Is Toronto Beautiful?

[Ladies Mile]

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.

I should have clarified - "beauty" to me is something I am largely indifferent to. I appreciate where and when I can but I prefer rationality, dignity, elegance, order, utility, convenience - or "openess," if you like - of use. The most beautiful palace in the world is of no use if it houses a despot. Which isn't to say that ugliness is an acceptable default mode or that beauty should not be striven for. But better Dundas Square for everyone than the Magnificent Mile for the rich.

 

[M.R.Victor]

I see a trend in some of the postings in this thread to draw parallels between lower standards of living, personal freedom or whatever and beauty. As if beauty has to come at a certain societal price, which I think it absurd.

There doesn't have to be any great cost in choosing a standard for paving, street furniture, or planting flowers. Standardizing utility work and road-resurfacing doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. To the contrary, I think that well managed municipal operations would indicate a sense of civic maturity which our city's governance apparently lacks at the moment.

I don't have a problem with the "smallness" of the city's Victorian neighbourhoods. You can't change the past, and i feel that our Victorian housing stock should be preserved as-is. At the same time, however, I really wish there was a larger push for replacing some of the painfully mediocre low-rise commercial buildings on our main streets with context-conscious modernist mid-rises.

I should have clarified - "beauty" to me is something I am largely indifferent to. I appreciate where and when I can but I prefer rationality, dignity, elegance, order, utility, convenience - or "openess," if you like - of use. The most beautiful palace in the world is of no use if it houses a despot. Which isn't to say that ugliness is an acceptable default mode or that beauty should not be striven for. But better Dundas Square for everyone than the Magnificent Mile for the rich.

Well, I would argue that Toronto's civic spaces, by-and-large, completely lack those attributes you desire. Dundas Square is like a giant bucket of advertising. For that matter, there are very few parts of Toronto that I would regard as elegant, orderly, or dignified. The only adjective that I would attribute to Toronto is perhaps "utility," but that's about it.

 

[balenciaga]

Well, I would argue that Toronto's civic spaces, by-and-large, completely lack those attributes you desire. Dundas Square is like a giant bucket of advertising. For that matter, there are very few parts of Toronto that I would regard as elegant, orderly, or dignified. The only adjective that I would attribute to Toronto is perhaps "utility," but that's about it.

Maybe it is just me, but I will trade our YD Square for Magnificant Mile any day. I would actually trade Queen West for that without hesitation.
There is plenty of regular retail on Magnificant Mile other than Gucci and Prada, not to mention those buildings are to die for.

YD Square is very uninspiring. It is just a concrete plaza reserved mostly for mediocre performances and corporate promotion. What's so nice about that?

 

[TrickyRicky]

"I see a trend in some of the postings in this thread to draw parallels between lower standards of living, personal freedom or whatever and beauty. As if beauty has to come at a certain societal price, which I think it absurd."

A city, and life in general, is not the evolution towards an ideal. It is the continuous balance between interests. We have generally said that beauty is about standardization, easily understood repetitive elements, and heavy investment in the public realm by a central authority. Would you be in favour of a bylaw for instance mandating that you have nothing but grass cut to exactly 1.5" in height on every front lawn? Or would you be in favour of a free-for-all knowing that some people will keep their front lawns in amazing shape, some will utterly neglect them, and some will create expression that do not conform at all to the concept of "front lawn" understood by the majority of property owners?

I city requires that there be a balance between standardization, the degree of centralized authority, and freedom and individual rights. I'm not suggesting that beauty and freedom and individual rights and high standards of living are mutually exclusive but rather that there are some trade-offs and no such thing as an ideal. Heritage preservation is for instance a curtailment of freedom and individual rights but it is generally a positive thing. Draconian heritage preservation goes too far and in my opinion suffocates life.

 

[taal]

Maybe it is just me, but I will trade our YD Square for Magnificant Mile any day. I would actually trade Queen West for that without hesitation.
There is plenty of regular retail on Magnificant Mile other than Gucci and Prada, not to mention those buildings are to die for.

