Is Toronto Beautiful?

[balenciaga]

In places like the Annex, you have Bloor at the bottom, Dupont at the top.

Dupont between Spadina and Bathurst is 90%+ residential, hardly a commercial street in any sense.
It is a stretch to call the Annex a vibrant neighbourhood as it is basically a quiet area just like East York. Take a look at Spadina, Bathurst, its other two borders, they are all dead quiet. You can't call a neighbourhood "vibrant" just because there is one commercial ave that runs on one of its borders. On the other hand, Yorkville is vibrant in the real sense. Practically all its main streets are mixed use, and to a less extend, St Lawrence Market.

 

[Lenser]

Sure you can call the Annex "vibrant." It's an area very much in demand. Lots of people love to live there and lots more would love to live there. It looks like our definitions of vibrant are different. Vibrant does not necessarily equate with "the most commercial activity." I hope you're not trying to suggest that a neighbourhood that is 90% residential cannot, by definition, be considered vibrant. The Annex is a rich cultural place - home to many doctors, writers, directors, production designers. All of those people dine out and shop locally. They don't do it because they pity the Annex, or think it's fallen behind Yorkville. They partake of the neighbourhood because they love it.

As for Dupont, it is a lesser commercial street, as I've suggested - with Bloor doing the heavy lifting. But you're wrong if you don't think it's changed up and taken on new businesses over the last decade. I would argue it's changed significantly... older businesses have been shuttered and new stuff has sprung up in its place to reflect the changing character of the area. It's gone decidedly upscale compared to its humble, more working class roots. Rents and home prices alike reflect that fact. As a neighbourhood undergoing seismic change, it's hardly alone in the urban core.

As for Yorkville, sure it's vibrant - but no more so than the Annex, or the St. Lawrence Market area. Perhaps you simply prefer Yorkville or the Market over the Annex.

 

[balenciaga]

Sure you can call the Annex "vibrant." It's an area very much in demand. Lots of people love to live there and lots more would love to live there. It looks like our definitions of vibrant are different.

Sure. let's just agree to disagree. I will never consider a neighbourhood with only one commercial street "vibrant". It has to do more than that. If Dupont and Spadina Rd are equally busy, with a couple of side streets with actions going on as well. that's more like how I see it.
Yes those doctors, lawyers and designers shop locally, on one and only street, Bloor West. Your definition is too loose, which basically says all neighbourhoods along Yonge or Bloor/Danforth vibrant.

I also need to point out that home price/desirability has nothing to do with vibrancy, otherwise Bridle Path or Rosedale would be considered the most vibant in the country.

 

[M.R.Victor]

balenciga, why do you necessarily insist that vibrant areas need necessarily take on the "district" urban format as opposed to the linearly developed, main street format? It's not as if the life on Bloor is monotonous, or that everything is the same, or that only a small section of it is vibrant. Bloor is a great street for a good number of kilometers. It goes from Ethiopian bars and restaurants at Ossington, to Korean Karaoke bars at Christie to charming restaurants along Markham, to Rock bars at Bathurst, to Sushi and student-oriented pubs closer to Spadina. Why would it be better if these distinct sections of Bloor were separate but intersecting streets in close proximity to one another?

 

[Lenser]

Fair enough balenciaga, although the Bridle Path is by Canadian standards certainly an extreme case. It's also not a neighbourhood served by the kinds of amenities a neighbourhood like the Annex or the St. Lawrence Market area - in fact, it's very exclusivity is its draw, as its its relative remoteness from the kind of indelicate, noisy commerce the rest of us tend to love. I imagine there's few renters in that particular neighbourood relative to other places in the city, whereas the Annex is chock full of homes that have been converted into multiple units.

