waltthizzney
New Member
i thought Toronto's distinct neighbourhoods and organic sprawl its greatest strength?
|
|
|
Is Toronto Beautiful?
- Thread starter buildup
- Start date
pman
Senior Member
I'm not sure Toronto's neighbourhoods are all that diverse from a design perspective.
Main streets in the former City of Toronto outside the intensifying core, regardless of neighbourhood, mostly do exhibit unified elements, including:
- clear preference for automobiles, with narrow sidewalks, and generous allowances for left turn lanes at intersections further encroaching on pedestrian space
- low-rise architecture with two-storey retail punctuated by surface parking lots and one-storey big box stores like the new Shopper's Drug Marts
- extreme visual clutter with masses of overhead wires, redundant hydro poles, rural-standard wooden and concrete hydro poles, and clusters of signs related to various parking rules
- limited tree plantings, with many mini-trees dead or dying in sixties-style raised concrete planters
- seriously degraded paving of streets and sidewalks, exacerbated by pervasive and shoddily-patched utility cuts
Main streets in the former boroughs also seem to have common design elements, regardless of location, including:
- even more privilege given to automobiles, with right-turn lanes often added to left-turn lanes
- one-storey strip mall developments with generous free parking between sidewalk and street (like Dufferin from Eglinton to the 401), or
- sixties and seventies apartments isolated in retail deserts and surrounded by vacant lawns and surface parking, or
- main streets fronted by fences of back yards of single family houses (OK that's 3 different types of suburban main street but you can find the patterns repeated all over the inner suburbs)
I'd argue Toronto main streets do have mostly the same look, with the only real division between the old City and the old boroughs. Of course we do have some streets where the above elements aren't present, and there are some interesting projects that will greatly improve sections of other streets over the next decade. But the here-and-now question of whether Toronto is beautiful (that's the present tense) has to address the current norm, not the exceptions. There may be many virtues in the way our streets look, and the way we live our public lives on them, but the adjective "beautiful" in any commonly accepted sense of the word can't apply to this city.
waltthizzney
New Member
I was more talking about the character of DT districts... queen west compared to king west compared to college to chinatown to bloor to parkdale ect ect, all different feels in a relatively small area
pman
Senior Member
That's certainly true.
balenciaga
Banned
It will be hard to claim that Toronto is beautiful without heavy home bias.
We have some nicely looking hoods here and there, such as King East, Yorkville, but from an urban perspective, Toronto is not that pretty (I am excluding those rich purely residential neighourhoods, such as Rosedale because honestly speaking, they have nothing to do with whoever don't live there).
In the urban area, is YD square beautiful? Is Dundas W? Dundas E? Queen W? King W? Yonge st? Bay St? Waterfront? High Park? Kensington market? City Place? Some can be interesting, but nothing can be described as beautiful.
We have some nicely looking hoods here and there, such as King East, Yorkville, but from an urban perspective, Toronto is not that pretty (I am excluding those rich purely residential neighourhoods, such as Rosedale because honestly speaking, they have nothing to do with whoever don't live there).
In the urban area, is YD square beautiful? Is Dundas W? Dundas E? Queen W? King W? Yonge st? Bay St? Waterfront? High Park? Kensington market? City Place? Some can be interesting, but nothing can be described as beautiful.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Toronto isn't really beautiful. I'm surprised we are still discussing this. The real issue is not if Toronto is beautiful but how much beauty matters? If it matters to you than work to make it more beautiful, it's as simple as that. But like beauty in humans there can be consequences and trade-offs to creating more beauty in the city. Being beautiful will not really help you win the Nobel price, raise a good family, create unique artistic expressions or build a fortune 500 company. Use that analogy and ask what beauty will do for your city? I can build you a beautiful city-scape but I must ask you a favour in return: I need to take from you some of your development potential, freedom of expression, personal liberties, and a greater portion of your personal pay cheque.
Tewder
Senior Member
Personal liberties? Really?? I think your point of view is somewhat extreme, which is never constructive.
I do agree we need to define what 'beautiful' is for ourselves. We're probably never going to be Paris, right? Nevertheless, we should aim higher than third world bomb site. Just saying.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Tewder:
Really? And BTW, a lot of what we would consider as beautiful urbanistically stems from hundreds (if not thousands) of years of intervention(s) we would consider as extreme. In that light, extreme can definitely create beauty...at a cost.
