|
|
|
Shabby Toronto
- Thread starter Mystic Point
- Start date
MartinMtl
New Member
Toronto is not ugly. In fact, in many parts, is it very beautiful. Urban beauty can take many forms. In some ways, the city has been a victim of its own success, booming almost non-stop since so many decades... it puts a lot of pressure on its urban form. The period between the 50's and 70's have not been very kind on any large NA cities. Even Boston suffered a lot of bad demolitions on a large scale during that period. Our cities need time to recover from that. It takes money and a lot of strong will to repair the dammages that's been done. Toronto has the incredible luck of being very dynamic and changing a lot. It can only get better with time, assuming that the city takes the right decisions.
Everytime I go to Toronto, what I see is a slightly chaotic urban fabric, where sleek condo towers rise up between too many gas stations, one-two storey non-descript buildings and surface parking lots. Once the urban landscape is repaired with new developpements, the city will look fantastic. It will probably always have that chaotic side of it but that's okay. It makes for a funky, interresting city, much more alive and colorfull than Boston or Washington.
Everytime I go to Toronto, what I see is a slightly chaotic urban fabric, where sleek condo towers rise up between too many gas stations, one-two storey non-descript buildings and surface parking lots. Once the urban landscape is repaired with new developpements, the city will look fantastic. It will probably always have that chaotic side of it but that's okay. It makes for a funky, interresting city, much more alive and colorfull than Boston or Washington.
Mystery White Boy
Banned
Thank you.
J
jrochest
Guest
Isn't the Junction the section of Dundas that runs north of Bloor, between Keele and Jane? At least, that was what it was called when I lived there in 2001.
The city's grubby, yes: the posters don't help, but the fact that restaraunts need to pile their garbage on the sidewalk is a big part of the problem, especially in the summer.
Broken and badly designed street furniture is not great either. But it's still a good town, even if in need of a wash and brush up.
lordmandeep
Banned
it has life and lots of it compared to other cities.
that is one big thing Toronto has over many of those nicer cleaner cities.
I now wonder if Toronto was a tropical place, it would be a great place.
that is one big thing Toronto has over many of those nicer cleaner cities.
I now wonder if Toronto was a tropical place, it would be a great place.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
MartinMtl makes a good point about Toronto's chaotic urban fabric being an asset, not a drawback. The landscape is pretty engaging, even when not necessarily beautiful.
But in Toronto I notice something else about "shabbiness," which is the difference between residential areas and commercial/public ones. I am a big jogger, and love exploring the city that way. I can't tell you how many times I have been running in the backstreets of the Annex or Rosedale or Cabbagetown or Forest Hill and found what I saw staggeringly beautiful. Truly some of the nicest residential spaces I have ever seen--and I have lived in some very nice bits of the USA as well as in England.
Where Toronto falls down is in the commercial streets, the shared spaces. I think there's a sort of Protestant hang-up at work here, one that's very house-proud (hence the gorgeous backstreets) but suspicious of the ostentatious, collective efforts required to make coherently attractive main streets. Incidentally you see something similar in the Netherlands, for example.
I think that's finally starting to change, though.
But in Toronto I notice something else about "shabbiness," which is the difference between residential areas and commercial/public ones. I am a big jogger, and love exploring the city that way. I can't tell you how many times I have been running in the backstreets of the Annex or Rosedale or Cabbagetown or Forest Hill and found what I saw staggeringly beautiful. Truly some of the nicest residential spaces I have ever seen--and I have lived in some very nice bits of the USA as well as in England.
Where Toronto falls down is in the commercial streets, the shared spaces. I think there's a sort of Protestant hang-up at work here, one that's very house-proud (hence the gorgeous backstreets) but suspicious of the ostentatious, collective efforts required to make coherently attractive main streets. Incidentally you see something similar in the Netherlands, for example.
I think that's finally starting to change, though.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Well, I think "shabby" is a very subjective term. But for the sake of the arguement, I will make the assumption we are all refering to basically the same thing...and that it's negative.