YD Square is very uninspiring. It is just a concrete plaza reserved mostly for mediocre performances and corporate promotion. What's so nice about that?

I wouldn't trade Queen west (west of Spadina) for just about anything, nonetheless Magnificant Mile ! Now I'd trade Bloor for it ....

 

[Tewder]

Beauty is achieved by working with your resources and elevating them through interaction, artistic and otherwise. There are inherently natural forms of beauty, or extremes of beauty, obviously, but it can be far more simple than that. Toronto feels 'ugly' because the realm is ignored, and so by my definition it can never be beautiful. If you open your eyes and truly 'see' what is around you, you can intervene and improve it... and this is not frivolous! Beauty inspires and uplifts and makes our surroundings more liveable, not just purely in terms of aesthetics, but also in terms of sustainability and cleanliness, and in terms of a green and healthy environment. These are all elements that make a place inherently beautiful. This is what we need to improve on.

 

[TrickyRicky]

^I agree. However, we can only do so in a way that is congruent with our culture and society. That means we can never be like the European city centres people envy here. Toronto can only become more beautiful through an evolution towards higher standards of care and investment. The result must necessarily be a hodge-podge environment full of conflicting ideals and a tolerance for beauty and ugly existing side-by-side. I don't want standardized and centralized authorities dictating what is beautiful and mandating that we carry out their visions. But I do want people to care and to lead by example. Investment and higher standards of care are infectious.

 

[Tewder]

Yes, Paris didn't get there overnight!

I think we can still have some conformity/cohesion throughout the city when it comes to fixtures and so on (i.e. better street furniture, better traffic light poles, pavings etc) yet still allow for different areas of the city to feel different... and though I understand the concern for polishing everything too much (though we are far from at risk of this) there are central and tourist areas that we should be investing more in.

 

[Softee]

Chicago would be lucky to have something like Queen West, as it doesn't really have a comparatively lively and funky street. Chicago doesn't really have any truly eclectic, bohemian areas on the scale that Toronto does, or even an equivalent to Yonge street with it's crazy mix of stores, restaurants and adult entertainment parlours mixed cheek and jowl along a packed, almost 24 hour strip that is always hopping with activity and street life. Toronto just feels so much more alive to me, and for me that trumps the "beauty" of the magnificent mile any day. Bloor street looks great IMO, and it's great to have such a beautiful upscale strip just around the corner from downtown Yonge St. with all of its eclectic "character".

 

[pman]

"I see a trend in some of the postings in this thread to draw parallels between lower standards of living, personal freedom or whatever and beauty. As if beauty has to come at a certain societal price, which I think it absurd."

A city, and life in general, is not the evolution towards an ideal. It is the continuous balance between interests. We have generally said that beauty is about standardization, easily understood repetitive elements, and heavy investment in the public realm by a central authority. Would you be in favour of a bylaw for instance mandating that you have nothing but grass cut to exactly 1.5" in height on every front lawn? Or would you be in favour of a free-for-all knowing that some people will keep their front lawns in amazing shape, some will utterly neglect them, and some will create expression that do not conform at all to the concept of "front lawn" understood by the majority of property owners?

I city requires that there be a balance between standardization, the degree of centralized authority, and freedom and individual rights. I'm not suggesting that beauty and freedom and individual rights and high standards of living are mutually exclusive but rather that there are some trade-offs and no such thing as an ideal. Heritage preservation is for instance a curtailment of freedom and individual rights but it is generally a positive thing. Draconian heritage preservation goes too far and in my opinion suffocates life.

I would suggest that we have a lot of standardization in Toronto already, and that the result is absolute crap. Our sidewalks, streetscapes and public realm aren't the result of some anarchic and creatively chaotic free market. They're delivered by centralized municipal bureaucracies and municipally-owned utilities that provide for exactly zero public input in the back-door decisions they make - with public money - that result in the shabby-but-centrally-planned mess that we have today.

