City
How does Toronto's skyline stack up?
There's little doubt that Toronto has developed a decent skyline over the years — especially post-1976 when a certain futuristic-looking tower was completed — but how does it stack up against other major cities around the world? A question destined to return subjective (and biased) answers if there ever was one, this being the internet age and all, you just know there's gotta be a few lists out there. Sure enough, a friend of mine recently sent me a link to a list that claims to be the most authoritative out there. Shamefully curious, I couldn't help but take a quick look.
What I found was a website run by someone who shares a lot in common with a local wannabe celebrity who I refuse to name. More to the point, the author's criteria, while extensive, takes into account too many factors that verge on the utterly subjective (e.g. "uniqueness"). But as happens with these sort of things, I was intrigued. It may not matter much in the grand scheme of things, but for urban architecture geeks, this sort of stuff is quite seductive.
So I followed the Google rabbit hole on a search for other, potentially more credible skyline rankings. There are a few candidates out there, the most popular of which seem to be Egbert Gramsbergen and Paul Kazmierczak's The World's Best Skylines (see above) and Emporius's Skyline Rankings page, both of which put Toronto in and around the top 15 (at 16th and 13th, respectively). I'm not sure if that should be a surprise based on our relative size and population, but for whatever reason I would have thought we'd rank lower.
Perhaps this stems form the fact that I'm familiar with historical Toronto skyline photos that depict a city that looks more like sleepy Buffalo than the thriving metropolis the city is today, but I often think that our skyline is one-dimensional, limited to a cluster of buildings around the Financial District. It does, of course depend on the angle from which it's viewed (something that the rankings don't seem to take into account), but even from perspectives that reveal greater density, the concentration of similar-looking condos (and the degree to which our historical buildings are obscured) always leaves me feeling ambivalent.
Maybe that's why rankings like the ones mentioned above are really only useful as the starting point of a conversation. There's too many variables that'd have to be taken into account to come up with something resembling a definitive list. So calling all world travellers and architecture junkies out there — how do you think Toronto stacks up when it comes to skylines?
See also:
Photos by Chewie2008~, screengrab of the top 25 from the Worl Skyscraper Rankings, Ellis Wiley (via the Toronto Archives), and steve colwill.
Discussion
36 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
If Toronto's buildings could shuffle their locations and stand from tall to short or in a pyramidal fashion...
We're on the edge of a lake and can't go any further south.
London, Paris, Berlin and others started out on rivers and grew "organically" outward from its core in all directions
on both sides of the river.
Our one-sidedness means more is oriented in three directions.
The city's relative youth (qua city) means that most of
the development happened in the last century while other
cities had several centuries' lead on us.
Our ancestors' big mistake was to not require a green space the entire length of the shoreline and have the real city further back. But, of course, most of the land below the Esplanade is landfill and industrialised. That land should have been green space.
It would have been difficult to relocate the railway lines and still have a green waterfront.
That said, I still think we have an overall impressive city.
Hong Kong's skyline is stunning as it reflects the mountains and water.
Chicago's skyline looks great too.
Toronto needs more around the Lakeshore for it to be more dramatic. Instead we are building along the subway line which makes more sense but leaves the city with a less desirable skyline.
Of course the skyline isn't massive like Hong Kong, NYC or Tokyo but an endless sea of massive buildings isn't what makes Toronto unique so we shouldn't be trying to compare ourselves.
My personal favourite for old "low-rise" cities I'm familiar with is Paris at sunset seen from the Eiffel tower. All I could find quickly is this web photo, but the view towards Montmartre sitting on it's hill under the rays of a golden sunset is even more impressive (sorry, no tiny url):
http://www.shutterpoint.com/photos/C/236643-France-Paris-View-from-Eiffel-Tower-at-Sunset_view.jpg
http://www.northamrealty.com/media/mediamanager/photo/cache/800_x_0-58-aerial-can-sq-002157.jpg
That image is somewhat dated too. I've always found Toronto punches above its weight skyline wise.
And some of those other cities' skylines are crap. Manila? Really?
That being said, from street level while walking, Tokyo is one of the top 3 most exciting cities in the world. I have been to 12 of the top 25 in the first ranking, and Hong Kong is and always will be #1 for skyline thus deserving its 3 to 1 votes.
I would rank Vancouver above Tokyo easily, as it has the Hong Kong-like combo of mountains and city.
Ummmm. Gee, where to begin!
I think our ancestors were busy using the waterfront as a working port, which is what actually made this city, you know, possible.
This was back before we outsourced all the dirty work to China.
Considering Toronto is somewhere around 37 or 38th on the list of the world's largest cities, our skyline punches way above it's belt, to coin another poster here.
Having spent a lot of time in Sao Paulo - which although is now 5 times the size of Toronto, 110 years ago it was the exact same size as this city, I can attest that Sao Paulo is far more densely populated than Toronto but has no skyline to speak of. Postcards from that city are confused as to what to highlight. Many will focus on the sort-of famous Italian building downtown, which at 41 storeys is still (I believe) the tallest building in Brazil. Yikes. If you could see Sao Paulo from the roof of my partner's condo, it is a sea of 20-25 storey buildings fanning out in all directions to the distant mountains. Impressive to see in person but not really of the same impact as Chicago, HK or Manhattan (let's be specific: 'NYC' does not have an impressive skyline, Manhattan does!
Toronto is far less dense, but does have some interesting concentrations of highrises, and if current thinking from the intellegentsia at Ry-high prevails, will continue to grow 'up' and concentrate.
http://lucienhuisstede.nl/images/hong%20kong.jpg
http://www.kampus-asia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/hong-kong33.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5636990487_13e8651fc5_b.jpg
and Martin Jol's mother is a whoooooooooreeeeeee. She's a whooooooooooooreeeee.
...Toronto's skyline is rad.
And Hong Kong's skyline is very vibrant, as opposed to say, Manhattan which always seems very drab to me.
1) HONG KONG: Density, height, beauty, this skyline has it all and is stunning at night.No one is even close!
2) CHICAGO: Beautiful and dramatic with excellent archetecure. Very sad they cancelled the 2000ft Spire...:(
3) NYC : Very dense, with excellent height and the Freedom Tower is rising!
4) DUBAI: Home of the 2800ft mega tower and other supertalls! Lacking in density now, this city could take over #2 in ten years.
5) SHANGHAI: Another exploding city with a 2000ft postmodern supertall going up!
hmm...why are most of the best skyscrapers going up in Asia and the Middle East?
also...height isn't everything, as I consider Paris (the City of light) to have one of the best skylines too...:)