But your prescriptive definition of vibrancy - that you require some kind of active cross-street situation - seems too narrow and specific for me. Nor does it follow from my argument that all of Bloor or Danforth is going to be vibrant; clearly that's not the case. These thoroughfares almost always have sections that are in flux, as per the natural cycles of gentrification/degradation and the vicissitudes of fashion and trendiness.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Vibrancy as a good thing is of course a matter of taste. I think at minimum an area should be vibrant enough to sustain viable well maintained commercial activity. In this sense central Toronto is barely vibrant enough. On the other hand, vibrancy in most large asian cities exceeds, in my opinion, a threshold after which the level of activity actually decreases the quality of life. I think Tokyo is a particular city of interest to this thread as it is an example of how an inherently ugly (much uglier than Toronto) city can become kind of beautiful as a result of higher standards of care and investment in both the private and public realm. I mention private realm again because I feel that the private realm has a much larger impact on the aesthetics of the public realm than any actual public realm elements.

 

[Lenser]

Good point about private interests. Local BIA's, for example, play an important role in making a given commercial area (and, by extension, the neighbourhood around it) more attractive in terms of pleasant and/or more useful street improvements.

 

[balenciaga]

Vibrancy as a good thing is of course a matter of taste. I think at minimum an area should be vibrant enough to sustain viable well maintained commercial activity. In this sense central Toronto is barely vibrant enough.

This is exactly how I feel. A city can't be all commercial, but its core should contain high or medium level of commercial actitivies in most areas in a nodal fashion, not just on a few streets. When we walk in central downtown, there are too few really vibrant areas, especially when it comes to N-S streets. Yonge and part of Spadina (between Queen and College) and part of Church (near village and south of Queen) are the only busy streets. Bathurst, University, Bay, Jarvis and Sherbourne are embarrassingly residential, when you consider they are in the center of a 6M metro area.

In downtown Toronto, we have a decent amount of retail, along Queen W, King west, Dundas W, Spadina and Yonge, but the city still looks incredibly residential and hardly dense (judging by the number of low rise SFH). There are many many dead quiet streets, small or big with nothing but houses (Tim Hortins and corner convenience stores excepted). Anywhere east of Church st - almost nothing going on; Essentiall all NS streets between University and Spadina - McCaul, Beverly/St George/Huron, and almost all W-E streets as well except those streetcars operate.

On the other hand, vibrancy in most large asian cities exceeds, in my opinion, a threshold after which the level of activity actually decreases the quality of life. I think Tokyo is a particular city of interest to this thread as it is an example of how an inherently ugly (much uglier than Toronto) city can become kind of beautiful as a result of higher standards of care and investment in both the private and public realm.

Agree. the exessive and ubiquitous retail in Asian cities are sometimes annoying, as you can't find peace anywhere. However, it also makes daily life convenient. For example, there are grocery markets everywhere, almost every half a mile there is gotta be one. People don't buy meat and vegetable on a weekly basis. They buy fresh ones every day or every other day. To eat broccoli bought 4 days ago, or meat which have been frozen for a week is unimaginable in Asian cities. This kind of lifestyle is sustained by very high density, which unfortunately sparse Toronto won't be able to support.

In cities like Paris, retail - grocery, small restaurants, bakeries, meat shops and convenient are essentially everywhere. You never have to walk for more than 5 or 6 minutes to get whatever you need, much more like Tokyo or Hong Kong.

Quality of life? I am sure stale vegetable or frozen chicken or beef bought a week ago are not part of it. Parisians buy baguettes every day. How many Torontonians eat fresh baked bread every morning at home as breakfast? This is why I embrace rapidly increasing density because only that can support more sustainable urban lifestyle - if Toronto has half of the density of Paris (currently about 20%), life quality will be significantly improved.

 

[Tewder]

... and yet, how many people have the time each day to go to the baguette store and laze around all morning, sipping coffee, looking moody and fabulous? It's a bit of a fantasy really, and a dated one. Many, many of those little boulangeries are closing up, bowing to the same sort of pressures facing small traditional businesses everywhere.

Toronto is not Tokyo or Paris, to be sure, but it does remain very vibrant and urban in many different areas (nodal or not), and certainly in comparison with many other North American cities.

