News   Jul 17, 2024
Don Valley Floodway
 20     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
Minto Submits Modifications to Grand Park Village Plan in Mimico
 696     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
News Roundup for July 16, 2024
 606     0 

Toronto needs more 300m+ Towers

jn_12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jn_12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
And I'll agree with this. Sticking low to mid rise buildings into the suburbs would be a very, very good thing. But even then, I think mid-rises would work well, and even the kind of high rise that's being built around cityplace and the waterfront. But a 200 m + building is just unneeded.
 
In NYC there are greater space constraints which make it more desireable to build higher, and in Chicago they build the parking levels above ground. Toronto on the other hand still has many empty lots to develop, future mass transit lines to grow along, and lots of room to sprawl before these sorts of pressures become a factor. Not to say that market forces or good ol' hubris wont win out at some point. I was kind of hoping that 1 Bloor would be the site, if any, for this sort of gesture.
 
Above grade parking isn't much of a factor. High density development in Chicago is highly focus in the downtown area. There are huge constraints to building anything high outside of this confined area. Average slab to slab heights are usually higher in the US which reflects condo apartments living being a luxury lifestyle.
 
^^ Unfortunately, it isn't much different here. Condo prices in Toronto are just phenomenal, and there's hardly enough units that your regular person can live comfortably in. The best contenders are definitely the apartment blocks that dot the inner suburbs, but open spaces are far and few, the market definitely not being exploited to it's best.
 
Translude15 said:
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...
Click to expand...

Actually, as cities, Toronto was incorporated on March 6, 1834, and Chicago on March 4, 1837.

(nitpicking but things like that bother me)
 
Last edited:
JWBF said:
Actually, as cities, Toronto was incorporated on March 6, 1834, and Chicago on March 4, 1837.

(nitpicking but things like that bother me)
Click to expand...

they start off pretty much the same, but Chicago gets very big very fast. Toronto's growth is very modest until the 1870's and even then its not growing all that fast. the net result is that by 1920 Chicago has over 5X the population of Toronto. it is a massive city in comparison to Toronto, and still feels very much the same way.

Chicago population:

1840: 4470
1850: 29,963
1860: 109,260
1870: 298,977
1880:503,185
1890 1,099,850
1900:1,698,575
1910:2,185,283
1920: 2,701,705
etc.

Toronto population:

1812: 700
1834: 9,254
1851: 30,775
1861: 44,821
1871: 46,100
1881: 86,400
1891: 181,000
1901: 208,040
1911: 377,000
1921: 522,000
etc.







 
JWBF said:
Actually, as cities, Toronto was incorporated on March 6, 1834, and Chicago on March 4, 1837.

(nitpicking but things like that bother me)
Click to expand...

My mistake. I meant to distinguish Chicago as being an older, or rather more experienced urban city per se, than Toronto, as thedeepend so kindly pointed out.
 
Translude15 said:
My mistake. I meant to distinguish Chicago as being an older, or rather more experienced urban city per se, than Toronto, as thedeepend so kindly pointed out.
Click to expand...

Just don't let it happen again. ;) :p

The British kept York/Toronto pretty tight to defence, and farming.
 
Translude15 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sort of like, I suppose, what today's Yonge & Sheppard would have been like had it developed by 1940...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top