I think you will find in the comparisons to "other" places, it is generally a case of cherry-picking and grass-is-greener situation.
The places we tend to compare to (sections of great cities) are the way they look do to the specific demographics associated to these areas. Yu tend to forget the areas you refer to are "exclusive".
What makes Toronto different from most of those places, is that we are a very livable, mixed-use, mixed-income city. Those areas of other cities look less shabby, because they cater almost exclusively to the wealthy, whereas Toronto, with few exceptions, is a city where people of all incomes share the space. Go to places of those other cities where the poorer people are foced to live, and you will find those places far worse than the worst of Toronto.
Gentrification simply has not overtaken the city to the degree it has elsewhere. Manhattan was a far more interesting place when people without a lot of money could afford to live there. It's "shabyness" was also far worse than ours.
But despite all this, I would certainly not characterize Toronto as "shabby"...it's far too green, far too well kept, and inhabited with far too many people who care.
I think you will find in the comparisons to "other" places, it is generally a case of cherry-picking and grass-is-greener situation.
The places we tend to compare to (sections of great cities) are the way they look do to the specific demographics associated to these areas. Yu tend to forget the areas you refer to are "exclusive".
What makes Toronto different from most of those places, is that we are a very livable, mixed-use, mixed-income city. Those areas of other cities look less shabby, because they cater almost exclusively to the wealthy, whereas Toronto, with few exceptions, is a city where people of all incomes share the space. Go to places of those other cities where the poorer people are foced to live, and you will find those places far worse than the worst of Toronto.
Gentrification simply has not overtaken the city to the degree it has elsewhere. Manhattan was a far more interesting place when people without a lot of money could afford to live there. It's "shabyness" was also far worse than ours.
But despite all this, I would certainly not characterize Toronto as "shabby"...it's far too green, far too well kept, and inhabited with far too many people who care.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Perhaps unlike some forumers I don't have any specific aesthetic ideals in mind when i'm speaking about the condition of the city. Why I think the city is shabby is because of the lack of maintenance on the one hand and a deficit of investment in physical space on the other. I actually extend this to and emphasis the importance of private property in this equation. Even our residential areas have had a huge deficit in both maintenance and investment as you can see by the fact that so many new home buyers in the old city of Toronto for instance have to essentially gut their houses, perhaps somewhat because of "outdated" style but largely because of a huge deficit in investment previous owners had been living off. A figure sometimes thrown around is that in order to maintain (not improve) your property you need to spend approximately 1% of the worth of the property every year on repairs and maintenance. So how much are the streets and parks etc. in Toronto worth and how much are we spending on them to maintain (not improve) them?
Earlscourt_Lad
Active Member
As mentioned, I would define the shabbiness as the lack of investemnt in infrastructure. I don't find the lack of pristine streets the issue, but rather heaved sidewalks, poorly patched sidewalks, pothole filled roads, antique hydro poles, rusted lamp standards, etc. I think that could be addressed without making the city seem less vibrant.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Aw...but that is dictated by market forces. The only places you see complete guts, are on properties that have escolated in value to warrant such an investment. The immigrant couple who bought the old bay'n gable in the 1960's for $40k didn't have the desire or the financial resources to gut the place. Now that the same house is worth $700k, and purchased by those who desire the fineries dictated by their demographic, it happens.
This is the same anywhere, the difference being, Toronto is still full of residental streets of "affordable" homes. You expect a little too much I think.
Ok...that's a reasonable arguement. If Toronto somehow does worse at these things than other cities (and I think a lot of this is a case of grass-is-greener syndrome), than again, it's a case of Toronto simply being a more affordable city. Other city centres may be in better shape regarding these things you mentioned...but at what cost? You certainly couldn't afford to live there, as the taxes and prices exclude all but the wealthy.
I think Toronto is a healthy compromise...I think the infastructure overall is pretty good, and extremely livable and affordable for all. At the same time it offers up almost New York/London/Paris etc levels of culture and urban experiences. Very few places can offer that kind of value package.
