Is Toronto Beautiful?

[Tewder]

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

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

On the one hand I agree that the question is problematic, it may be more constructive to discuss whether Toronto is 'shabby' or not, and leave it at that. On the other hand I feel the question is fair. When we travel anywhere we will make these assessments, however unconsciously and however 'informed' we might be. It is part of our interaction with the surroundings. I'm not sure why it would be expected that we don't do this where we live, or that we should turn a 'blind eye' if we do.

I like what you posted earlier:

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.

Yes, we acknowledge beauty (or lack thereof) where we find it, and we do not need to understand why for this to be so (or not).

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.

I don't disagree with what you describe. A city as large and as vast as Toronto will accommodate all of those things, and this is part of what makes it vibrant.... however, if we are going to be accepting of chaos, disorder and unsightliness we should be as equally accepting of - and demanding 'balanced' proportions of - harmony, order and polish in our public realm. I'm just not sure that balance is there.

In the end though it comes down to lacking basic standards of what should be acceptable or not when it comes to the public realm, standards that would guide functions and processes so that:

a) we automatically bury hydro lines when streets are already being ripped up for construction or repairs etc.

b) We have a plan for greening our streets, widening them where possible and making them more pedestrian/bike friendly, and comfortable for all.

c) We have standards for the level of maintenance, repair and beautification (at least in the shared, central public spaces), i.e. no patched asphalt, no gum-stained sidewalks, no weeds, no dead trees. These are the 'living rooms' of the city, and the spaces that represent who we are collectively and civically. We owe these places some respect.

d) We have an expected level of civic funding and stewardship of these things, that our realm isn't palmed off on BIA's and private developments whose interests are very targeted.

e) That we have some vision for our public surroundings, that they reflect our design perspective and artistry. In other words, they reflect 'us'. This will inherently read as more beautiful.

Just some thoughts, but there you have it.

 

[vatche]

Very well said tewder!!!! My thoughts exactly!
Btw did u guys know that huge parts of Paris were gutted out in the late 1800 to make way for the grand Paris that u see today!

 

[pman]

Very well said tewder!!!! My thoughts exactly!
Btw did u guys know that huge parts of Paris were gutted out in the late 1800 to make way for the grand Paris that u see today!

Paris got Haussmann, we got St. James Town.

 

[RC8]

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.

No, they simply had to learn more to appreciate them, which is precisely my point. As I've stated before most learning in this subject occurs through personal experiences (though human evolutionary theory acts as a pretty good predictor for what makes people happy).

People's first impression of a physical space is valuable, but nowhere near as representative of the space itself than the opinion of the same people after they've had the chance to explore and interact with it.

You cannot judge a song from an excerpt. You cannot judge a painting from the close up of a corner. I would go as far as to say you also cannot judge songs and paintings properly unless you have also heard other songs and seen other paintings - even if simply because it will provide internal coherence to arguments.

If we want our cities to promote happiness and well-being, if we want them to be pleasing, we should be consulting those who understand through experience how our urban environment can accomplish this. Consulting instead people who let their 'cultural baggage' determine the shape of our public spaces is a terrible mistake (see the original Regent Park).

 

[Tewder]

Paris has an interesting blend though, right? You can find graffiti, dog poop, narrow winding streets and chaotic disorder, alongside the very best of grand urban design. The scope of the city embraces it all.

 

[Lenser]

Tewder: I like your five-point plan. Makes sense to me. Yeah, we should always be starting from a set of basic standards. The devil is in the details, of course. But at least this city appears to be moving forward in terms of burying hydro lines. As for standards for levels of maintenance after the fact, that's more troublesome. In many neighourhoods, there's an abundance of evidence that things have been allowed to slip for a long time now.

 

[Tewder]

Now if everybody would agree to crown me King I'll get on those things right away. I'll be a good potentate, I will! I promise

 

[Lenser]

Hey, sorry - but after a couple of years of Rob Ford, any talk of kings nauseates me.

 

[Tewder]

Fair enough, we'll share a dramamine together and figure something else out.

 

[Lenser]

Gotcha. But I'm not into the leadership thang. The paycheque would be nice but I'd rather be a team player... the trappings of royalty and being under the spotlight 24/7 doesn't interest me. But feel free to PM me about my reasonable consultation fees!

