Is Toronto Beautiful?

[nrb]

I would kill for sidewalks as wide in toronto as nyc. It's a ridiculous comparison to begin with, because nyc is architecturally coherent, and toronto is not.

 

[Lenser]

It's more coherent in a great many more instances, perhaps. But as a whole? Aren't most cities polyglot entities constantly embracing - or at least flirting with - messy chaos? A slickly appointed edifice abutting some rotting tenement that's long ago seen its best days - a grand, still-beautiful old bridge, beneath which squat run-down, grotty warehouses... that sort of thing.

No one city has a lock on solid, enduring coherence. If cities are to live, they must by nature change, evolve. Which process entails liberal dollops of ugliness as well as beauty. Thankfully, that which is currently appalling can morph into something truly transcendant; it's one of the reasons our most dynamic cites can so effortlessly fascinate us. They are capable of happenstance miracles, and the agents of change are the citizens themselves, eager to see something of themselves in the urban environment they call home.

 

[RC8]

My point is that you don't have to intellectually engage with a city in order to groove to it - there are many levels of appreciation and many points of entry. Academics will enjoy one range of factors, others will find their own ways of appreciating what any given city offers.

I do not disagree with this at all. But the amount of noise, traffic, and people that you have to put up with in Manhattan can only be enjoyable to someone who understands the nature of these things - and thus puts up with them in order to enjoy its benefits (whatever they may be for a particular individual).

Pshaw. One lone photograph does not a definitive argument make and I expect you know this very well. Too, this business of dragging in primate behaviour looks specious to me and is beside the point. Surely the essence of humanity and human civilization is only marginally due to our primate origins.

I believe that the fact that you require a set of cultural (learned or developed) qualities in order to be able to appreciate a city like New York (or Toronto, or Chicago, or Pittsburgh, or Detroit for that matter) is very significant to this discussion.

The picture was taken by me, and I believe it exemplifies pretty well what a lot of Manhattan looks/feels like. I really enjoy that area, too.

How well acquainted someone is with the phenomena affecting the urban environment (whether academically, through personal experiences, through art, or through a multitude of other ways) is perhaps the most significant factor on the degree of appreciation they can develop for any given built environment.

The degree to which an erudite bridge builder is able to appreciate the mechanisms behind an 'average' concrete bridge, for instance, is well out of my comprehension. He may find a real beauty in them that's just absent for me due to my relative lack of 'culture'. Then again he may not find any. I would personally listen to and learn from his opinion, personally.

 

[Hipster Duck]

It's more coherent in a great many more instances, perhaps. But as a whole? Aren't most cities polyglot entities constantly embracing - or at least flirting with - messy chaos? A slickly appointed edifice abutting some rotting tenement that's long ago seen its best days - a grand, still-beautiful old bridge, beneath which squat run-down, grotty warehouses... that sort of thing.

No one city has a lock on solid, enduring coherence. If cities are to live, they must by nature change, evolve. Which process entails liberal dollops of ugliness as well as beauty. Thankfully, that which is currently appalling can morph into something truly transcendant; it's one of the reasons our most dynamic cites can so effortlessly fascinate us. They are capable of happenstance miracles, and the agents of change are the citizens themselves, eager to see something of themselves in the urban environment they call home.

Hmmm, your post made me think about what I personally value in an urban landscape. It's not architectural coherence and sometimes I don't think it's even the quality of the public realm, but the scale and massing of the buildings as they relate to the street is kind of universally important to me.

Even the ugliest parts of New York, Paris or Rome consist of midrises that come right up to the sidewalk and travel four or more floors up. It's rare to find a building south of 125th street that's one or two storeys (outside of a handful in the coherently 2-storey Greenwich village historic districts), and almost impossible in Paris, Rome or the centre of any continental European city. I think downtown Toronto suffers from a horrible sense of clashing scales. We have 50 storey towers right next to one and two storey teardown commercial properties, next to semi-detached homes with unkempt lawns. I don't know what it is that bothers me about this, but the parts of the city where the buildings are more uniform in massing, if not style, are much more agreeable to me. For example, I love Stewart st. between Portland and Bathurst and often go out of my way to walk down that street when I'm traveling along King west. Similarly, I love Draper street just around the corner, even though it's totally different (1 and 2 storey workman's cottages), because the unity of scale is still there. OTOH, I find streets like Wellesley between Yonge and Jarvis to feel bizarre. This is despite the factthat the public realm on Wellesley is above average, with buried hydro wires, a relatively new, unbroken sidewalk and relatively tasteful concrete planters with mature trees. The buildings, themselves, aren't even offensive, but the fact of the matter is they're jumbled in there at various heights and setbacks and the result is a total mishmash.

