Toronto needs more 300m+ Towers

[doady]

I think Toronto should ban all high-rises. Elevators are not sustainable, they should be banned. 4 storeys should be maximum. Look at Montreal with all its plexes. Very high density without the need for elevators. That's what Toronto should be building instead for residential. Low-rise neighbourhoods feel much nicer than high-rise ones anyways.

 

[Parkdalian]

I think Toronto should ban all high-rises. Elevators are not sustainable, they should be banned. 4 storeys should be maximum. Look at Montreal with all its plexes. Very high density without the need for elevators. That's what Toronto should be building instead for residential. Low-rise neighbourhoods feel much nicer than high-rise ones anyways.

You do realize that what you are suggesting will either mean that a) all development in Toronto will basically grind to a halt or b) all of old Toronto will be razed to build four-storey buildings. I think building towers is a better compromise.

And elevators are not sustainable? What, are we suggesting that anything electric cannot be used in a building? I suppose we shouldn't install lighting fixtures, either.

 

[sodapop]

i agree with parkdalian

and what would that leave us skyscraper geeks to talk about toronto should ban green/ glass cheap condos and build cooler skyscrapers, i was really hoping trump would be our big 300 meter + tower but i was wrong i think we should go 1 step at a time and strive for more 200 meter + towers because we just don't have the demand for office/hotel/condominium space to build 300 meter + towers as of yet maybe by 2020 though we can dream

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

i agree with parkdalian

and what would that leave us skyscraper geeks to talk about toronto should ban green/ glass cheap condos and build cooler skyscrapers, i was really hoping trump would be our big 300 meter + tower but i was wrong i think we should go 1 step at a time and strive for more 200 meter + towers because we just don't have the demand for office/hotel/condominium space to build 300 meter + towers as of yet maybe by 2020 though we can dream

Hopefully.

Miami pop 450k has such a tall skyline compared to us.

 

[sodapop]

true, and kind of embarrasing

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

true, and kind of embarrasing

I know, I like Miami and all but closing in on three milliion, we need to flex our muscles.

 

[adma]

You do realize that what you are suggesting will either mean that a) all development in Toronto will basically grind to a halt or b) all of old Toronto will be razed to build four-storey buildings. I think building towers is a better compromise.

And c) Montreal has skyscrapers, too.

 

[old boy]

I think Toronto should ban all high-rises. Elevators are not sustainable, they should be banned. 4 storeys should be maximum. Look at Montreal with all its plexes. Very high density without the need for elevators. That's what Toronto should be building instead for residential. Low-rise neighbourhoods feel much nicer than high-rise ones anyways.

Elevators are not sustainable ? High density downtown, which is taken as a positive I think, means building high. I saw some renderings a few years ago showing what some of our two storey arterial routes like Kingston Rd. might look like if they were 4-6 storey lined illustrating an attractive way to increase density away from the core.

 

[Redroom Studios]

Hopefully.

Miami pop 450k has such a tall skyline compared to us.

thats a rather misleading comparison... Miami Metro is about 5.5 million, almost the exact same pop as is often quoted for the GTA - 5.6 million. Furthermore, I just checked the Miami buildings diagram on www.skyscraperpage.com and their tallest is listed at 275m, plus they dont have anything equivalent to the CN Tower, so how is their's taller? As others have stated previously, if our highrises were all congregated downtown as most American cities are then our skyline would blow away pretty much any second teir US city. As it is our highrises are spread out across the metro area which is a good thing. Our downtown skyline is growing by leaps and bounds in any case...

 

[EVCco]

If looking for another comparable city I would suggest Houston: roughly 2.2 million city pop / 5.8 million metro pop - almost identical to Toronto.

Breaking down the stats (according to Emporis) Houston has:
2 towers over 300m;
12 over 200m; and
18 over 150m (including 1 u/c);
359 total highrises built, plus 46 planned and 7 u/c.

vs. Toronto with:
1 over 300m (if you include CN);
16 over 200m (9 built, 7 planned or u/c);
31 over 150m (15 built, 16 planned or u/c);
1,823 built, 275 planned, 96 u/c.