AoD
Really? And BTW, a lot of what we would consider as beautiful urbanistically stems from hundreds (if not thousands) of years of intervention(s) we would consider as extreme. In that light, extreme can definitely create beauty...at a cost.
AoD
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
... well sure but that's sort of ambitious for Toronto. Heck, let's just pave some roads properly and plant a tree or two... things would look a lot more beautiful just with that start.
Torontovibe
Senior Member
How many really beautiful cities are there in the world? I've only seen two cities I'd consider beautiful. (Paris & London) Many cities have a few beautiful sections surrounded by mostly ok looking areas or even scruffy stretches. Very few cities in NA are beautiful. I think Quebec City is probably the most beautiful city in NA. Vancouver has a beautiful setting but the man-made structures detract from that beauty. Beautiful cities are few and far between.
Ladies Mile
Active Member
I would not call London beautiful. It has some absolutely fascinating buildings and tremendous cultural resources but is really a desperately ugly place.
St. Petersburg, Venice, Amsterdam, historic Boston and certain of its suburbs are coherent to the extent that beauty could be applied as a term (although much of the architecture itself leaves me cold personally). Rome, Chicago and Buenos Aires all have impressive architecture and urban vistas. Washington DC is interesting in that it fulfills nearly all the ostensibly objective requirements of a "beautiful" city and yet is one of the uglier ones in North America.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
So if St. Petersburg (minus the fact that most of the population live in soul crushing ring-road communist era blocks), Amsterdam (minus it's suburban ethnic ghetto projects), and Boston (minus it's standard sea of suburban sprawl) are beautiful than aren't we starting to zero in on what we mean when we say beautiful? Beautiful means physically standard or consistent so that we can easily understand without greater commitment of energy. Consider other human environments that could also be considered beautiful because of the repetition of standard elements like Santorini or Tangiers.
Tewder, I'm probing for deeper reflection on the topic not trying to be extreme. Considering my previous comment that beautiful may mean physically standard or consistent so that we can easily understand without greater commitment of energy. The evidence suggests that most average is considered the most beautiful in human faces. If we want to create a city that is the most standard or consistent and easiest to understand we can do so but only through supression of human ideas and interests. These suppressions may not be overly intrusive or influencial but they are culturally relevent and matter none-the-less.
Tewder, I'm probing for deeper reflection on the topic not trying to be extreme. Considering my previous comment that beautiful may mean physically standard or consistent so that we can easily understand without greater commitment of energy. The evidence suggests that most average is considered the most beautiful in human faces. If we want to create a city that is the most standard or consistent and easiest to understand we can do so but only through supression of human ideas and interests. These suppressions may not be overly intrusive or influencial but they are culturally relevent and matter none-the-less.
vatche
Senior Member
Chicago, London, Paris, new York who btw jjust received 100,000,000$ for the upkeep of central park) allocate huge funds for their touristic Areas. Toronto doesn't. Have u guys been to Chicago or Paris Christmas time. U can tell that they spend millions on Christmas lights and decorations. Toronto does not. It's obvious.
Also mayor daly constantly worked on beautifying the magnificent mile in chicago, With flowers, trees, parks. They're very well kept. So as u can see these cities focus on major areas and really work on making them ultra pretty to attract tourists.
So how can we expect for Toronto to be beautiful when no one focuses on certain areas.
An example is front street where we have the cn tower. Where are the flowers, the trees, the parks????? All we see is concrete, concrete and more concrete. So I think its partly the city's fault. What makes a city beautiful is what you see at the ground level and thats where Toronto fails. Old Toronto is beautiful, yorkville is beautiful, because they work on making it beautiful. Bloor st is an excellent example. But we need more of them. Lights, flowers, proper sidewalks. Esthetics. Once all these are fixed, only then Toronto will be pretty.
A picture of Tyler brule's monocle boutique was in Toronto life the other day. Look how beautiful it looks. If more and more stores in Toronto took on that approach the city will beautify. It's in the hand of the city, the store owners and the condo builders.
Also mayor daly constantly worked on beautifying the magnificent mile in chicago, With flowers, trees, parks. They're very well kept. So as u can see these cities focus on major areas and really work on making them ultra pretty to attract tourists.
So how can we expect for Toronto to be beautiful when no one focuses on certain areas.
