The state of "master-planning"

[Dichotomy]

vis a vis the ghettofication of the tower block neighborhoods:

The style of development wasn't the only cause, probably not even the main cause of ghettofication. There are a whole host of other factors you could throw in which contributed to the various flops of post war urban planning. That said, there is a strong correlation between the two, if not outright causality. Some of the post war communities turned into ghettos, but it seems that almost all ghettos are post war communities. The St. Lawrence housing projects, despite serving exactly the same purpose as St. James town, has avoided the "ghetto" moniker at least in part because it doesn't look like a ghetto.

As far as architectural quality, nobody seriously thinks that post war housing projects are aesthetically pleasing in the least. Even in wealthy areas, like the Davisville clusters, they lack any significant commercial or cultural presence. Maybe you could justify them in some kind of technocratic-soviet interpretation of "efficient housing units", but I think Canada is rich enough to try to avoid competing with Chernobyl. I don't even think they are much cheaper. They are just ugly.

EDIT: Actually, I think the St. Lawrence neighborhood is a pretty good example of modern master planning. The area probably wouldn't win awards for architectural excellence, but I think an important quality for a decent neighborhood is an ability to blend into the background.

Isn't it interesting how one's personal experiences taints their point of view? I lived in Crombie Park for about 7 months in late '80. In fact, I moved from St. Jamestown to Crombie Park. After being assaulted in the laundry room (someone stole my jeans and when I confronted the punk who was my size and build who lived on my floor, he pulled a knife on me), having the kids from the public school in the building remove the door handle to the lobby door one too many times, I decided to move out. I then had a couple boxes stolen in front of the elevator (all my highschool yearbooks, memoriblilia) while I was moving out!
I loved St. Jamestown. Hated Crombie Park.

 

[junctionist]

I wish we had a downtown pedestrianization and traffic plan.

An architectural master plan could work also. It would be interesting to have the city to specify a certain number of designs with possible variations. Developers would save money because they wouldn't have to hire an architect.

 

[adma]

Everything is so symmetrical! And it isn't a coincidence. All of these were purposefully developed in this way. Queen could and should receive a similar master planning to ensure a similiar level of architectural homogeneity. (so could Yonge in between College & Queen, that is another thread...).

And, may I ask...why?

As in, why push the issue? Or, for that matter, why place those examples on so high a pedestal?

In a way, as ideal exemplars, they're as hackneyed as what you're accusing Queen of being, demographically speaking...

 

[Archivist]

Queen Street and Yonge are the way they are because, in fact, we've preserved many of the old buildings along the route. A huge swath of Queen was recently made into the country's first commercially-based heritage conservation district, and so many buildings on Yonge are on the inventory of heritage properties that it's practically the same. The idea that we should rip out our past (even when it is ugly) in favour of some scheme to restrain and enforce a particular scale is not my preference.

 

[Whoaccio]

And, may I ask...why?

As in, why push the issue? Or, for that matter, why place those examples on so high a pedestal?

In a way, as ideal exemplars, they're as hackneyed as what you're accusing Queen of being, demographically speaking...

Why? Because I think they are nice, why else? I figure most other people think that way as well. I'm not accusing Queen of being bourgeois either, it just is. We should build appropriately (i.e. nice). I mean, would it be SOO hard to bury electrical cables? Or maybe, if we could be so lucky, set strict architectural guidelines for the area? You would think I am proposing replacing Queen with W. Edmonton Mall...

 

[junctionist]

I suppose you'll be interested in how the waterfront communities will turn out. If they become very popular, perhaps it'll sway some people into considering it elsewhere. A suburban master plan of midrise buildings could be very interesting along the Transit City streets, for instance.

 

[Tewder]

I agree that central downtown thoroughfares could definitely stand a face-lift (sidwalks, hydro poles, pavings, street furnishings etc), but the historic qualities and scale to these areas are assets of the city, imo. I do think the main thrust for planning should be on emerging streetscapes and neighbourhoods, and infill. This is where I do share the concerns being raised.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Although it seemed a rather strange thing to do after the success of the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, I don't find City Place objectionable as a large, modern, master-planned development. The towers are quite attractive, the condos reasonably priced, and targeted at a youngish crowd that wants to take advantage of what the rapidly developing downtown scene has to offer. In that sense it is quite similar, in its appeal, to St James Town when it first opened - a place for downtowners who are upwardly mobile and connected to the life of the city.

