|
|
|
Moving beyond "downtown vs. suburbs"
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
King of Kensington
Senior Member
Population of York and East York, 1931, 1941, 1951, 1961:
York: 70,000; 81,000; 102,000; 130,000
East York: 36,000; 42,000; 65,000; 72,000
The Old City of Toronto, a relatively small city proper, was pretty much all built up by 1930. York and East York grew by 60-70% between 1941 and 1961 so while largely pre-war they saw a lot of infill development. In some ways this was akin to postwar "fringe" growth in Queens, Northeast Philadelphia, etc.
York: 70,000; 81,000; 102,000; 130,000
East York: 36,000; 42,000; 65,000; 72,000
The Old City of Toronto, a relatively small city proper, was pretty much all built up by 1930. York and East York grew by 60-70% between 1941 and 1961 so while largely pre-war they saw a lot of infill development. In some ways this was akin to postwar "fringe" growth in Queens, Northeast Philadelphia, etc.
newearthling
Senior Member
Yeah, we have been having a bit of this discussion in the Rofo thread. Are people who choose to live in the suburbs doing so because they are afraid of 'difference'? Perhaps downtowners celebrate difference, and suburbanites seem to want to deny its right to exist. It is a a very topical discussion seeing as this divide in perception is the reason we have this mess of a mayor.
casita
Senior Member
I've only lived in two neighbourhoods in my life, so my experience is pretty limited. But, I got to know the 240 square miles within Metro pretty well in spite of that.
Lived my first 25 years in the Martingrove Gardens area of Richview in Etobicoke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richview,_Toronto
I loved MGG. I'm still loyal to it ( and KCI ), and return sometimes to visit old friends who still live in the community.
Then, when I was 25, I bought a home in the High Park - Bloor West Village area, and "lived there happily ever after". ( Well, I guess that's only in the fairy tales. But, I have no complaints, or else I would have moved. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Park_North
I can't say I prefer one area over the other. Although different, they have both been good to me.
I've been retired for five years and still enjoy living in TO.
Last edited:
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,410
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
http://www.thestar.com/life/2014/05/09/in_toronto_there_is_no_real_downtown_no_real_suburb.html
During the last mayoral election when “the suburbs” were pitted against “downtown” there were occasional objections from people who lived in what we often call the suburbs, like Scarborough or North York.
“We’re not the suburbs, we’re the city,” is the sort of phrase I heard here and there. It didn’t make sense at first, but when you look at how people actually live throughout Toronto, it does.
Think first of an archetypal image of a suburb and you might picture a single-family home on a cul-de-sac with a front and back yard, driveway, maybe some shrubs and trees. Picture then “the city” and an image of dense streets, apartment buildings, and shops may appear.
Both those places exist in Toronto but it’s near impossible to draw a line between them.
Certainly lots of people are happy with the term suburb, many more likely don’t care what the part of town they live in is called, but over the last few years these two parts of the city have been pitted against each other, as if downtown and suburb are foreign countries in need of a United Nations intervention. But there’s so much overlap between the two, a peacekeeping force would not know where to go.
The idea of “downtown” in Toronto is just as confused as the notion of suburbs. Just a few blocks from the skyscraper core there are neighbourhoods where houses have front yards, some even with driveways of their own. Think of the residential streets east of Chinatown or those in Corktown. They’re on a much smaller scale but it’s an utterly suburban form at the heart of our city, if you take the “sub” in suburb to mean less urban. Go to a city like Montreal and kilometres out of the city centre there are dense houses and apartments, built right to the sidewalk, making it a much more urban city throughout.
During the last mayoral election when “the suburbs” were pitted against “downtown” there were occasional objections from people who lived in what we often call the suburbs, like Scarborough or North York.
“We’re not the suburbs, we’re the city,” is the sort of phrase I heard here and there. It didn’t make sense at first, but when you look at how people actually live throughout Toronto, it does.
Think first of an archetypal image of a suburb and you might picture a single-family home on a cul-de-sac with a front and back yard, driveway, maybe some shrubs and trees. Picture then “the city” and an image of dense streets, apartment buildings, and shops may appear.
Both those places exist in Toronto but it’s near impossible to draw a line between them.
Certainly lots of people are happy with the term suburb, many more likely don’t care what the part of town they live in is called, but over the last few years these two parts of the city have been pitted against each other, as if downtown and suburb are foreign countries in need of a United Nations intervention. But there’s so much overlap between the two, a peacekeeping force would not know where to go.