But there's also nothing wrong with expecting better, and being vocal about it...I certainluy don't advocate complacency...just a little perspective.
fiendishlibrarian
Active Member
*Huge* inequities in service in this city. My area at Mount Pleasant and Davisville is pretty much pristine now. Davisville, for instance, has been swept three times this past week alone. Driving north to work at York University, you pass over the 401, enter Downsview, and there is trash *everywhere*. The area around UTSC is also pretty bad, doesn't look like any cleaning has been done in the area at all. And don't get me started on the 401 embankments and ramps. 'Landfill' doesn't come close to describing them.
Earlscourt_Lad
Active Member
I agree perspective is necessary, however I'm not comparing Toronto to NY/London/Paris, etc, but to ourselves. We've never looked generally this rundown, or at least not that I can recall.
What I object to is the deferred maintenance. If we were to keep on top of basic infrastructure maintenance, it would not cost so much to keep in good shape. It's when you defer maintenance until it reaches the crisis point that it becomes very expensive to repair or replace. Pennywise, pound foolish, is the expression for deferred maintenance.
Frankly, a lot of the items that I take exception to are not really the City's fault. The City should, however, require companies like Enbridge to replace concrete sidewalk with concrete after they've cut it and not asphalt, they should require Toronto Hydro to replace poles of a certain vintage, and so forth.
Malthus
New Member
I really do not get some of the above comparisons. I was *in* Manhattan just the other day - flew into Newark, then took the train and the subway. I saw plenty worse on that short journey that I've seen anywhere in Toronto, ever.
Some parts of Newark seen from the train look like sets for post-apocalyptic movies; one of the subway stations in Manhattan I was in had what appeared by smell to be a sewer running through it.
It is true that the streets in Manhattan itself were litter and graffiti-free. But they also had things I've never seen in Toronto - like temporary orange smokestacks set up in the middle of the street, with torrents of steam emerging; and trapdoors set into the sidewalk, sometimes open, down which the unwary may tumble.
There were few ugly overhead wires, but to compensate every second building appeared to be swathed in semi-permanent scaffolding. As for "few street people", I counted no less than three sleeping in the little parkette outside my hotel (the Hudson) while I was having breakfast (though on the plus side, there was also a guy sweeping up garbage in the same parkette).
None of which is to say Toronto should not improve its streetscapes - particularly, getting rid of ugly cracked planters with dead tree stumps and the like.
Some parts of Newark seen from the train look like sets for post-apocalyptic movies; one of the subway stations in Manhattan I was in had what appeared by smell to be a sewer running through it.
It is true that the streets in Manhattan itself were litter and graffiti-free. But they also had things I've never seen in Toronto - like temporary orange smokestacks set up in the middle of the street, with torrents of steam emerging; and trapdoors set into the sidewalk, sometimes open, down which the unwary may tumble.
There were few ugly overhead wires, but to compensate every second building appeared to be swathed in semi-permanent scaffolding. As for "few street people", I counted no less than three sleeping in the little parkette outside my hotel (the Hudson) while I was having breakfast (though on the plus side, there was also a guy sweeping up garbage in the same parkette).
None of which is to say Toronto should not improve its streetscapes - particularly, getting rid of ugly cracked planters with dead tree stumps and the like.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Toronto is not London or New York. These comparisons have to stop. Just because there are bad areas around those cities does not stand as an argument for not doing anything about the street presence in this city. No one is talking about converting the place into Paris. One just grows tired of dead trees, brutalized sidewalks, garbage, broken street furniture, tilting rusted utility poles and the like.
Toronto should get to be a better version of Toronto.
Toronto should get to be a better version of Toronto.
adma
Superstar
This isn't so much a comment on "shabbiness" than just plain "blahness", but I'd offer the Kingsway as a case in point. However pretty Home Smith's residential streets are, the retail strip on Bloor has always been a standard, materialistic afterthought. I don't know whether it's a matter of the Depression curtailing grander plans or just said "Protestant hand-up at work here", but compare something like the retail core of Hamilton's Westdale neighbourhood (or American examples like Shaker Heights outside Cleveland) and you'll know what I'm talking about...