 

[Tewder]

Chicago would be lucky to have something like Queen West, as it doesn't really have a comparatively lively and funky street. Chicago doesn't really have any truly eclectic, bohemian areas on the scale that Toronto does, or even an equivalent to Yonge street with it's crazy mix of stores, restaurants and adult entertainment parlours mixed cheek and jowl along a packed, almost 24 hour strip that is always hopping with activity and street life. Toronto just feels so much more alive to me, and for me that trumps the "beauty" of the magnificent mile any day. Bloor street looks great IMO, and it's great to have such a beautiful upscale strip just around the corner from downtown Yonge St. with all of its eclectic "character".

I'm not really that familiar with Chicago, beyond the Loop at least, but I did spend a day in Wicker Park and it felt very much like Queen Street except it was an area of streets and not just one linear thoroughfare...

Regardless, if what you say is true, that Chicago lacks a Yonge Street or Queen Street, well great! Toronto can have it both ways. It can have beautiful tony areas, and well-kept vibrant ones too. It's not as if there won't always be new, up-and-coming un-gentrified areas to enjoy too!

 

[balenciaga]

I'm not really that familiar with Chicago, beyond the Loop at least, but I did spend a day in Wicker Park and it felt very much like Queen Street except it was an area of streets and not just one linear thoroughfare...

This is a big problem for Toronto, and I absolutely hate it. Everything is linear, outside the core all the retails happen on ONE street, Yonge, Queen, Bloor, which are surrounded by nothing but residential houses/apartments. Even in the core, Bay, University, Jarvis, Church (below the Village) has next to zero retail. I would like to see small areas of development, not ONE street.

Is Annex vibrant? No, only Bloor st is.
Is E/Y vibrant, no, only Yonge (and a short stretch on Eglinton) is.
Is the Greektown Vibrant? NO, only Danforth ave is.

There are very few vibrant areas. We just have a few vibrant streets.

 

[M.R.Victor]

^^^I don't know how big of a problem that actually is, beyond the fact that, on the surface, this layout seems incongruent with the more traditional forms of lively urban districts


1. There are exceptions to your observations, and these are: Yorkville, Distillery District, the Queen - Ossington - Dundas area, Chinatown (Spadina - Dundas), Kensington Market, St. Lawrence Market
2. The linear character of some of our main streets speaks to the historical development of the city along axes of transportation
3. I'm not sure how this affects the perceived "beauty" of the city. If the sidewalks were wide and clutter-free, the historical buildings well-kept, if the street furniture was attractive and if the public spaces were well organized, I would have no problem at all even if all our lively areas occurred in a linear fashion along main streets.

 

[Tewder]

Agreed. I don't see that the lay out of Toronto is a problem. Most urban villages have a 'main street' right? I'd rather a dense and compact busy main street than areas that feel scattered. I believe that Wicker Park in Chicago was like a node of streets coming together, similar to the way that Front, Wellington and Church come together around the flat iron building... just my recollection though and it may be wrong.

 

[Lenser]

I don't see the street grid as being a problem either. The fact that Bloor passes through the Annex makes the Annex vibrant - indeed, it inherently, structurally defines it. Same with The Danforth and Greektown. Those places wouldn't be anywhere near as prosperous, were it not for those main arterials through which streams the lifeblood of those neighbourhoods. And I bet most residents dig the fact that there are relatively quiet, tree-lined streets tucked nicely in behind and below those commercial arterials.

In time there will spring up secondary commercial arterials; densification will increasingly dictate this kind of off-loading of the main, established commercial thoroughfares. It's already happening. In places like the Annex, you have Bloor at the bottom, Dupont at the top. With Riverdale, it's Gerrard and the Danforth. Even once-industrial, low-use avenues are changing up, waking up - taking on more business to serve their respective locales; look at what's happening on Carlaw, for instance.