The idea of “downtown” in Toronto is just as confused as the notion of suburbs. Just a few blocks from the skyscraper core there are neighbourhoods where houses have front yards, some even with driveways of their own. Think of the residential streets east of Chinatown or those in Corktown. They’re on a much smaller scale but it’s an utterly suburban form at the heart of our city, if you take the “sub” in suburb to mean less urban. Go to a city like Montreal and kilometres out of the city centre there are dense houses and apartments, built right to the sidewalk, making it a much more urban city throughout.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
No city goes straight from "downtown" to "suburb".
I just don't get how someone from the Beaches or Bloor West Village can say they're a "hardcore downtowner" with a straight face.
I just don't get how someone from the Beaches or Bloor West Village can say they're a "hardcore downtowner" with a straight face.
casita
Senior Member
King of Kensington said:
Only on weekends.
Whatever the writer's definition of city versus suburb is, there's nothing new about the struggle for power between the two.
The Metro Chairmen, at least since 1972 when I hired on with the city, were all from Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York. ( East York was always left out. ) None were from Toronto.
Since the Mega-City, Only David Miller was from Toronto. ( Not even an area of Toronto that some might refer to as "hard-core" downtown, either. )
Lastman was from North York, and of course Ford is from Etobicoke.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The houses around Bloor West Village (actually the village of Swansea to the south and the city of West Toronto to the north) were built after World War I (The Great War), mostly during the early 1920's. They were "suburban" homes back then. Yet in 40 years, that area went from streetcar service to subway. Another 50 years later, its "downtown"?
Bloor Street West looking east at High Park (to the right) around 1918:
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,410
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
Only on weekends.
Whatever the writer's definition of city versus suburb is, there's nothing new about the struggle for power between the two.
The Metro Chairmen, at least since 1972 when I hired on with the city, were all from Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York. ( East York was always left out. ) None were from Toronto.
Since the Mega-City, Only David Miller was from Toronto. ( Not even an area of Toronto that some might refer to as "hard-core" downtown, either. )
Lastman was from North York, and of course Ford is from Etobicoke.
You're an oldtimer. I don't think the city suburb divide was ever this bad. Has it?
ksun
Senior Member
If you can't walk to a grocery store from your house, then you live in the suburb.
junior43
Active Member
Seriously? I can walk to 2 grocery stores, a couple fruit/flower shops, 3 drug stores, 3 banks, a GO station, 2 Tim's, a Canadian Tire and several restaurants and bars. I live near Kingston Road and Brimley (also known as strip mall hell - or motel row) and if this ain't the suburbs, I don't know what is...............
casita
Senior Member
This is helpful:
http://www.walkscore.com/CA-ON/Toronto
It says Toronto is, "Very Walkable
Most errands can be accomplished on foot"
I believe there is also a thread about "What's your Walk Score".
Last edited:
StatGeek
Active Member
What I have noticed is that suburb want/are jealous of the positives of "downtown" but none of the negatives. For example wanting subways but don't want the density or the centre/clinic that is mentioned i n your quote
The subway debate shows this when they think people who are downtown (which I think a lot consider old city and especially south of Bloor/Danforth) all have these amazing subway rides everywhere. But of course reality most of the people living in original Toronto are taking street cars and buses. I hardly ever take the subway, I only take it if I am going a ways away, which isn't all the often. But Streetcar and buses, I am on those all the time.
To be fair, some fellow downtowners also need to understand that they don't live in a spacious suburb so it's probably a good idea not to have multiple huge dogs in your tiny living space and playing card size backyard.
ehlow
Senior Member
Subway coverage of downtown isn't very good, depending on your definition of "downtown". Obviously those near Bloor-Danforth have access, but many live far south of the Bloor line and east or west of the core, ex. Liberty Village or the Beaches or Leslieville etc etc.
James
Senior Member
I couldn't help but chuckle when I read this piece in the Globe and Mail which made me think immediately to this thread.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comm...all-vaughan-a-toronto-suburb/article18822518/
Public editor: Is it wrong to call Vaughan a Toronto suburb?
SYLVIA STEAD
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, May. 23 2014, 12:35 PM EDT
When is a suburb not a suburb? Can an adjacent city also be a suburb? Does it matter if the region is more suburban than urban? Does it matter if it is right next door to a major city? And what if that major city (Toronto) is also the centre of the universe?
An Ontario election story referred to “the Toronto suburb of Vaughan.” A resident of the city of Vaughan was unhappy with that description. “Vaughan is not a suburb of Toronto it is the City of Vaughan – we have our own Mayor (thank goodness we don’t have Mayor Ford as our Mayor!!) – can you please print a correction?”