An example is front street where we have the cn tower. Where are the flowers, the trees, the parks????? All we see is concrete, concrete and more concrete. So I think its partly the city's fault. What makes a city beautiful is what you see at the ground level and thats where Toronto fails. Old Toronto is beautiful, yorkville is beautiful, because they work on making it beautiful. Bloor st is an excellent example. But we need more of them. Lights, flowers, proper sidewalks. Esthetics. Once all these are fixed, only then Toronto will be pretty.
A picture of Tyler brule's monocle boutique was in Toronto life the other day. Look how beautiful it looks. If more and more stores in Toronto took on that approach the city will beautify. It's in the hand of the city, the store owners and the condo builders.
vatche
Senior Member
Chicago, London, Paris, new York who btw jjust received 100,000,000$ for the upkeep of central park) allocate huge funds for their touristic Areas. Toronto doesn't. Have u guys been to Chicago or Paris Christmas time. U can tell that they spend millions on Christmas lights and decorations. Toronto does not. It's obvious.
Also mayor daly constantly worked on beautifying the magnificent mile in chicago, With flowers, trees, parks. They're very well kept. So as u can see these cities focus on major areas and really work on making them ultra pretty to attract tourists.
So how can we expect for Toronto to be beautiful when no one focuses on certain areas.
An example is front street where we have the cn tower. Where are the flowers, the trees, the parks????? All we see is concrete, concrete and more concrete. So I think its partly the city's fault. What makes a city beautiful is what you see at the ground level and thats where Toronto fails. Old Toronto is beautiful, yorkville is beautiful, because they work on making it beautiful. Bloor st is an excellent example. But we need more of them. Lights, flowers, proper sidewalks. Esthetics. Once all these are fixed, only then Toronto will be pretty.
A picture of Tyler brule's monocle boutique was in Toronto life the other day. Look how beautiful it looks from the outside. If more and more stores in Toronto took on that approach the city will beautify. It's in the hand of the city, the store owners and the condo builders.
Also mayor daly constantly worked on beautifying the magnificent mile in chicago, With flowers, trees, parks. They're very well kept. So as u can see these cities focus on major areas and really work on making them ultra pretty to attract tourists.
So how can we expect for Toronto to be beautiful when no one focuses on certain areas.
An example is front street where we have the cn tower. Where are the flowers, the trees, the parks????? All we see is concrete, concrete and more concrete. So I think its partly the city's fault. What makes a city beautiful is what you see at the ground level and thats where Toronto fails. Old Toronto is beautiful, yorkville is beautiful, because they work on making it beautiful. Bloor st is an excellent example. But we need more of them. Lights, flowers, proper sidewalks. Esthetics. Once all these are fixed, only then Toronto will be pretty.
A picture of Tyler brule's monocle boutique was in Toronto life the other day. Look how beautiful it looks from the outside. If more and more stores in Toronto took on that approach the city will beautify. It's in the hand of the city, the store owners and the condo builders.
Last edited:
balenciaga
Banned
London is hardly beautiful in general.
Let's be clear that when we say a city is beautiful, we usually mean the man-made part of the urban core. It doesn't refer to the homogeneous suburbs where there are only trees and private properties and nothing else because they are boring. It doesn't refer to the natural setting either because it is like a gorgeous dress on an average looking woman.
Among cities I have traveled to, Paris and Prague are the most beautiful. Vienna and Barcelona come next.
Among North American cities, Vancouver is often touted as beautiful, but that's what I call an average looking woman in a gorgeous dress. The urban part of the city is below average. San Francisco doesn't live up to its hype as well but some districts are beautiful and elegant. Montreal has its beautiful sectors but the city apparently lacks the money to do the upkeep. You may not be a skyscraper fan but Chicago downtown and waterfront are breathtaking, and I wish Toronto can look like that. Boston's Backbay and Beacon Hill are also beautiful, but not downtown. Old Quebec is undoubtedly beautiful too, but that is more like a museum than a city where people live their lives (same for Venice).
In the urban centre of Toronto, is there a relatively large section or neighbourhood we can call "beautiful"? I haven't found any. I found Toronto's aesthetic challenge is that it has too many small houses in every corner of the city - I mean those 2/2.5 storied and very narrow houses. If there were wider and at least 4 stories tall like those in Europe, then it is OK, but the sheer lack of height and width makes many part of the city including good areas such as Queen West and Yorkville, look crowed and small-townish (although some may like it), and not the more grand and sophisticated style most people would consider "beautiful".