All neighbourhoods go through their ups and downs, including traditional, low rise, single-use residential parts of town such as the one I live in. It isn't unique to clustered high rise buildings. In a way, Riverdale was master planned too - Toronto east of the Don was built up rapidly once the Viaduct was given the go-ahead, and there's certainly a homogeneity of form to most of the houses. I don't have an idealogical position one way or another concerning the merits of large vs. small developments - as long as the buildings are contemporary in style to the age that produced them, aesthetically attractive, are practical, and suit the needs of those who live in them.

 

[adma]

Why? Because I think they are nice, why else? I figure most other people think that way as well. I'm not accusing Queen of being bourgeois either, it just is. We should build appropriately (i.e. nice). I mean, would it be SOO hard to bury electrical cables? Or maybe, if we could be so lucky, set strict architectural guidelines for the area? You would think I am proposing replacing Queen with W. Edmonton Mall...

No, but perhaps with a DuanyPlaterZyberk Disney fantasy.

If anything, "most other people" would wish back the Duke's block from its fiery fate...

 

[TrickyRicky]

Whoaccio, I think there is a distinct difference between large master-planned european excercises from the past and modern green or brown field masterplanning. Someone mentioned the carte blanche of Napoleanic Paris as an example. My suggestion is that this is an inaccurate description. We are again emphasizing the physcial space where human interests and layered responsibilities form the far more important aspects of an urban space. I would describe the remakes of various european cities as layerings not carte blanche, where the physcial space (buildings, roads) is altered but much of the human interests and responsibilies remain. A modern green or brownfield development is the creation of a physical space where human interests and responsibilities are in their infancy. Because control for design, development and management of most modern developments is largely in the hands of a monopoly I believe that human interests and responsibilies are inherently stunted and inflexible in adapting over time.

Stripped down to the level of an individual building the fundamental aspect of the condo towers we discuss on this forum with respect to how they impact the city is not height, or architectural merit, or how they meet the street. The issue of greatest importance is the ownership and management structures and how the allocation of rights and responsibilites impact the behaviour of people with an interest in the space. The condo-ization of the city is unleashing an interesting social experiment on the city, the transformative impact over time of which we have little understanding of and little precedent to draw on.

 

[wyliepoon]

The workability of a master plan depends a lot on the context in which it is placed.

Take the modernist towers in parks, for example. It appears as though the towers in parks are disastrous failures here in North America, as seen with the demolition of public housing projects in many major North American cities (including Regent Park here in Toronto). It also seems to be a failure in Europe (take the suburban ghettos of Paris, for example). However there are some examples in Asia where they seem to work quite well. In places like Hong Kong and Singapore, the majority of the population lives rather comfortably in modernist housing estates that resemble Regent Park and St. Jamestown in built form. Of course, in HK and Singapore the "parks" that the towers are built in are beautifully landscaped, and most of these communities also have a healthy mix of retail at ground level. There's also the fact that Asian cities rarely have to deal with racial issues on a level like North America. Climate also plays a big role in the success of towers in parks in Asia- in HK and Singapore the tropical climate encourages people to go outside, while the cold winters in Canada and northern US force people to stay indoors for much of the year.

On the other hand, we look at Cityplace, which in a way applies the HK style of towers-in-landscaped-park planning to Toronto. It's seen here as a failure in urban planning and design.

 

[adma]

On the other hand, we look at Cityplace, which in a way applies the HK style of towers-in-landscaped-park planning to Toronto. It's seen here as a failure in urban planning and design.

Actually, it's more of a spot-judgment/too-early-to-tell situation.

And remember that a lot of Toronto's most loathed high-rise or towers-in-park-style developments aren't perceived as "ghetto", but quite the opposite: high-rise gated communities for the affluent (cf. Harbour Square, + a lot of the rest of Harbourfront and Cityplace).

And back to the "ideal urban model" a la London/New York/Amsterdam: in principle, think of it less as a solution to the ills of Queen than as a solution to the ills of the Queensway...