numerous, and outnumber those bordering Toronto by a large margin. As a result, the urban area of Chicago takes up a much larger area than Toronto, with a very flat, expansive landscape. As you said, there is a lack of high rise nodes. Having family outside of Chicago, it's amazing just how far the urban area of Chicagoland stretches. I reckon that if Toronto possessed a similar pattern of urban sprawl, the GTA would have continuous north-south development stretching past Newmarket, from Hamilton to Oshawa. Definitely something that should and probably will be avoided.

 

[EVCco]

Back about 5 or 6 years ago I went up the CN Tower with a Chicago editor from Skyscrapers.com and some of his friends who refused to believe us that Toronto had more highrises than Chi-town.

Once they got up to the observation deck they were instantly convinced. They couldn't believe the site of numerous clusters of tall buildings, stretching out in all directions to the horizon. Comparing it to the view from the Sears Tower they said in Chicago, past downtown and lakeshore its mostly just flat, lowrise development as far as the eye can see.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I used to fancy skyscrapers when I was younger, it's what lead me to this forum originally. I must say though, the older I get and the deeper my understanding of cities the less interested I am in this building type. I welcome the idea of 300m structures, but I don't crave them. They are very far down the list of what makes a great city and very far down the list of developments that would enhance our city.

 

[valkoholic]

Not sure if this has been posted:

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/midrisestudy.htm

Worth reading if you're interested in mid-rise (which is all they want on the Avenues now, I guess).

 

[sodapop]

Back about 5 or 6 years ago I went up the CN Tower with a Chicago editor from Skyscrapers.com and some of his friends who refused to believe us that Toronto had more highrises than Chi-town.

Once they got up to the observation deck they were instantly convinced. They couldn't believe the site of numerous clusters of tall buildings, stretching out in all directions to the horizon. Comparing it to the view from the Sears Tower they said in Chicago, past downtown and lakeshore its mostly just flat, lowrise development as far as the eye can see.

for me, i personally prefer chicagos super density and tall buildings to torontos super spread out highrises e.g. nycc mcc and scc i always think to myself how much more dense it would be if those had all been built in the core.... cool story though. nice to see chi-town residents humbled by t.o.

 

[Haljackey]

The title of this thread is misleading. Toronto does not have any 300m+ buildings.

I am all for building one of these. It would become an icon for the city, and will still look tall in the skyline even when compared with the CN Tower.

With such a tall tower, it makes the 200m+ structures the city does have appear shorter than they actually are, by comparison.

Skyscraperpage has a few 300m+ fantasy models for the Toronto skyline, and also includes canceled structures for comparison:

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=48409721

 

[Second_in_pie]

for me, i personally prefer chicagos super density and tall buildings to torontos super spread out highrises e.g. nycc mcc and scc i always think to myself how much more dense it would be if those had all been built in the core.... cool story though. nice to see chi-town residents humbled by t.o.

This would be terrible, imo. Toronto's spread out density gives opportunity for "urban" services, like good transit or businesses within walking distances, far away from downtown. And for the future, this gives us a good framework to get the entire urban area into the kind of lifestyle that exists around downtown now, with high transit use and walkable neighborhoods. If you've got Chicago's big core but super sprawl, then that gives only a slight improvement to downtown livers and urban enthusiasts involved in the skyline dick-waving contest, but does nothing for the millions of people living in the suburbs.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The title of this thread is misleading. Toronto does not have any 300m+ buildings.

I am all for building one of these. It would become an icon for the city, and will still look tall in the skyline even when compared with the CN Tower.

With such a tall tower, it makes the 200m+ structures the city does have appear shorter than they actually are, by comparison.

Skyscraperpage has a few 300m+ fantasy models for the Toronto skyline, and also includes canceled structures for comparison:

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=48409721

Some of those structures are awesome. I like the three 4 one the best

 

[Ladies Mile]

You'd almost think that Chicago's suburbs started the minute you left the loop to read this thread.