 

[Lenser]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here; you seem to be suggesting that we require some kind of built-in appreciation of urban life before we can properly appreciate any given city. I don't know that this true at all. The first thing I instinctively object to is the notion that anything is "required-" culturally or otherwise. Sounds drily academic and theoretical to me. I think you ought to give human beings more credit.

I can appreciate that many of us approach cities on a lofty intellectual level. But that said, cities offer visceral experiences that preclude our various individual levels of education/indoctrination/introduction... they bypass all of that lofty stuff and go for the jugular. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. A great city can have a great - yet profoundly negative - effect on an individual.

Off to chill out and watch the idiot box; will check back in on the morrow.

 

[adma]

torontothegreat:

Here are a list of all your alter-egos:

coolcanadian
coolcanadians
mytoronto
toronto112
toronto118
torontocanada
torontothegreat

Any further attempts will be publicized using a similar method, and if prove ineffectual, further measures will be brought to bear.

AoD

Yeah: just as I thought.

And his technique of using the absolutely offputtingly glossiest tourist-lit photos of Toronto to make his point remains, as I've said before, akin to innocently (yes, innocently) posting Victoria's Secret pictures in a woman's issues forum...

 

[RC8]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here; you seem to be suggesting that we require some kind of built-in appreciation of urban life before we can properly appreciate any given city. I don't know that this true at all. The first thing I instinctively object to is the notion that anything is "required-" culturally or otherwise. Sounds drily academic and theoretical to me. I think you ought to give human beings more credit.

I can appreciate that many of us approach cities on a lofty intellectual level. But that said, cities offer visceral experiences that preclude our various individual levels of education/indoctrination/introduction... they bypass all of that lofty stuff and go for the jugular. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. A great city can have a great - yet profoundly negative - effect on an individual.

Off to chill out and watch the idiot box; will check back in on the morrow.

You assume that knowledge as expressed in my previous posts is something that is 'taught', but that is not what I mean at all.

What I'm saying is that in order to accurately judge the merit of something as large and complex as a metropolis one must first acquaint oneself fully with the place one is experiencing. This process may be streamlined in any number of ways - through art, media, previous experiences, books, etc. Learning isn't limited to formal procedures - most learning in certain subjects (this clearly being one of them) occurs through personal experiences and exploration.

True appreciation is based on an understanding of processes. Even as you appreciate an art-piece or a fine wine your admiration is inherently linked to the creative process and not just the end result. A judge limited to 'visceral reactions' who doesn't seek a deeper understanding may have his or her own opinions, but these tend to offer less of an insight regarding the true nature of the subject.

So, when I say that an understanding is required, I don't mean that one must be informed beforehand, but rather that we must one way or another explore, enquire, and experiment with a place before passing judgement on it. My opinion of Toronto when I first moved to this city was as 'valid' as any - but it was ultimately flawed because it was negatively affected by phenomena well out of my understanding at the time. Likewise, once upon a time, I really liked Mississauga and hated New York... go figure.

It takes a while to get a good idea of anything. It takes a bit less time if someone already knowledgeable directs you a little.

Determining the beauty of a place based on a miscellaneous tourist's first impression is something I disagree with.

 

[Lenser]

Sure, but here's the thing. it's all too easy to get snobby about one's supposed "superior" knowledge/appreciation of a city (thanks to having spent more time within its milieu and having "taught" oneself all of his charms); it sets up value judgements based on the juxtaposition of someone who's lived in the city for less than a year vs. someone who was, say, born in that same city. I just don't see the point in trying to assign value to any given individual's observations, based on a tenuous sliding scale of how long they've been immersed in that city. Newcomers bring with them viewpoints often lost on those who have been here an awfully long time. Those perspectives aren't immediately of less value, are they? I certainly don't think so.

I'll agree with you that "it takes a while to get a good idea of anything." But it's all relative. There is no absolute point at which you can safely say you know everything about the city in which you live. A city is not something you can fully attain or master - it's far more complicated, deep and broad than any one's person's ability to encompass and process it. That's part of what makes urban living so fascinating - it offers myriad perspectives to its inhabitants - whether they're veterans or absolute newcomers.

As for the understanding of process, I have to disagree. I'm a painter. I often sell the paintings I make. Sometimes the buyer is really keen on discovering how I go about making the painting they've bought. Other times it's very simple and uncomplicated - a buyer likes the colours or likes how the painting makes them feel - that type feels no compunction to "get" the painting, or to understand what motivates me as an artist. They're just not interested. It's not rude, it's just what it is. Yet I can't say that one type of client is better disposed to enjoy what they now own... I don't think it works that way in the marketplace.

