NYC in 1981 = Toronto in 2010?

[Glen]

For example: if all else was tip top and Toronto was completely covered in tags and nicer pieces of sprayed-on enthusiasm, I wouldn't complain about a thing.

Is there an example of that anywhere? A safe, livable, prosperous city, at the same time, is covered with tags/graffiti? Going by the article I linked to before, I doubt it.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I wonder if we are really looking at the situation on the ground here. In my area of the city tagging and graffiti and litter etc. really peaked 4-5 years ago and has been in steady decline since then. I'll let others speak about the public realm, but with respect to private buildings I can say with great confidence that the built form of the Old city of Toronto was in a more trashy state (in general not with respect to vandalism alone) in 1981 then it is today. So I don't know about you guys but everything I touch in my neighbourhood and the neighbourhoods I work in improves over time. Perhaps the improvement is so incremental it is difficult to appreciate it? I find this is definately the case in home renovations. When you improve one thing the deficiencies elsewhere become more glaring.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Is there an example of that anywhere? A safe, livable, prosperous city, at the same time, is covered with tags/graffiti? .

Toronto?

I'm just saying that if we're going to put that much importance on how much graff there is in the streets, then we sure as hell are missing the point in trying to compare how functional two cities at different times are/were.

 

[nfitz]

I'm just saying that if we're going to put that much importance on how much graff there is in the streets, then we sure as hell are missing the point in trying to compare how functional two cities at different times are/were.

You seem to be the one making a big deal about the tagging; almost if your trying to defend the criminals who do this vandalism.

Perhaps you should stop defending the practice itself!

 

[greenleaf]

Did anyone here read the article? This pissing contest over how much graffiti exists is boring.

 

[Chuck]

Toronto?

I'm just saying that if we're going to put that much importance on how much graff there is in the streets, then we sure as hell are missing the point in trying to compare how functional two cities at different times are/were.

"Importance" is a relative term. Obviously there are more pressing issues pertaining to both the city as a whole, and crime in specific. But that doesn't mean that we should just sit back and let it happen. I personally moved out of a neighbourhood because, among other things, having my personal property vandalized was the final straw. How dare someone damage my personal property, forcing me to spend my own hard earned money on its repair?

 

[TrickyRicky]

Greenleaf, you're right I didn't read the article. Now that I have I agree that it is uncanny how some of the things they are talking about are the exact same things we discuss now. On the suggestion that New York of 1981 is like Toronto of 2010, I would have to say I don't really think so. I think there is this perception today that New York of 2010 is some kind of urban star, while Toronto of 2010 is in the dumps. Hmmm, I don't know. I think it might be closer to New York is not as disfunctional as it once was and Toronto is not as functional.

 

[gristle]

I think the more apt comparison is comparing the *Toronto* of 1981, with the Toronto of now. You don't need to compare us to New York of that era to see quite substantial declines in transit construction, up-keep of public spaces, etc.

I agree, that would be a more informative comparison.