Vaughan is just north of Toronto, but it is its own city, with a mayor and council. It is also a quickly growing mostly suburban area. According to its website, its population in 2013 was 313,490 and it is the eighth-largest municipality in Ontario after Toronto, Ottawa, Mississauga, Brampton, Hamilton, London and Markham.
Still, I wondered if it could be described as a suburb of another city. Here are a few online dictionary definitions (first dictionary.com and then Merriam-Webster):
1. a district lying immediately outside a city or town, especially a smaller residential community.
2. the suburbs, the area composed of such districts.
3. an outlying part a: an outlying part of a city or town b: a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city c: plural: the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town.
Conceivably then, Vaughan could be considered 3(b) under the Merriam-Webster definition. It is a smaller community adjacent to Toronto and within commuting distance.
But I was stuck on the word “community”. To me, community does not imply a city, but something smaller, such as a town. Initially, I canvassed a few editors at The Globe and Mail and they agreed. Vaughan is its own city and just because we live and work in Toronto, it doesn’t mean everything in the broader 905 area code can be viewed through that lens. Later on, some said yes it’s a suburb because it is right next to Toronto, it is much smaller and its growth is predicated on being right next to Toronto.
After much discussion with journalists here, I think the description could have been “Vaughan, a suburb north of Toronto” or “Vaughan, a city north of Toronto.”
Both of those wordings are better because they do not suggest that Vaughan is part of Toronto, as in the original “the Toronto suburb of Vaughan.”
Although some people use the term bedroom community, I’m not a fan because I think people can relate to both the community where they live and a separate community where they work.
So can you establish a rule for the use of the word suburb? Do we avoid the word when referring to cities, but not to towns or villages? Does this apply more to Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area than to other municipalities in the city?
The Globe and Mail Style Book lists the suburbs of Vancouver: Burnaby, New Westminster, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Belcarra, Richmond, Delta, Surrey, White Rock, Langley and Tsawwassen. It also lists the suburbs of Montreal more vaguely as communities on the South Shore, Laval and several off-island suburbs.
But there is no description for the communities, suburbs or cities around Toronto.
Also, any naming of a suburb implies static community growth.
I asked noted Ryerson University politics and public administration professor Myer Siemiatycki what he thought.
“There is no universally agreed upon definition or understanding of the term ‘suburb’. Very literally, the term can be taken to mean ‘less than fully urban’. So the postwar ‘bedroom communities’ of look-alike subdivisions could easily be characterized as suburbs for their lack of major employment/institutional areas. But what to do when a postwar suburb (e.g. North York) over time evolves to have its own commercial towers, industrial zones, subway stations, etc.? Is it still a suburb?”
Dr. Siemiatycki said it was “not uncommon for observers of the GTA to refer to Toronto’s ‘inner suburbs’ (referencing Scarborough, North York & Etobicoke) and Toronto’s ‘outer suburbs’ (typically referencing Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, Brampton & Mississauga). Alternately, for a while it was fashionable to refer to these outer suburbs as ‘edge cities’ in recognition that they were on the outskirts & economically connected to a central city, had some characteristics of traditional suburbs (subdivisions) but also some central city characteristics.”
He noted that it is difficult to use labels when urbanization is complex and nuanced. However, he said he was comfortable with calling Vaughan a suburb. “Its location, land use, auto reliance, socio-cultural texture and attachment to Toronto (they cheer for the Leafs, they rise and fall with Toronto’s economic condition) – all these qualify Vaughan and other neighbouring municipalities as Toronto suburbs.”
Before hearing from Dr. Siemiatycki, I put through a correction calling Vaughan a city, not a suburb of Toronto. But now I am not sure. I prefer the term city because it is its own separate city. In the case of Toronto, the city I know best, I wouldn’t refer to any region as a suburb of Toronto. I would refer to suburban areas of Toronto, but those would be what Dr. Siemiatycki refers to as the inner suburbs, which are part of Toronto.
But I can see the argument that both terms, city and suburb, can be correct and the original article should not have been changed.
Clear as mud you might say, but what are your thoughts on this? E-mail publiceditor@globeandmail.com or @sylviastead on Twitter.
Follow Sylvia Stead on Twitter: @SylviaStead
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comm...all-vaughan-a-toronto-suburb/article18822518/
Public editor: Is it wrong to call Vaughan a Toronto suburb?
SYLVIA STEAD
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, May. 23 2014, 12:35 PM EDT
When is a suburb not a suburb? Can an adjacent city also be a suburb? Does it matter if the region is more suburban than urban? Does it matter if it is right next door to a major city? And what if that major city (Toronto) is also the centre of the universe?