There are large districts of residential townhouse architecture that are more compact than, say, Cabbagetown; and don't forget that Chicago's oldest suburbs were the stomping grounds of Wright and his circle, an architectural collection no Canadian city and few American ones can match.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

You'd almost think that Chicago's suburbs started the minute you left the loop to read this thread.

There are large districts of residential townhouse architecture that are more compact than, say, Cabbagetown; and don't forget that Chicago's oldest suburbs were the stomping grounds of Wright and his circle, an architectural collection no Canadian city and few American ones can match.

True. Toronto grew much much slower.

 

[Automation Gallery]

The title of this thread is misleading. Toronto does not have any 300m+ buildings.

I am all for building one of these. It would become an icon for the city, and will still look tall in the skyline even when compared with the CN Tower.

At the moment there is no 300 meter buildings on the horizon to be built in Toronto. The way i see it this is the first wave of neat half decent high skyscrapers going up right now....Ritz, Trump, Burano, Shangri-la, Four Seasons,..the second wave will be....Ice-1, And Ice-2, L-Tower, and Aura....3rd wave...One Bloor, U-Condos, X-2, and Five, which i believe will end up somewhere around 50-52 floors....4th wave which could be in at least 5 years and might actually include a couple office buildings... Bay Adelaide-2, 45 Bay, Richmond Adelaide Ctr-3, if they can actually bring it back from the dead, also 120-130 Harbour/90 Harbour, i believe we willl see 4 to 5, 50-65 storey buildings built in that area, oh yeah they may finally be starting the dig on the Signature tower.which i doubt will be anywhere near 300 meters.

 

[Mongo]

I hate to be a party pooper, but 300 metres is hardly considered tall these days. There are at least 70 buildings over 300m under construction right now worldwide, with about the same number of serious proposals as well. I have noticed a growing opinion on other boards that the new supertall standard should be 400m, or even taller -- 300m or 350m is nothing these days.

Without question, Toronto is clearly the most active city in Canada right now, but in terms of height it's equally clearly a second- or even third-rate city on a world scale. Even cities like Mumbai are climbing past Toronto in terms of tall buildings:

India Tower (125 floors, 720m)
World One (117 floors, 442m)
Shreepati Skies (81 floors)
Orchid Heights A (80 floors, 300m)
Orchid Heights B (80 floors, 300m)
Indiabulls Sky Forest (80 floors)
Minerva (77 floors)
Orchid Crown 1 (75 floors)
Orchid Crown 2 (75 floors)
Orchid Crown 3 (75 floors)
Indiabulls Sky Suites (75 floors)
Orchid Turf View A (70 Floors)
Orchid Turf View B (70 Floors)
Palais Royal (66 floors, 320m)
Oberoi Skyz 1 (65 floors, 230m)
Oberoi Skyz 2 (65 floors, 230m)
Indiabulls Sky Tower (64 floors)
Skylark Tower (60 floors, 300m)
Imperial 1 (60 floors, 249m)
Imperial 2 (60 floors, 249m)
Imperial 3 (60 floors, 249m)
Orbit Terraces (60 floors)

That's 22 buildings at least 60 storeys tall that are completed, under construction or seriously proposed. Toronto has 7. And Mumbai is far from unique, in fact it is typical of many Asian cities today. There are cities in China that I had never heard of before that have dozens of supertalls and near-supertalls planned or under construction. That number of very tall buildings would not be built for simple 'pride', they must be economically worthwhile in the eyes of the builders. In Canada, the banks' financial requirements are considerably more restrictive than elsewhere, so no truly tall buildings are being built -- even Aura and Trump are not tall by world standards. But yeah, if you're satisfied with 250m buildings instead of 450m, Toronto is okay.

The cautiousness and conservatism of Canadian banks can be a good thing -- that's why we weathered the global economic meltdown so well -- but it has definitely held us back in terms of building heights, compared to the rest of the world.