But, of course, aside from population there's numerous other political/economic/cultural factors that go into why any city has x-number of buildings of y-meters in height, and most such comparisons I find largely pointless.

Still, whenever I find myself in envy of other cities' current loftiness, I console myself somewhat with TO's historical height prestige. Lets not forget that when First Canadian Place was built (1975) it was the tallest office tower in the world outside of New York and Chicago. And when TD Tower went up in 1967 it was taller than any building in Chicago, period (although still shorter than Prudential Tower in Boston and, if you include spires, Terminal Tower in Cleveland - and neither of those cities are significant players in the realm of "mega-skylines" anymore). Compared to Toronto, most American cities (and world cities for that matter) are relative johnny-come-lately's to the tall tower game.

As far as the future goes, assuming Downtown eventually runs out of space, I'd love to see some sub-super (200-250m), if not super-talls start going up around the suburban nodes like North York Centre, Scarborough Centre, Etobicoke Centre, and along the DVP Corridor. Won't hold my breath for that to start happening any time soon - but who knows...

 

[nrb]

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.

 

[Hipster Duck]

b) all of old Toronto will be razed to build four-storey buildings. I think building towers is a better compromise.

To be fair, we don't need to start blockbusting the Annex to achieve this kind of growth. We could encourage laneway housing, and I wouldn't be averse to a slow, steady replacement of some of our more humdrum commercial streets with 4 and 5 storey midrises. Some developers like Streetcar Developments are already doing this. Hats off to them.

Also, Vancouver has been pretty successful in taking borderline suburban thoroughfares like 41st St. or Arbutus (Toronto analogues would be like Bloor Street near the Kingsway or the Queensway near Islington) and converting them into relatively urban strips with these kinds of buildings. There might be more hope for this kind of development in Toronto's inner suburbs than in established urban neighbourhoods.

 

[Second_in_pie]

To be fair, we don't need to start blockbusting the Annex to achieve this kind of growth. We could encourage laneway housing, and I wouldn't be averse to a slow, steady replacement of some of our more humdrum commercial streets with 4 and 5 storey midrises. Some developers like Streetcar Developments are already doing this. Hats off to them.

Also, Vancouver has been pretty successful in taking borderline suburban thoroughfares like 41st St. or Arbutus (Toronto analogues would be like Bloor Street near the Kingsway or the Queensway near Islington) and converting them into relatively urban strips with these kinds of buildings. There might be more hope for this kind of development in Toronto's inner suburbs than in established urban neighbourhoods.

Exactly. Mid-rise redevelopment can certainly occur without tearing down strips of houses. Not that I think that tearing down houses is a particularly bad idea, especially some of the more boring suburban neighbourhoods (in moderation, of course.) But there are tonnes of roads and areas throughout the city that could accommodate tonnes of medium density development. And by doing that, you allow for urban living and good transit to exist all throughout the suburbs. And with all the growth the city is doing (and will continue doing for decades to come,) there's still plenty of room to have a 25 km waterfront skyline, and probably an impressive skyline for North York, STC, and Mississauga.

 

[DTGeek]

Well the Auras and the 1 Bloor Easts have been inching up to 900 ft, so maybe there'll be a condo proposal or 2 that would be above 1000'

This is very true. I remember when I first discovered this forum and SSP/SSC, there was a lot of excitement about the Pantages condo and HVE and the like being built because they were 400+ feet. Nowadays towers of that size are built and go almost completely unnoticed, and there are 500+ towers that only merit occasional updates.

It really seems like there was some kind of price barrier prior to the early 2000s, where land in the core was scarce enough that it wouldn't be profitable to build low density stuff on it, yet condo demand wasn't high enough to justify building tall. I'm guessing the latter was because the 905 suburbs were still filling out. Condo/real estate prices in Toronto still aren't expensive compared to most highly desirable cities in the world, so I think this trend of 500+ ft in the core being the norm will continue.

 

[maestro]

Land was cheap which is why you saw 12 storey building proposed and built on sites where 24 storeys would be an economical challenge today.