Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°		 It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of Rain
28°/18°		 It is forcast to be Overcast at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Overcast
27°/15°

22 Comments

news

The Future Toronto Skyline Is Now

By Alixandra Gould

20100115toronto_now.jpg

20100115toronto_future.jpg
Detail of Toronto’s skyline at present (at top) and Dickson’s rendering of what it might look in 2014 (bottom).


Wish you could see into the future? Well, now you can, sort of. Scott Dickson, the founder of advertising boutique Upside-Down, created a digital rendering of what the Toronto skyline will look like in 2014, as viewed from Marina Del Ray in the west end.


Additions to the skyline include the much-hyped Trump Tower at Bay and Adelaide, set to be finished later this year; Aura, a seventy-five-storey residence set to go up just south of College Park; and the Daniel Libeskind–designed L-Tower, an aptly named condo at Yonge and Front shaped like a glass L. Closer to the waterfront, a series of condos by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, and the Water Park City phase-two tower, Atlantis, are set to be erected.
Dickson also included some updates to buildings, such as the recladding of the BMO building at Bay and King.
20100115futurebig.jpg

20100115legend.jpg
The full 2014 skyline in colour (at top), and in black and white, including Dickson’s “draft” copy of a legend for it (below). Click each image to view it full sized.


Dickson, who posted his creation on Urban Toronto, left out the twenty- to thirty-storey buildings expected to go up in Liberty Village because they would have obstructed the downtown view. (He also neglected to include the overwhelming developments in the Entertainment District out of sheer artistic weariness.)
If the real Toronto skyline ends up looking anything like Dickson’s image, we’re in for a good four years of construction. With all the jackhammers and bulldozers we’ll be hearing, perhaps those who live downtown should invest in a good pair of earplugs.
All images by Scott Dickson.

Filed under: ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://www.thepleasureisback.com Adam M.

    Oh, yeah, Godzilla’s gonna love this.

  • http://undefined Matthew

    Hm, how much of this is going to be served by Transit City?

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    All of it is already served by subway and streetcars, with additional service from Transit City at Eglinton and the like. This intensification is what Toronto has needed for at least a generation, but my only complaint is that most of the condos are not affordable for families.

  • http://undefined Matthew

    I agree that intensification is the way to go. I’m just skeptical of the TTC’s ability to serve this intensified downtown adequately while putting so much capital into Transit City.

  • http://torontoist.is.not.nickwarzin.com/blog tapesonthefloor

    This. Intensification of development has to be at least matched by transit growth, and the TTC’s downtown lines can barely keep up with current demand. Or, in other words: Toronto, you’re doing it wrong.

  • http://undefined CanadianSkeezix

    Thus the reason why so many people are clamoring to prioritize the Downtown Relief Line, so as to relieve some pressure off the Yonge subway line and some of the east-west streetcar lines.

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    Agreed, the TTC does indeed need to increase service through more frequent streetcars and subways, as well as new lines like the DRL.

  • http://undefined Solex

    I thought that Transit City was supposed to be what we build, and not super-expensive stuff like the DRL. How would Toronto be able to afford a subway line? And where would the subway yards be put on such a line, as well?