An Ontario election story referred to “the Toronto suburb of Vaughan.” A resident of the city of Vaughan was unhappy with that description. “Vaughan is not a suburb of Toronto it is the City of Vaughan – we have our own Mayor (thank goodness we don’t have Mayor Ford as our Mayor!!) – can you please print a correction?”
Vaughan is just north of Toronto, but it is its own city, with a mayor and council. It is also a quickly growing mostly suburban area. According to its website, its population in 2013 was 313,490 and it is the eighth-largest municipality in Ontario after Toronto, Ottawa, Mississauga, Brampton, Hamilton, London and Markham.
Still, I wondered if it could be described as a suburb of another city. Here are a few online dictionary definitions (first dictionary.com and then Merriam-Webster):
1. a district lying immediately outside a city or town, especially a smaller residential community.
2. the suburbs, the area composed of such districts.
3. an outlying part a: an outlying part of a city or town b: a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city c: plural: the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town.
Conceivably then, Vaughan could be considered 3(b) under the Merriam-Webster definition. It is a smaller community adjacent to Toronto and within commuting distance.
But I was stuck on the word “community”. To me, community does not imply a city, but something smaller, such as a town. Initially, I canvassed a few editors at The Globe and Mail and they agreed. Vaughan is its own city and just because we live and work in Toronto, it doesn’t mean everything in the broader 905 area code can be viewed through that lens. Later on, some said yes it’s a suburb because it is right next to Toronto, it is much smaller and its growth is predicated on being right next to Toronto.
After much discussion with journalists here, I think the description could have been “Vaughan, a suburb north of Toronto” or “Vaughan, a city north of Toronto.”
Both of those wordings are better because they do not suggest that Vaughan is part of Toronto, as in the original “the Toronto suburb of Vaughan.”
Although some people use the term bedroom community, I’m not a fan because I think people can relate to both the community where they live and a separate community where they work.
So can you establish a rule for the use of the word suburb? Do we avoid the word when referring to cities, but not to towns or villages? Does this apply more to Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area than to other municipalities in the city?
The Globe and Mail Style Book lists the suburbs of Vancouver: Burnaby, New Westminster, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Belcarra, Richmond, Delta, Surrey, White Rock, Langley and Tsawwassen. It also lists the suburbs of Montreal more vaguely as communities on the South Shore, Laval and several off-island suburbs.
But there is no description for the communities, suburbs or cities around Toronto.
Also, any naming of a suburb implies static community growth.
I asked noted Ryerson University politics and public administration professor Myer Siemiatycki what he thought.
“There is no universally agreed upon definition or understanding of the term ‘suburb’. Very literally, the term can be taken to mean ‘less than fully urban’. So the postwar ‘bedroom communities’ of look-alike subdivisions could easily be characterized as suburbs for their lack of major employment/institutional areas. But what to do when a postwar suburb (e.g. North York) over time evolves to have its own commercial towers, industrial zones, subway stations, etc.? Is it still a suburb?”
Dr. Siemiatycki said it was “not uncommon for observers of the GTA to refer to Toronto’s ‘inner suburbs’ (referencing Scarborough, North York & Etobicoke) and Toronto’s ‘outer suburbs’ (typically referencing Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, Brampton & Mississauga). Alternately, for a while it was fashionable to refer to these outer suburbs as ‘edge cities’ in recognition that they were on the outskirts & economically connected to a central city, had some characteristics of traditional suburbs (subdivisions) but also some central city characteristics.”
He noted that it is difficult to use labels when urbanization is complex and nuanced. However, he said he was comfortable with calling Vaughan a suburb. “Its location, land use, auto reliance, socio-cultural texture and attachment to Toronto (they cheer for the Leafs, they rise and fall with Toronto’s economic condition) – all these qualify Vaughan and other neighbouring municipalities as Toronto suburbs.”
Before hearing from Dr. Siemiatycki, I put through a correction calling Vaughan a city, not a suburb of Toronto. But now I am not sure. I prefer the term city because it is its own separate city. In the case of Toronto, the city I know best, I wouldn’t refer to any region as a suburb of Toronto. I would refer to suburban areas of Toronto, but those would be what Dr. Siemiatycki refers to as the inner suburbs, which are part of Toronto.
But I can see the argument that both terms, city and suburb, can be correct and the original article should not have been changed.
Clear as mud you might say, but what are your thoughts on this? E-mail publiceditor@globeandmail.com or @sylviastead on Twitter.
Follow Sylvia Stead on Twitter: @SylviaStead