Just as you don't have to be a consummate musician - or even an awkward amateur - in order to love a particular song, I think it's that way with city dwellers. You don't have to understand how NYC arrived at its present state of built form in order to know whether you like the city or not. In fact, for most people, I would argue that sort of analytical stuff is entirely too esoteric or aridly intellectual. Many people crave a more visceral, physical appreciation of a city - it's pulse, its vibrancy, its street vibes. The details behind those experiences may be pleasant to know about but they are not essential to the kernel of their experience.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I agree with Lenser on his point that one doesn't need to know about beauty to appreciate it.

Hipster, I see great reason in the philosphical argument you are making that a city benefits from a concentration of investment in one area such as the city core.

The question is is such a "face saving" idea congruent with our local culture? I don't believe it is. Ultimately, we should strive to create a city that is both beautiful and affords a high standard of living to it's citizens everywhere, not just in the best parts. But the emphasis should always be living standard first, beauty second. One could accuse me of manufacturing a false trade-off between living standard and beauty but in many (if not most) instances we are dealing with limited resources and so these kind of trade-offs are real. Providing everyone with local library services or concentrating efforts on creating a few beautiful central libraries are different and entirely legitimate philosophical arguments.

It takes a lot of concentrated time, money, and effort to create a beautiful well maintained public and private realm. The changes we are seeing especially in the city centre are trickling in as a result of the demographic trend that is seeing wealth concentrate into the city centre and up the Yonge Street spine. This is great on the one hand but it is also symptomatic of a much greater trend of socio-economic segregation that will work against efforts to maintain a high standard of living on average for all residents of the city.

 

[Lenser]

It takes a lot of concentrated time, money, and effort to create a beautiful well maintained public and private realm. The changes we are seeing especially in the city centre are trickling in as a result of the demographic trend that is seeing wealth concentrate into the city centre and up the Yonge Street spine. This is great on the one hand but it is also symptomatic of a much greater trend of socio-economic segregation that will work against efforts to maintain a high standard of living on average for all residents of the city.

+1000%. I often think of this when I'm reading the "Shabby public realm" thread. The money required for comprehensive street improvements across the board, especially for those areas which plainly need it most, is clearly not forthcoming; it's largely a matter of political will and these days the dominant vibe seems to be "spend less and make the current tax dollars do more -" which strategy, of course, is pretty much unsustainable.

So instead we get certain high-profile (and relatively wealthy) zones getting some welcome upgrades; yet ironically, those improvements only contrast all the more with the many areas deemed low-priority.

 

[Tewder]

... and cue the point I made at the start:

I agree that there is a funding issue, but I'm not sure that more funds would change the situation all that much... which is why I come back to the cultural thing and how it is politicized (in terms of spending/funding). Again, unlike in many other cities, it is somewhat ingrained in Toronto urbanites to reject spending on 'city beautiful' issues as frivolous and unethical all the while there is social need... and not just city-beautiful issues but other things like heritage preservation, the arts and 'circuses'. Like it or not, Toronto urbanism is 'sensible shoes' not Montreal chic... and no offense but birkenstocks just aren't beautiful.

Is Toronto 'beautiful'? More importantly, does anybody care if it is?

 

[Lenser]

Clearly, some do. I don't, particularly. There's something garish and restless about the question - anxious Pollyanna-ish hand-wringing.

But in my view, part of a city's definition has to include a measure of chaos, disorder, the unsightliness of transitional stages/neighbourhoods, the sorry neglect which generally precedes gentrification. In short, it's unrealistic to expect any city to "arrive" fully intact, fully formed, completely captivating. Cities are organic, evolutionary creatures. They change appearances just as we as individuals do... sometimes along similar timelines, as well.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to live in a dump. But Toronto, though it's many things, is not a dump. Not in my books, anyway. Could it be improved? Most certainly. Can we all agree on how this should happen? Fat chance.

 

[old boy]

... and cue the point I made at the start:



Is Toronto 'beautiful'? More importantly, does anybody care if it is?

Of course people care . And, when does the purveying of stereotypes end, ie " Toronto urbanism is ' sensible shoes ' not Montreal chic ' ? Tewder, just where did you get your distaste for Toronto ?

 

[Urban Shocker]

I agree with Lenser on his point that one doesn't need to know about beauty to appreciate it.

So do I - art transcends time, and cultures, and in some respects too much "book learning" and the prejudices of "good taste" get in the way of appreciation - the point I made earlier, about how newly-rediscovered Greek architecture was thought ugly by refined, mid-18th century Palladians, being but one example. A lot of un-learning of cultural baggage had to take place before the earlier Greek forms were fully appreciated. I think that quality will be apparent for those with eyes to see it, and that not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't there. In my own case, to shift to a different branch of the arts, I don't particularly "get" the music of Mahler compared to other late romantic composers, but I know that there's something there.

 

[urbandreamer]

Toronto is beautiful.

You just have to stay clear of the usual suspects.