 

[Lenser]

Toronto is not Tokyo or Paris, to be sure, but it does remain very vibrant and urban in many different areas (nodal or not), and certainly in comparison with many other North American cities.

Indeed. Although it's a good point about being able to buy fresh produce, meat, poultry, etc. on a daily basis, locally - that, to me, is one of the definitions of a neighbourhood which has arrived. In my books, walkability and accessibility to a variety of services have become huge considerations (ironically, this was something which we once had... albeit with less variety, and on a far more seasonal basis. We didn't always depend on frozen foods, processed foods and stuff that's shipped and flown in from all around the globe).

But to get that exalted state of service in a given neighbourhood, you need a certain amount of density. And that in turn requires an extremely efficient means of moving people around for the city as a whole - something which Toronto, in its current incarnation, sorely lacks. We're upping the density, sure. But we're still stalling out on deciding key transportation strategies that'll take us into the next few decades. We can't even fund the stuff yet. Politically, the willpower to do so has been stymied by a dogfight between various levels and jurisdictions of government.

 

[balenciaga]

... and yet, how many people have the time each day to go to the baguette store and laze around all morning, sipping coffee, looking moody and fabulous? It's a bit of a fantasy really, and a dated one. Many, many of those little boulangeries are closing up, bowing to the same sort of pressures facing small traditional businesses everywhere.

I don't know whether you have actually lived in Asian or European cities before. It is exactly how most people live their daily lives. There are boulangeries, patisseries, charcuteries not to say so many convenient stores on so many streets in Paris. Groceries store are located in every corner of Shanghai or Hong Kong. Walk for 5 or 10 minutes to buy fresh fruit and bread, that's not really hard. These cities have 5 times the density of Toronto's, which makes it completely possible.

Toronto is not Tokyo or Paris, to be sure, but it does remain very vibrant and urban in many different areas (nodal or not), and certainly in comparison with many other North American cities.

True, outside NYC, Toronto is more vibrant than most North American cities. But you know, vibrancy in NA, just like density, has relatively low standard, just like a "large house" in Paris may appear minuscule in Canadian standard.

 

[ducati0000]

Last chance to get it right would be the CNE...if they can blend in park land, attractions plus housing it would lessen the mess that the planning department did with the CityPlace,harborfront areas.......

 

[Jaguar4u]

Toronto is rapidly improving. It will become a world-class city in the very near future. Waterfront Toronto is doing incredible work on Queens Quay. World renowned architects are now building beautiful, artistic and interesting buildings in Toronto. Just take a walk around the new South-core Financial District in downtown Toronto (just south/west of Union Station). In just two years you will see an amazing new Toronto. The revitalization of Union Station and Harbourfront will put Toronto on the map. Renewed infrastructure and transit plans will accommodate an increase in population. The future is bright for Toronto.

 

[Lenser]

I agree. The future is indeed bright for Toronto.

But please: enough with the "world-class" talk. It's like a broken record and it gives off the faint whiff of desperation. And Southcore may be impressive in its height and density but it's not particularly pretty; many of its towers are quite uninspiring. We could use more daring architecture - lots more.

 

[Jaguar4u]

I agree we need more daring architecture.

I particularly love the ROM and L-Tower as well as the new Telus and south entrance to Union Station, next to the ACC, among other buildings such as ICE condos, Aura, Delta Toronto, Shangri-La, Four Seasons and Trump Tower. I respect the fact that everyone has their own opinions and may not agree with me.

I think the greatest improvements to our streets will be to Front Street and Queens Quay from Yonge to Lower Simco streets, Especially when Queens Quay revitalization and Union Station revitalization is complete in about two years.

Google Union Station revitalization and Waterfront Toronto websites to see artist renderings.

Is Toronto beautiful? I think we are well on our way.

(By the way, if you don't like current development plans, get involved and give your feedback so that you can help shape the future of Toronto. Yes we can, If more people got involved.)