Going back to what I was saying about anxious hand-wringing over whether or not Toronto is beautiful - I guess it bugs me because the question inevitably reminds me of that seemingly eternal Torontonian quest for so-called "world class" status (and the attendant undercurrent of insecurity). I just wish we compared ourselves less to other cities and discover more of our own natural swagger. Might be a nice change.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I want to address Tewder's point d) :

d) We have an expected level of civic funding and stewardship of these things, that our realm isn't palmed off on BIA's and private developments whose interests are very targeted

Unfortunately or fortunately the cat is out of the bag on this one. I think the collective conscience of the city has basically realized the city can't and has abdicated the role of achieving those levels of civic funding and stewardship, and communities (especially downtown) are philosophically fine with that. In otherwords, local communities, private citizens, BIA's, etc. are basically going it alone. The city is seen as a sometimes partner, sometimes nuisance, but the fundamental point is that the way forward is citizen lead and city react. I recognize this because I am part of this movement.

Many here will lament this because the outcome will not produce the kind of standardization and hegemony that is equated with beauty but I do not. An engaged citizenry is more beautiful than a pristine public realm and Toronto has become too large and diverse to be standardized anyway. The trouble is that the results and the results we see will be largely dependent on the force of activity of local interests in a given area of the city. Many will be left out.

 

[Tewder]

I think the collective conscience of the city has basically realized the city can't and has abdicated the role of achieving those levels of civic funding and stewardship, and communities (especially downtown) are philosophically fine with that.

Yes, I've mentioned several times throughout this thread that I question just how much of a 'lobby' there is in Toronto for civic city-beautiful initiatives/funding, and whether people really care all that much... and on either side of the political spectrum where the right views it as 'gravy' and where the left views it as unethical.

Many here will lament this because the outcome will not produce the kind of standardization and hegemony that is equated with beauty but I do not.

The consequences run far deeper than that, unfortunately. We have a decrepit public realm, and 'beauty' is really the least of it, quite frankly.

An engaged citizenry is more beautiful than a pristine public realm and Toronto has become too large and diverse to be standardized anyway.

I find this quite pithy, to be honest. There are far larger and smaller cities than Toronto that manage to have some standards, at least in some central areas... and this is in no way an issue of 'hegemony' or being 'pristine'.... heck, pristine is a word that I wouldn't even utter in the same sentence as 'Toronto'!

Your initial point feels right to me though, that the shabby state of the public realm ( 'beauty'?) has become politicized in Toronto.

Going back to what I was saying about anxious hand-wringing over whether or not Toronto is beautiful - I guess it bugs me because the question inevitably reminds me of that seemingly eternal Torontonian quest for so-called "world class" status (and the attendant undercurrent of insecurity). I just wish we compared ourselves less to other cities and discover more of our own natural swagger. Might be a nice change.

We could definitely stand a little more swagger, I agree! I'm not sure that being blasé about the public realm achieves this though. Why shouldn't we just focus on setting our own standards and creating spaces that reflect us?

 

[Lenser]

We could definitely stand a little more swagger, I agree! I'm not sure that being blasé about the public realm achieves this though. Why shouldn't we just focus on setting our own standards and creating spaces that reflect us?

Sure, why not? But I note in passing that many of the things people in here have called for are features of cities they admire and have used as desirable features/policies - namely, stuff like burying hydro poles, outlawing postering (or at least strongly reining it in), making a wonderful waterfront, etc.

I suppose it's only natural to compare cities. My point would be that sometimes we seem to go overboard in that regard... but then again, there are no hard and fast lines of demarcation.

 

[pman]

Sure, why not? But I note in passing that many of the things people in here have called for are features of cities they admire and have used as desirable features/policies - namely, stuff like burying hydro poles, outlawing postering (or at least strongly reining it in), making a wonderful waterfront, etc.

I suppose it's only natural to compare cities. My point would be that sometimes we seem to go overboard in that regard... but then again, there are no hard and fast lines of demarcation.

It's useful to point out successful examples of the public realm in other cities in order to show that it's possible to design, build and maintain decent urban spaces as a normal state of affairs, and to demonstrate that what passes for normal on most Toronto main streets would be considered substandard in many other places. It's not a matter of saying other cities are better than Toronto in some masochistic inversion of our (thankfully) past obsession with world classiness. It's simply an attempt to find examples we might aspire to and imitate here.

 

[mrgrieves]

Toronto's public realm truly is unacceptable. Hopefully projects on streets like Bloor and Roncesvalles will inspire other parts of the city to invest in itself and make the city street's more appealing for its residents and visitors. My only concern is that many of these projects seem to be funded by local businesses and without investment from the City the city's streets will remain in their current chaotic state.

I wanted to share these two pictures I took on the NW corner of Yonge/Eglinton. There are a number of rusted poles which serve no purpose at all. They are not tucked away in an industrial corner of the city. Rather they are at one of the busiest and one of the more affluent parts of the city.