  • http://undefined Darren

    The TTC has systematically proven that it actually encourages urban sprawl. People, like me, who are in the ideal situation to choose the TTC over car ownership are actually discouraged from doing so by the TTC. Why should I continue to buy a Metropass if the price is through the roof, and being in midtown means that I can’t board an AM rushhour subway if my life depended on it? The further they extend OUR subway lines the more people from the suburbs are encouraged to fill them up at their extremities. I’ve so far chosen not to own a car. It was a choice that I put off for as long as possible. I bought a home in the area that I bought so I would have the choice of not owning a car, but the latest fare hike, couple with the TTC’s pandering to suburban MPPs were the straws that broke the camel’s back. I’ve switched to tokens and bike riding the odd day, and car ownership is just months away.
    The DRL was needed 10 years ago to ward off further sprawl and encourage more density in the core. If this was NYC, the Yonge line would have been double-deckered, like Lexington to accommodate the demand to extend the line. A bigger platform at Y/B does jack for overall volume, the same for a new platform at Union. A midtown GO hub would have happened by now. We were promised by Metrolinx in its “Big Dig” that the old CPR Toronto North at Summerhill/Yonge would have been given to GO and Via, yet nothing has happened. What is more beneficial to the GTA; a LCBO or a midtown rail hub? That midtown hub would have given regional riders more options (as plenty of jobs are within walking distance from there) and it would have freed up our subway lines, while being a catalyst for intensification in areas that are more willing to intensify then any area in Vaughan where a subway station will be. NYC is almost finished on a similar project called the “East Side Access” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Side_Access while at the same time building a new subway line under 2nd Ave.
    The TTC can’t even tender a contract right. We gave the new subway contract to Bomb, without tender, only to see delay and cost over runs. The last delay was announced yesterday in the National Post. The manufacture of the subway doors went belly up so Bombardier had to delay the completion of the trains.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    Does anyone know the status of the City’s regulations on three-bedroom suites? I heard there was going to be a certain percentage requirement so that families could live in these new towers.
    The Aura seems to have 101 m² (tiny, yikes) and 122 m² three-bedrooms; Water Park City has none.
    Also, it kills me that people still use square feet.

  • http://undefined Darren

    Adam Vaughan keeps on harping on about it, but nothing concrete yet. The city shouldn’t have to mandate it. It would be nice if the demand for large suites increases and developers recognize that and act accordingly. The construction and sale would be more fluid this way then if it were mandated by the state.

  • http://undefined Svend

    Should be changed to “Western Toronto Skyline”.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    Some searching…
    http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/cc/decisions/2009-10-26-cc41-dd.htm (see TE28.2 point 5.i)
    and
    http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/decisions/2009-10-13-te28-dd.htm (TE28.3 point 3.i)
    Both say:

    The owner shall provide a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the residential units in the building having at least three bedrooms, or be convertible to three or more bedrooms.

    If I interpret right, since about October the city has been asking for this when approving some zoning applications. But I can’t tell if it’s tied to some larger policy or they just do it on a case-by-case basis. That’s why I asked.
    I agree it would be nice if the market took care of this, but developers wanting to maximize profit will build according to their prediction of the market at the time of sale, not years or decades from now. If bachelors are willing to pay more per unit area than families, then nothing is to stop developers from taking advantage of that.
    The “convertible” option is a nice compromise—you could build two smaller units separated by a nonpermanent wall that could later be removed, if need be. But if that were a structural wall, it would be (literally) rigid, not fluid.

  • rek

    Doesn’t demand for family-sized homes indicate there’s demand for family-sized residences in general?

  • http://undefined Darren

    Not necessarly. I bought a house (even though Im single) because I wanted certain aspects of a house not a condo; a backyard, a porch, more storage space, more windows, cutting grass, etc. There are days when I wonder if a condo would have made more sense.

  • rek

    It’s a hell of a change in just 4 years.

  • http://undefined Mark

    its a hell of a change due to the before photo being out of date (e.g., no Bay Adelaide) and the after including buildings that will not be there in 2014 in all likelihood (e.g., 1 numerous proposed towers)

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    Darren, a very good analysis and I generally agree with your whole line of thinking here. Thanks for the link to the East Side Access thingo …. very interesting.

  • http://undefined Darren

    Its amazing how the new regional rail hub can create new transit patterns the moment it is open for business. One busy subway line may get some more space, while a new subway line one might quickly see dedicated ridership from its proximity to the new regional hub

  • http://twitter.com/KatRealtyDeal Kat Anderson

    Will the influx of all these rate payers help boost Toronto’s tax base and but us in the black finally?

  • Ashley!

    Can’t Wait!

  • Rudy

    I wish someday they can Build Magnificent 21st century Structural and Architectural designs buildings like those ones they’ve built and still building in Dubai or even the ones like in Singapore or Hongkong! Canada will be the second largest oil reservoir in the World anyway! So it can afford to build those kinds of Towers like in Dubai!!!